One of the larger questions to me is the whole definition of femininity and femaleness. It's facile to connect female with fecundity, and 'feminine' with ways that enforce submissive status. But that leaves the issue of what does that mean to biological females (I'm going to shorthand 'female' as a term meaning 'having female biological equipment' as we do to describe other biological entities who appear to show binary gender, like animals. to separate it from 'woman' which can be a social construct) in history, who might have been unable or unwilling to have children? Were they not 'female'?
Of course we have the fairy tale figure of the 'witch', the ugly old hag who exists to disrupt society--that's possibly a reflex of the consequence of un-maternal females. The whole frauenfrage, the social issue of what to do with the 'surplus' of females in population (surplus meaning that there were more females than could safely be combined with men in marriage, the original 'free radicals' of society), indicates a social belief that the 'place' for women is 'wife' if not the ideal 'wife/mother'.
But we can't draw a simple line between woman and fecundity--females who reproduce outside the marriage bond still--STILL!!!--face the possible stigma of 'slut' or 'whore'. (As I write this, I have Terrible Television on in the background, where Maury Povich is currently once again giving us the gender politics bread-and-circuses spectacle of the 'paternity test results show' and hooooboy doesn't that audience like to jeer at women who do not know the father of their baby).
Now, this is all gender studies 101, right? You're probably nodding, going, YUP know this. Where it gets complicated, for me, at least, is when we detach the gender from the flesh entirely. Today, I just want to deal with the obvious example: robots.
And even then, I won't get to all of them.
Up on my reading list, as well as Haraway, of course, is L'Eve Future, the first appearance of the gynoid in literature. I know enough from having read about it to be already a bit intrigued, but we'll go into details as I get to it. But we have Hadaly, there, then of course Maria in Metropolis, the new Terminator in The Sarah Connor Chronicles, the Stepford Wives, and the various females in the Transformers continuities, and the Cylons in the reboot Battlestar Galactica. And I need to expand this list, but let's just work with that. We have 'gynoids' who fall into a few, sometimes overlapping categories: they are programmable to be better companions for males (Stepford Wives, Hadaly), they are dangerous (Sarah Connor Chronicles, Maria, Cylons), they are sexualized/seductive.
A side note about Transformers: The original continuity had a comic book origin for females (that entirely destroys previous continuity but the sheer malice behind this deserves some recognition), where the Transformers had no gender, until they came to Earth and these terrible Feminists complained that there were no women so the Autobots created a female, to placate these harridans. Predictably, she is gracile, pink, and curvy. However, as soon as she's created, the males don't want her to fight, or go into battle. Though it's intended to be a slam against those never-satisfied feminazis, the Autobots' treatment of Arcee is casually sexist, and even the table-turning ending, where Arcee rescues Optimus, the very robot who told her to stay out of battle, comes off as a bit smurfy, a bit of a one-off.
I gave a paper once, at NeMLA, attempting to, hoping to discover what Transformers writers were thinking when they constructed femininity in their robot characters, and Furman's longstanding misogyny aside (it's a lot to push aside, by the way, with his other Arcee origin story in IDW which is honestly...not much better as it falls directly into the tropes of female as 'male manque' and 'female insane rage', I could only conclude that they had...no idea. Without the notion of reproduction, female becomes the tropes we see above--seductive, sexual, dangerous, at worst, and existing to please 'their' men at...uh...best (?). And honestly, I can't resent them for it: I don't think anyone can really answer that question. What IS female? What IS woman? Is it shape of body, voice, the packaging? Is it relations to men, (like MacKinnon argues, in a sense) that the hegemony has only posited the existence of women insofar as they are useful (or anti-useful) to men?
This all seems like, perhaps, pretentious folderol, but I want to suggest a convergence of current events stories that makes me think this question has some urgency. Andy Hines's not-so-funny 'Invisible Burqas', Mohammad Al Dawood's Saudi self-help notion that men should sexually harass women who dare to have jobs, MSNBC's Erickson coming out against female 'breadwinners' they all call into question what female is and what female should be. Notice how several of these reduce women to sexuality, and/or consider the way to 'police' their behavior is through male action, and that uncontrolled womanhood is dangerous....wow.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
We are the hollow men
I'm particularly perplexed by Haraway's dismissive takedown of MacKinnon. Before I get to specifics, here's my holistic objection: for someone who purports to study epistemology, whose very 'informatics of domination' recognizes an ideological movement from Freud to Lacan, she seems rather limited in the ability to grasp that epistemologies can only be born in the crucible of the culture in which they are created, like the agar in the petri dish. Epistemology can only see the present through the lens of the past, and trace a wobbly, fuzzy vector into a possible future.
