“Yes or No?”: Another great lesbian movie

The first woman I dated sent me the file for this movie; I can’t find it (it must have gotten erased somewhere and I’m so sad about that!) but I did find the full-length thing on YOUTUBE!! The internet is a great place. Love you, worldwide web.

“Yes or No” is about a marine biology student at a university in Thailand who, to her initial horror, gets assigned as her roommate a very handsome butch girl from the country. Her thinly veiled homophobia wounds the roommate, but soon an unlikely friendship develops between them and well, it’s a lesbian movie, so *squee* ensues.

It’s so different from American lesbian movies, and though I can’t pretend to know a lick about Thai culture after seeing this film, it provides some interesting insight into how “tom” and “dee” identities are received in Thailand. Though it’s one of the more open countries for non-cisnormative people to live (see Katouey,  Tom (butch/transmasculine identity) and Dee (femmes who date Toms) ) and that homosexuality is not against the rules, as the movie shows there is still a bit of general discomfort with non-cis-het identities.

The movie is done through a very cutesy lens; or at least my Western eyes see it that way. But it does such a beautiful job of showing the innocence of first love, and the bravery of going against traditional societal values.

Basically, it’s absolutely guaranteed to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

You can watch the movie here:

The science of love: what I learned last night

There’s this event in the city that’s like a science cafe, where a typically high-profile scientist of some kind–neuroscientist, primatologist, anthropologist, etc–comes to speak about their work in an engaging way to an audience of science nerds packed into the back room of a bar on a tuesday night. There have been some pretty awesome speakers in the past. It’s great.

Usually.

Last night I went to a talk by Helen Fisher, “Loveologist”. We got there late so we had to stand in the back, along with about half the audience. Her talk was promising to deliver something a bit different: she’s a biological anthropologist who researches love. Now, of course there’s something hokey about approaching “love” from a biological point of view, and of course there’s something entertaining about it as well.

When her talk first started, she described love and its symptoms: how it clouds our judgment, how it’s made of 3 components (sexual attraction, romantic attraction, and attachment, each of which involves a different brain system and different neurotransmitters) etc. It was interesting and entertaining, though my skepticism started kicking in.

Then it got really hokey and frankly, offensive. Oh yeah, I should mention she works for Match.com. She began saying that people typically fall in love with someone of their own ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, and educational background; someone who has the same values and level of attractiveness; etc. Sure, generally maybe these things might be trends, but what gave me the creeps was that her talk was about the biological basis of love and she was using this to imply that people are BIOLOGICALLY PREDESTINED to find partners exactly like themselves. As if cultural and societal biases are not involved here.

She went on, of course, to stereotype a lot of men and women.

There were 4 personality types, she argued. Just like Myers-Briggs! And a whole bunch of other philosophers! Who all intuited that there were 4 personality types! What was her addition to this hokey placing-everyone-in-categories mumbo jumbo? SCIENCE. That’s right, she BUTCHERED science. Here were her 4 personality types:

  • Predominantly DOPAMINE driven – thrill seekers basically. The “explorers”. They typically fall in love with other high-dopamine people. (Apparently Barack Obama is this.)
  • Predominantly SEROTONINE driven – people who like conformity, order, rules, religion (huh? can’t you get into religion for lots of reasons?). These are the “builders”. They typically fall in love with other high-serotonin people. (Apparently Mitt Romney.)
  • Predominantly TESTOSTERONE driven – cue stereotypes. Testosterone drives things like GOOD AT MATH and LACK OF EMPATHY. These are the “directors”. Shockingly, they like high estrogen people. (Apparently Hillary Clinton is this.)
  • Predominantly ESTROGEN driven – cue shaking my head and snarky comments traded with my ex and their friend, where basically everything was just making us angry. Empathy, big picture, reads into a lot of things (here she said in a high pitched voice: “The way he cut that lime means he’s not getting sex tonight!”). These are “negotiators”. Shockingly, they like testosterone-driven people. (Apparently Bill Clinton is this. Joked the speaker: “he was perhaps our first female president!” Barf.)

Ugh. In addition to a lot of cheap jokes about gender roles, contradicting science and reason and even herself at every turn, confirming biases people have in what was supposed to be a humorous presentation, erasing the complexity of human interaction, there were so many beefs we had with the science and with how it was applied. Our personal beefs:

  • Serotonin and dopamine are NEUROTRANSMITTERS. Testosterone and estrogen are SEX HORMONES. Sure, all of them have an effect on the brain, but like, what?! This makes no sense on a basic level, to lump in all 4 of these “chemicals” together.
  • She says these things are primal drives because dopamine and serotonin and oxytocin and all these neurotransmitter systems are close to the brainstem, the most primitive part of the brain. Okay first of all, the whole brain talks to itself, experience is subjective and is not so much a drive as it is a matter of circumstances. If personality doesn’t factor in, if the frontal cortex doesn’t get involved, then why is it so hard to fall in love? It’s a lot more complicated than just saying that only the primitive parts of the brain are involved.
  • Also, those primitive parts of the brain are just the more-studied parts of the brain: since mice have them, they’re easier to study.
  • These pathways are activated during different tasks. To say that one neurotransmitter (of like, thousands) drives one’s personality is… wow.
  • ALSO to say that EXPERIENCE and CULTURE don’t factor in is pretty amazingly stupid. She showed a map of the U.S. and how there are more serotonin people in the south and more estrogen people in New England. So basically because more people in the south are religious they’re biologically predisposed to religion? And everyone else has left? Okay we actually had a lot of thoughts about this. Of the 6 of us who went to the talk, 3 of us were foreign. They didn’t leave their countries because personality types: they left because economic and educational opportunity. Someone asked about the geographic distribution and she said that, and I paraphrase from memory, “people who don’t fit in in their home countries and leave to move elsewhere, they’re not stupid: they know they can fit in better somewhere else. It’s stupid to stay in a place you don’t fit in.” WOW. Maybe I misinterpreted what she was saying, but she literally associated the word “stupid” with not seeking out like-minded people. As if there aren’t pockets of personality types within one geographic region, as if getting up and leaving makes someone happy, and more importantly, as if it’s STUPID to stay: as if socioeconomic, familial, educational, political factors don’t keep people tied down to their current geographic location as well.
  • She kept saying that “lesbians and gays, they love just like any of us.” Umm hello lady, you’re in BROOKLYN. Thank you for joining the 21st century.

