Ethical Representation of ... Burning Man?

I am thinking about representation these days. Last year I took a very powerful course on the Ethics of Representation in Anthropology. It used a historical approach to outline how the white, male anthropologist was slowly revealed and integrated into their research arriving at a more modern anthropology where researchers must question and admit to their bias and background and we favor situations in which the line between the 'researcher' and 'researched' becomes blurred and everyone learns and everyone has a voice. (Favor, although rarely achieve). Because I am not currently working in the field of anthropology I find myself idly trying to apply these reflections to the areas of the world that I do interact with on a daily basis: media.

The 'ethics' of representation vary greatly from scientific research to the media. Whether or not they should, they do. Within media you have several different fields: television, film, news, and the huge world of the internet. Each of these has a different standard for representation and plenty of people are upset with where these fall short in representing various 'minority' groups. (I use quotes here because I think, personally, that what we see on television and in film IS the minority, only accepted as what is the majority.)

Hollywood films and shows often fail to represent either reality or what reality could be. Women don't have strong rolls (the default to a male in every minor business related roll as an example), people who are not white and thin become token characters used as a type of symbolism etc. I think that people have a right to complain about this. I think people should gripe and demand to see more variety in films and television. I also think people should get very upset when news concentrates on young, white superstars and only represents minority races for the stereotypical problems they have. Yes. Complain. Boycott. Do it.

But lately I have seen this complaining of unfair representation starting to creep into areas as simple as videos posted on youtube or minor art projects. (Notice the key word of MINOR here... these are not art projects that are influencing the entire world. They are not art projects that the average person cannot afford to rebut with their own piece of art. They are not billion dollar industries. They are minor.) As an example, among the women I know who go to Burning Man about half of them consistently complain about the representation (or lack thereof) of older burners, burners of minority races, and heavier burners.

I did a quick video search for, "Burning Man," and these are two of the top 5 results:

Burning Man Filmed and edited by Vincent Rommelaere

We Are Only Human A Film by Aaron Freeder

I am guessing that the people who are upset by the under-representation of the "real" burning man would also criticize these films, saying that they only focus on sexy, thin, white, youngsters. While I agree that there are plenty of thin, white, young females in these videos I don't see it as a problem. I don't see it as an unauthentic representation of Burning Man selling out to mainstream ideals of beauty. In both videos I also saw older, non-white, and heavier burners. More males are shown with the 'not-ideal' body shape than females. In fact, I see the film of rather representative of an average night on the esplanade. Yes, there are older, heavier, non-white burners at Burning Man, but the ones who tend to show off tend to get attention, and these are not the older or heavier burners. (Why I think the films show more heavier and older men is because they tend to be more confident with their bodies than older and heavier women who might not dress up or go dancing, or slide down a slide. I am not saying EVERY older burner woman stays in camp, but I AM saying they don't tend to bask in attention like younger burners, so to film them you have to actually seek them out.) So basically, yes, these films are a (one) representation of reality at Burning Man. However, everyone experiences Burning Man differently and many people will cry- "THAT's not Burning Man! That is not what I see and do! That does not include ME or anyone like ME!"

To which I say... "So what?"

The thing about Burning Man and Burning Man films is that pretty much everyone who goes there is on equal footing. Everyone who shoots a film and releases it on youtube or a similar internet site has an equal chance of exposure. If you want to see yourself, or your subculture, represented in a film then make a film. If you don't have the skills then network and enlist the help of someone who has experience... because SOMEONE will be interested. It is not a multi-billion dollar industry that you have to follow the rules of standardized, unachievable beauty in order to be heard. The platform is free. You don't have to quit your day job. You just have to be passionate and work to make your own representation of your experience. I bet a lot of people would appreciate it. But, unlike platforms where entry is barred by money or industry standards I do not agree that any Burning Man artist or film maker owes it to a minority group to seek them out and give them equal representation in their piece. The minority groups are perfectly capable of self-representation, and if they choose not to, then the fact that they have no beautiful videos of people like them, doing the things they find interesting at Burning Man is their own fault. The people making these videos are not scientists backed by "expertise." They are not getting played on stations only available to a select few. They are on equal footing as any other Burner.