Thus, Freud is less a 'pervert' than reflecting the obsessions of the culture in which he was raised, and his future step was the idea of the talking cure, that a medicine theory that structured itself on healing and cure rather than mere quarantine and isolation, could apply to mental diseases as well.
MacKinnon, similiarly, is recording the world in which she lives, the water in which she swims. She is not wrong, or inaccurate. She is, if Haraway is 'right', at best, at most, outgrown.
But honestly, I don't think she is.
You see, the issue Haraway finds so objectionable is MacKinnon's notion of the female as constructed as the subject of male desire, in other words, as a non subject. It's worth perhaps quoting Haraway at length to dissect her objection:
"Ironically, MacKinnon's 'ontology' constructs a non-subject, a non-being. Another's desire, not the self's labour, is the origin of 'woman'. She therefore develops a theory of consciousness that enforces what can count as 'women's' experience--anything that names sexual violation, indeed, sex itself as far as 'women' can be concerned. Feminist practice is the construction of this form of consciousness; that is, the self-knowledge of a self-who-is-not." (159)
To argue that MacKinnon is invalid or untrue makes me want to live in Haraway's world, because I can see at least that segment of MacKinnon's theory as reality, all around me. I see woman either gendered as 'not male' (which becomes vastly complicated when dissevered from reproduction) or constructed by and through male desire.
Because, well, let's look at video games. I won't waste what I presume is your time trying to prove to you that female characters in videogames are sexualized. Even when they're badasses (such as Lara Croft) the vast majority (okay I make a sort of exception for Samus Aran) they are presented as sexual objects, often with gratuitous jiggle physics. More than that, the female gamer is often attacked via her sexuality--online she is sexually harassed, told to 'get laid', etc etc. More even than that, and I feel odd linking to a Cracked article, but honestly, I find this not said better anywhere else: "These offers of anonymous sex don't derail the discussion -- they tie themselves to the train tracks and jam the point-train home with how accurately it hits the target. If you can't have a discussion about gender without declaring whether you'd rub your genitals on the other party, you can't have a discussion about gender. You are the problem being discussed."
That is to say, countering an argument that men have it easier than women by arguing that women can have sex any time they want deliberately constructs sexual access as the pinnacle of human worth that places women as superior because they have all of this sexual attention directed at them. Nowhere is the reverse vector--female sexual desire--a part of this economy. More than that, it sets the a priori assumption that male sexual desire, especially male heterosexual desire, is the only avenue to social identity.
Pictures of women online are unsurprisingly (check reddit) subjected to a sort of 'hot or not' analysis, repeatedly rating women on their 'fuckability'. This turns out to be trickier to achieve than one thinks--a girl who appears 'too' sexually ready, 'too' desirous of gaining male attention, is scorned as a 'slut', because, well, let's face it, if it was easy to get this male currency, if it was a simple formula, all women would be 'rich' in it. We...can't have that because that allows females too much 'power' so we have to create a schema in which the woman is never assured in her performance.
Surrounded by a 'cyborg' world that ruthlessly judges female bodies by their appeal to the male gaze, when a high pitched voice on X Box Live opens you for propositions, it's hard NOT to feel the compulsion to create identity as an object of male desire. Because this isn't simply setting up an imaginary non-victim, someone whom one might tenuously argue has taken the burden of the male gaze as part of a contract--the Sports Illustrated swimwear model, the stripper, the video game character who doesn't actually have feelings--this is 'normal' women. And so, even more than just being surrounded by beautiful women being judged if they have--gasp--pores; these women are themselves susceptible to sexual judgment by their peers.
MacKinnon's wrong to say that culture creates the woman as a null-subject, constituted by her desirability to the male gaze?
I don't know what world Haraway lives in, but I live, unfortunately, in MacKinnon's. I can hope to move to Haraway's, but it seems that cyborg culture, internet culture, isn't ready to let go.