The worst part of all of this, I think, is that in a time when we should be trying to understand people as complex individuals, we’re STILL categorizing people. Not only does this perpetuate stereotypes, but it creates even greater divides between people. We can’t divide people into thrill-seeking-vs-rule-abiding and masculine-vs-feminine and expect to understand everything that drives a person and how they all in love.

But then again, if her whole presentation was “We don’t know what makes people fall in love except maybe for some vague sense of familiarity and comfort, because people are complicated and there is no formula”, then she wouldn’t have her job as “love-ologist” for Match.com.

Lastly, I’m reminded of Lawrence Summers, the ex-president of that university… oh right, HARVARD. This guy, representing the most elite institution, gave a speech asking why more women aren’t in science. A fair enough question, except he went on to point to behavioral differences and supposedly “ingrained” differences between men and women and how that extends to math and science. But he was just asking a genuine question out of curiosity! Scientific curiosity! What’s the harm in that?

The harm is that social science is not neutral. When “science” confirms biases, justifies continued discrimination (“if you take testosterone you’ll change!” “if you take antidepressants you’ll change!” “you produce testosterone you are obviously better at math than that person who produces estrogen!”), it’s setting back equality rather than leveling the playing field. And this part, the social responsibility of social scientists to look at their research in the broader context of culture, and whether or not it’s undoing years of feminism, is a piece we should not ignore.

The damage is done. People will buy into what she’s saying. When we left my friends and I asked each other which personality type we were, and I jokingly answered GABA-A (an inhibitory neurotransmitter) because I can be really cautious sometimes. The joke being that of course, these neurotransmitters have a million complex roles, and in the end we all have all of them, can tap into them, can choose to be who we are just as much as we are predestined.

I leave with one last thought. In Harry Potter, there are 4 houses (omg! 4 personality types, 4 houses!). If you’ll remember, the sorting hat places people in a house based on their innate abilities: bravery (Gryffindor), success-drive (Slytherin), loyalty (Hufflepuff), cleverness (Ravenclaw). As the hat is placed on Harry’s head, Harry becomes fearful of being cultivated into a success-driven individual, afraid perhaps of unleashing the darkness that resides within him (his horcrux nature), and so he murmurs “Not Slytherin, Not Slytherin, Not Slytherin…” over and over agin. The sorting hat tells him he could be great in Slytherin, but respects his wishes and places him in Gryffindor. Later on, as he struggles with the implications of this choice–maybe he should have been a Slytherin, maybe he deserves to unleash his inner darkness–he turns to Dumbledore and confides that he had influenced the sorting hat’s decision. Dumbledore drops a wisdom bomb: “It is our choices, Harry, far more than our abilities, that make us who we are.”

If only this love lady had read that fantastic series and taken some of its lessons to heart. It may be easier to divide the world into 4 categories (which basically form a 2-dimensional space, if we’re looking at dopamine-serotonin as one continuum and estrogen-testosterone as another), but the truth is far more complicated and changeable than is profitable for a dating site. We don’t want to be lumped into categories: we just want someone to hear us. Fuck labels.

And fuck pseudoscience.

Zika virus and abortion rights

NOW can we talk about abortion as a health issue? NOW can we address the stupidity of abstinence-only education? NOW can we take men to task as much as women to prevent unwanted pregnancy??

Abortion is just another one of those “social issues” that’s really a “minority issue”. By minority I mean people who are not in the dominant power group. Poor women are affected most of all; rich men not at all.

And now countries like El Salvador are saying “ladies, keep it in your pants til 2018.” WHAT ABOUT MEN!?! As far as I know, the Virgin Mary is the only historical figure to so much as CLAIM to bring about the miracle of childbirth without so much as laying eyes on a human penis.

To say Zika is a women’s issue is absolutely absurd.

Blah.

Here’s a really interesting article about what happens when countries with out-dated laws restricting access to abortion and birth control (and probably don’t adequately protect women from rape either) (the U.S. has the laws, but the backlash is hard to ignore and is having real-life reprecussions and does little to protect the mother in many cases) meets a weird virus that makes having these conversations more important than ever. If indeed Zika causes microencephaly, it’s basically a no-brainer (no pun intended) to have an abortion… if you have access to one. Women are being punished for being women across the Americas, and this virus is starkly highlighting the need for reproductive rights.

Fucking horrifying.