The other thing that gets me is the way that articles about this "issue" tend to refer to any female who is scantily clad and happy with her body at Burning Man as something along the lines of, "A Pretty Young Thing," and then goes on to say that these films are not accurate portrayals of the real Burning Man. They are. These people are not things. They are people, going on an emotional and physical journey just like any other Burner. Their experience of Burning Man is no less "real" than any other person's. Perhaps you make the assumption that all this person did was dance... they didn't help build or cook or clean... well, maybe they did, and maybe they didn't. But they get captured in a moment of ecstasy and then people deny the reality of that moment? It is real. It happened. It happens OFTEN at Burning Man. Moments of release, of showing off, of being comfortable with yourself, of making yourself beautiful... it happens, nd it is perfectly legitimate to represent it.

Children as a confusing social... thing

Strangely enough in all of my studies in family development and sociology I never focused on how children are viewed by different social groups or children's rights. I focused on marriage and alternative adult relationships. I focused on psycho and social development in late adolescence. I never really paid much attention to children. Now that I am about to have a child I find it all very confusing and wish that I had thought about it a little more when I had structured studies to help me sort through the various attitudes towards children.

I have friends who have all sorts of different views on children and families including those who seem to be altogether anti-children and those who are very family focused and everything in between. Today I came across an offhand remark that a friend was doing her part in water conservation because she (among many other things) didn't have children. It led me to wonder if children and families actually consume more water than the same number of single adults. (Besides drinking water, which children consume more per pound but less overall than adults I couldn't find any statistics.) It also got me thinking about the perception of children and how they are thought of as an accessory to their adult parents as opposed to an individual with rights of consumption just like any adult. Of course this leads to the thought of taxes and schooling and public services for children and how single adults without children often do not see why they should contribute to such things. However, children are protected from the ideas of their parents through many social laws, making children not only the responsibility of the parents, but of all of society. (Laws about health care and neglect set a certain standard for parents that they must follow, which means that they should have support in adhering to those laws. For instance, state-enforced chemotherapy that neither the child nor the parents agree with should be paid for by the state.)

As my mind marches around these topics I find myself grasping for an actual question... something that I can tease out into a thread that makes sense and I can follow. Instead I just find an incoherent blob of attitudes that I can't really understand. I guess it doesn't help that I don't have a solid position. Part of me is very selfish regarding children. I don't want to send my child to kindergarten (here starting at age 3-5), and I am offended that I won't be allowed to homeschool him. However, logically I am against things like inheritance and think the only way to overcome the huge inequality of capitalism is the destruction of the nuclear family in favor of a more socially based child rearing system. I think about the idea of "continuing the human race" as opposed to "continuing an individual blood line or attitude line," and I wonder how people deal with the dissonance of these two ideas in their every day life. For the anti-breeders, do they just not care if the human race doesn't continue? Or they just don't want to have any responsibility for it? For the breeders... is it a selfish thing? How possessive do you feel over your children? Adopted children? And when it comes to rights and expressing opinions and desires... oh... it just gets so muddled in my mind. And here I am, sitting on a baby about to pop out any day, having no clue how I actually feel about children. 

Pregnant Lady Checkout Line

Two of the stores I frequent in Bulgaria have very cool checkout lines, in theory. The first store has a line specifically for people who have small children and are not purchasing candy, cola, or other foods with sugar. I think this line is a great concept except that it is the very first line available, so everyone uses it anyway, and it still has cookies and candy stacked along the conveyor belt. I would think the reason for having that line might be to help people deal with kids who get bored in line and so demand every chocolate bar they see, but nope. Fail.