Now, is that all I am? Oh gosh, no. But I find in many ways, that 'labour of self' is an act of resistance, an act of transgression, an assertion EVERY MOMENT that is not always a rebellion, against that culture. As attuned as Haraway is to the idea of transgression and resistance, it seems the resistance I present, as I navigate the gendered seas, to assert an identity often at odds with societal norms....doesn't count.
Thus, Freud is less a 'pervert' than reflecting the obsessions of the culture in which he was raised, and his future step was the idea of the talking cure, that a medicine theory that structured itself on healing and cure rather than mere quarantine and isolation, could apply to mental diseases as well.
MacKinnon, similiarly, is recording the world in which she lives, the water in which she swims. She is not wrong, or inaccurate. She is, if Haraway is 'right', at best, at most, outgrown.
But honestly, I don't think she is.
You see, the issue Haraway finds so objectionable is MacKinnon's notion of the female as constructed as the subject of male desire, in other words, as a non subject. It's worth perhaps quoting Haraway at length to dissect her objection:
"Ironically, MacKinnon's 'ontology' constructs a non-subject, a non-being. Another's desire, not the self's labour, is the origin of 'woman'. She therefore develops a theory of consciousness that enforces what can count as 'women's' experience--anything that names sexual violation, indeed, sex itself as far as 'women' can be concerned. Feminist practice is the construction of this form of consciousness; that is, the self-knowledge of a self-who-is-not." (159)
To argue that MacKinnon is invalid or untrue makes me want to live in Haraway's world, because I can see at least that segment of MacKinnon's theory as reality, all around me. I see woman either gendered as 'not male' (which becomes vastly complicated when dissevered from reproduction) or constructed by and through male desire.
Because, well, let's look at video games. I won't waste what I presume is your time trying to prove to you that female characters in videogames are sexualized. Even when they're badasses (such as Lara Croft) the vast majority (okay I make a sort of exception for Samus Aran) they are presented as sexual objects, often with gratuitous jiggle physics. More than that, the female gamer is often attacked via her sexuality--online she is sexually harassed, told to 'get laid', etc etc. More even than that, and I feel odd linking to a Cracked article, but honestly, I find this not said better anywhere else: "These offers of anonymous sex don't derail the discussion -- they tie themselves to the train tracks and jam the point-train home with how accurately it hits the target. If you can't have a discussion about gender without declaring whether you'd rub your genitals on the other party, you can't have a discussion about gender. You are the problem being discussed."
That is to say, countering an argument that men have it easier than women by arguing that women can have sex any time they want deliberately constructs sexual access as the pinnacle of human worth that places women as superior because they have all of this sexual attention directed at them. Nowhere is the reverse vector--female sexual desire--a part of this economy. More than that, it sets the a priori assumption that male sexual desire, especially male heterosexual desire, is the only avenue to social identity.
Pictures of women online are unsurprisingly (check reddit) subjected to a sort of 'hot or not' analysis, repeatedly rating women on their 'fuckability'. This turns out to be trickier to achieve than one thinks--a girl who appears 'too' sexually ready, 'too' desirous of gaining male attention, is scorned as a 'slut', because, well, let's face it, if it was easy to get this male currency, if it was a simple formula, all women would be 'rich' in it. We...can't have that because that allows females too much 'power' so we have to create a schema in which the woman is never assured in her performance.
Surrounded by a 'cyborg' world that ruthlessly judges female bodies by their appeal to the male gaze, when a high pitched voice on X Box Live opens you for propositions, it's hard NOT to feel the compulsion to create identity as an object of male desire. Because this isn't simply setting up an imaginary non-victim, someone whom one might tenuously argue has taken the burden of the male gaze as part of a contract--the Sports Illustrated swimwear model, the stripper, the video game character who doesn't actually have feelings--this is 'normal' women. And so, even more than just being surrounded by beautiful women being judged if they have--gasp--pores; these women are themselves susceptible to sexual judgment by their peers.
MacKinnon's wrong to say that culture creates the woman as a null-subject, constituted by her desirability to the male gaze?
I don't know what world Haraway lives in, but I live, unfortunately, in MacKinnon's. I can hope to move to Haraway's, but it seems that cyborg culture, internet culture, isn't ready to let go.
Now, is that all I am? Oh gosh, no. But I find in many ways, that 'labour of self' is an act of resistance, an act of transgression, an assertion EVERY MOMENT that is not always a rebellion, against that culture. As attuned as Haraway is to the idea of transgression and resistance, it seems the resistance I present, as I navigate the gendered seas, to assert an identity often at odds with societal norms....doesn't count.
Seductions to Organic Wholeness
It's no secret that one of the things that perplexes me in the field is the canonization of Donna Haraway. Every paper I have seen in the last five years, if they intend to talk about robots or the cyborg at all, in any sense, has the obligatory quote from Haraway, no matter how shoehorned it is.
Can I just say, I think we can talk about robots, especially fictional robots, without invoking St Haraway? Can we realize that the majority of Simians, Cyborgs and Women, which is, after all, over 20 years old, is aspirational only? And while I have no problems with aspiration and imagining new possibilities on a threshold of a new vector, it seems to be used instead in lieu of reality, rather than a measure of possibility against which to regularize or evaluate reality.
Let's face it, most of the promises and hopes of SCW have not come to pass. I am thinking, especially and at first, about social presence online. Haraway promises transgression, that, say, an internet allows one to shed or transgress gender and race and age, to leave aside or behind the human, in lieu of an ultimate postmodern existence: fractured, playful, ironic, mercurial, and by essence undefinable. At one point, she says, "The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust." (151).
However, we, the cyborg's organic root, we are made of mud. And it seems we bring that 'mud' with us wherever we go.
We claim that the internet can free us from, say, gender, but I see, when I throw aside my Haraway-colored glasses, a ruthless inscription of gender, the exact opposite of transgression and playful freedom and irony, in fan communities.
In the Transformers fandom, there is a clear gender divide simply in internet presence. The males gather in the forums, doing their best to make it unwelcoming to 'female' things (not females but things they regard as female), and the women live in other fan communities, on tumblr, livejournal, dreamwidth, tumblr. There was once a conversation on a major forum about, basically. 'why slashfic' and that turned with stunning speed into a hate fest and speedily deleted by the moderators as unacceptable. Not the violent homophobia spewed by the commenters, but the topic itself. Because, of course, relationships between genderless fictional beings is not acceptable for children, but the violent torture they regularly feature in IDW comics...is. Seibertron.com has a 'ladies thread', which very name indicates that that is, in a sense, a corral where the women should be--the rest of the site is, then, not 'ladies' territory, not woman space.
Now, of course, that's not entirely true, women are allowed throughout the site and I've had a number of good conversations about comics and toys and other aspects of canon on that site. But once again, the idea of having to dedicate a space for females speaks for itself--there are certain topics/things they think of as female that are not safe anywhere else.
So what, you say. I can shed my 'mud' and become genderless on those sites and it's all good and Haraway wins!
Well, no. It's not that simple. Because of course 'genderless' as it has been for most of Western culture, means 'male'. I grew up still using the 'universal he' (each student will hand in his paper), simply a vestigial tail of gender non-neutrality. We politically correct this to the agrammatical 'their', but that doesn't do much to break down the insidious part of the gender binary, where everything is a deviation off of the 'gold standard' of educated, heterosexual, white male. To 'pass' for male on a fansite means that I cannot talk about certain topics, like cosplay (though posting pictures of myself in sexually revealing cosplay is an exception, because, of course, I am then offering myself as a sexualized visual pleasure), or slash fiction, regardless of rating. Kitbashing is okay: plushiemaking, NOT okay.
'Passing' on the internet means being dishonest about the totality of my fannish interests. This is fragmentizing, yes, but I don't think it's what Haraway promised, because this sort of fracturing of self requires hiding to pass, requires splitting myself in order to belong, hiding other shards for fear of not-belonging. That's not freedom, that's not transgression. That's the exact opposite.
One other quick hit, because this isn't a rarrrr men and the phallocracy. Women, females, are just as implicated in this sort of gender policing of the other (another post I will tackle self-gender-policing). For example, many online roleplayers in Dreamwidth, InsaneJournal, Tumblr, and Livejournal are female. A large number of them want to RP relationships and sex between their characters. In other words, they want to roleplay sexual relationships with a fantasy projection of themselves with someone else they find sexually attractive. I will go so far as to suggest that many female RPers who fit into this category are less attractive than the characters they play, and many of them express their own infatuation with how hot or attractive their own character is to them. This is seen as normal and healthy and liberating.
Yet.
Yet. When someone is discovered to be male (I am going by secrets on Fandom!Secrets and the defunct RoleplaySecrets blogs on Livejournal), who also wants to roleplay sex with their fantasy attractive character, they are 'basement dwelling neckbeards' who are intruding in what is, apparently, female space. A player who plays an attractive female character is suddenly 'squicked' to discover that the person she has been writing porn with is biologically male.
Now, this scenario is complex and worth unpacking further, because it is a nexus of 'safe' space, sexuality, policing, and identity, but I bring it here this time, only in the context of proof that this sort of gender policing is not simply Oppressive Patriarchy--females do this same behavior as well, discriminating by the gender of what cyberpunk labeled 'the meat'. In other words, the very people Haraway was addressing, the very people whom one would think are the most interested in breaking down gender and identity, who claim to want to destroy boundaries, to express a sexuality that women have often been told to hide or deny, are twisting their sexual liberation to make it an unsafe space for those with penises.
Isn't that...missing the point of Haraway? That 'male', that penis-owning person on the other keyboard, may be a 'cyborg' too, longing for freedom, wanting to escape the biological and cultural determinism of his body, may be trying to explore different identities, explore sexuality free of the pressure of Western gender obsessions.
If the point of the cyborg is freedom, it should mean freedom for EVERYONE, don't you think?
Can I just say, I think we can talk about robots, especially fictional robots, without invoking St Haraway? Can we realize that the majority of Simians, Cyborgs and Women, which is, after all, over 20 years old, is aspirational only? And while I have no problems with aspiration and imagining new possibilities on a threshold of a new vector, it seems to be used instead in lieu of reality, rather than a measure of possibility against which to regularize or evaluate reality.
Let's face it, most of the promises and hopes of SCW have not come to pass. I am thinking, especially and at first, about social presence online. Haraway promises transgression, that, say, an internet allows one to shed or transgress gender and race and age, to leave aside or behind the human, in lieu of an ultimate postmodern existence: fractured, playful, ironic, mercurial, and by essence undefinable. At one point, she says, "The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust." (151).
However, we, the cyborg's organic root, we are made of mud. And it seems we bring that 'mud' with us wherever we go.
We claim that the internet can free us from, say, gender, but I see, when I throw aside my Haraway-colored glasses, a ruthless inscription of gender, the exact opposite of transgression and playful freedom and irony, in fan communities.
In the Transformers fandom, there is a clear gender divide simply in internet presence. The males gather in the forums, doing their best to make it unwelcoming to 'female' things (not females but things they regard as female), and the women live in other fan communities, on tumblr, livejournal, dreamwidth, tumblr. There was once a conversation on a major forum about, basically. 'why slashfic' and that turned with stunning speed into a hate fest and speedily deleted by the moderators as unacceptable. Not the violent homophobia spewed by the commenters, but the topic itself. Because, of course, relationships between genderless fictional beings is not acceptable for children, but the violent torture they regularly feature in IDW comics...is. Seibertron.com has a 'ladies thread', which very name indicates that that is, in a sense, a corral where the women should be--the rest of the site is, then, not 'ladies' territory, not woman space.
Now, of course, that's not entirely true, women are allowed throughout the site and I've had a number of good conversations about comics and toys and other aspects of canon on that site. But once again, the idea of having to dedicate a space for females speaks for itself--there are certain topics/things they think of as female that are not safe anywhere else.
So what, you say. I can shed my 'mud' and become genderless on those sites and it's all good and Haraway wins!
Well, no. It's not that simple. Because of course 'genderless' as it has been for most of Western culture, means 'male'. I grew up still using the 'universal he' (each student will hand in his paper), simply a vestigial tail of gender non-neutrality. We politically correct this to the agrammatical 'their', but that doesn't do much to break down the insidious part of the gender binary, where everything is a deviation off of the 'gold standard' of educated, heterosexual, white male. To 'pass' for male on a fansite means that I cannot talk about certain topics, like cosplay (though posting pictures of myself in sexually revealing cosplay is an exception, because, of course, I am then offering myself as a sexualized visual pleasure), or slash fiction, regardless of rating. Kitbashing is okay: plushiemaking, NOT okay.
'Passing' on the internet means being dishonest about the totality of my fannish interests. This is fragmentizing, yes, but I don't think it's what Haraway promised, because this sort of fracturing of self requires hiding to pass, requires splitting myself in order to belong, hiding other shards for fear of not-belonging. That's not freedom, that's not transgression. That's the exact opposite.
One other quick hit, because this isn't a rarrrr men and the phallocracy. Women, females, are just as implicated in this sort of gender policing of the other (another post I will tackle self-gender-policing). For example, many online roleplayers in Dreamwidth, InsaneJournal, Tumblr, and Livejournal are female. A large number of them want to RP relationships and sex between their characters. In other words, they want to roleplay sexual relationships with a fantasy projection of themselves with someone else they find sexually attractive. I will go so far as to suggest that many female RPers who fit into this category are less attractive than the characters they play, and many of them express their own infatuation with how hot or attractive their own character is to them. This is seen as normal and healthy and liberating.
Yet.
Yet. When someone is discovered to be male (I am going by secrets on Fandom!Secrets and the defunct RoleplaySecrets blogs on Livejournal), who also wants to roleplay sex with their fantasy attractive character, they are 'basement dwelling neckbeards' who are intruding in what is, apparently, female space. A player who plays an attractive female character is suddenly 'squicked' to discover that the person she has been writing porn with is biologically male.
Now, this scenario is complex and worth unpacking further, because it is a nexus of 'safe' space, sexuality, policing, and identity, but I bring it here this time, only in the context of proof that this sort of gender policing is not simply Oppressive Patriarchy--females do this same behavior as well, discriminating by the gender of what cyberpunk labeled 'the meat'. In other words, the very people Haraway was addressing, the very people whom one would think are the most interested in breaking down gender and identity, who claim to want to destroy boundaries, to express a sexuality that women have often been told to hide or deny, are twisting their sexual liberation to make it an unsafe space for those with penises.
Isn't that...missing the point of Haraway? That 'male', that penis-owning person on the other keyboard, may be a 'cyborg' too, longing for freedom, wanting to escape the biological and cultural determinism of his body, may be trying to explore different identities, explore sexuality free of the pressure of Western gender obsessions.
If the point of the cyborg is freedom, it should mean freedom for EVERYONE, don't you think?
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Shiny new blog.
I hate first posts. I'm the kind of person who collects pretty notebooks and then can't bear to write in them because my words, thoughts, ideas, me, in short, are just unworthy. So let's try to buck that trend with a basic intro post that will hopefully soon be buried under actually interesting content.
What you will find on this blog, o nonexistent reader:
Cyberculture, through a variety of lenses. I am starting this blog to help pace me through my sabbatical project, to have some sort of external accountability, with the impetus that I can't just jot incoherent phrases, but have to try and make my thoughts connect up with something coherently, for you, the fake audience. I'm interested in cyborg theory, robots, fandom, science fiction, fan culture, and the ways they intersect.
I became interested in robots at an early age--not in terms of engineering, but in the idea of the mechanical being, and how a robot with a personality (like Optimus Prime) kind of commented on and destabilized our ideas of humanity. I also loved robots because, honestly, they are without family--they exist and have friends and relationships, but they have no complicated family lineage, no mothers or fathers or pressure to reproduce or mate or marry, things that I felt very much as negative pressure imprinted on me by the culture in which I was raised.
What you will find on this blog, o nonexistent reader:
Cyberculture, through a variety of lenses. I am starting this blog to help pace me through my sabbatical project, to have some sort of external accountability, with the impetus that I can't just jot incoherent phrases, but have to try and make my thoughts connect up with something coherently, for you, the fake audience. I'm interested in cyborg theory, robots, fandom, science fiction, fan culture, and the ways they intersect.
I became interested in robots at an early age--not in terms of engineering, but in the idea of the mechanical being, and how a robot with a personality (like Optimus Prime) kind of commented on and destabilized our ideas of humanity. I also loved robots because, honestly, they are without family--they exist and have friends and relationships, but they have no complicated family lineage, no mothers or fathers or pressure to reproduce or mate or marry, things that I felt very much as negative pressure imprinted on me by the culture in which I was raised.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)