The second store has a line that is for pregnant women, women with small children, and disabled people. Since I got pregnant I have been eagerly waiting the moment when I actually LOOKED pregnant enough to justify using that line. Honestly, I felt much sicker and it was much more difficult for me to stand in line when I was two months pregnant and not showing at all, but I still waited, out of respect. Finally, the other day, I decided to use the line. After all, I only have three weeks left and I look about ready to pop. The shop was not too busy and most registers only had one or two people, but I wanted to use my special checkout lane. Nikola and I went to the lane, which had two women and a couple in front of me. Gently, Nikola said, "Excuse me, but this line is reserved for pregnant women and invalids," while pointing to the huge sign above the women's heads. The woman next in line turned around and glared at us, looked me up and down, and snapped, "Well, good for you!" while glaring at us. She then picked up her belongings and moved to the next free line. She actually finished her purchase before us, and as she exited the store she was still grumbling that she only had two things and was in a rush. It kinda tainted the whole pleasure of using a specially designated checkout line.

It got me thinking about all of those specially designated areas. People have become so wrapped up in their own situation that politeness which used to be common, such as giving up your seat on the bus for an elderly person, now has to be designated. And, if a person dares to call someone out on that designated spot they get upset and indignant about the inconvenience. In Turkey I was constantly saddened by the number of men who did not give up their seats on public transportation for women with small children. The busses in Istanbul are so crowded that young children can easily get trampled on or separated from their caretaker at any stop. Also, with the groping that is rampant in that city it is often safer for a woman to have a seat. But young men, of working age, stare absently and would never think of giving up their seat to a woman or child.

So then, I wonder, who "deserves" preferential seating? Who deserves a closer parking spot? A wider parking spot? Obviously pregnancy is not a disability, and plenty of people don't think it is fair they have to accommodate children in any way, let alone give their parents preferential treatment. So, where do we draw the lines? I guess that is a question for later. Right now I am really wondering, once the lines are drawn, why do so many people take issue respecting them. If you break the speed limit, why do you try to get out of a ticket? If you are in a line designated for people other than you, why do you get upset if someone asks you to move? 

The Pre-pregnancy Body

I was watching the L-word the other night and one of the characters slipped in an off-handed comment that she was, "still working to get her pre-pregnancy body back." Just that, nothing more. Five years ago I wouldn't have thought anything about the comment. It is just something people say, meaning they want to get "fit" after having a baby. No big deal, right?

Except, maybe it is a big deal. Maybe, when society is telling women that they need to remain first and foremost a sexualized female creature before they can be a good mother, it matters. Maybe, when women are opting for c-sections because they do not want to end up with a looser vagina after birth, it matters. Maybe, when women quietly gossip about how new mothers have, "let themselves go," and justify men cheating and abandoning their families with it, it matters. Maybe a series that is supposed to explore the deep, complex emotions and sex life of lesbians should give a little more thought to the language they use... maybe.

I have been lucky in life. I have never had severe body image issues, and I have rarely let others define my worth based on my appearance. From a young age I wore the clothes I wanted, and while I was extremely shy towards others I still had an inner sense of self-worth and confidence. Of course, I had times when I was sad certain people weren't attracted to me, but I never thought of changing my image to fit their ideal. Fashion, diets, and the beauty industry have lost out on me. I think that, along with my amazing husband, has made being pregnant extremely easy.

My husband, while very visually stimulated, does not have an ideal body type. He has loved and cherished my body throughout these past nine months without hesitation. He hasn't become more attracted to me, or less attracted to me, as I swell in all sorts of funny ways. It is obvious that he is most attracted to the person inside, not outside, and for that I am very grateful.

All of that being said, I would lie if I said that I had never considered the, "pre-pregnancy body." I hear about friends signing up for marathons and I want to be able to do that again. As my clothing slowly dwindles I find myself unwilling to buy new clothes that I will wear for just a month and longing to slip into an old pair of jeans. I have looked up, "How long will it take to lose the pregnancy weight?" Mostly, this is because I am packing away certain clothes and I wonder when/if I will ever wear them again and whether I should just get rid of them altogether. I have very little desire to be, "young and sexy," because I feel plenty sexy at the moment.

I think that I am ready to get my post-pregnancy body. I am ready to be done carrying a 3 kg baby and all of his belongings inside of me. I am ready to be able to cycle and run without fear of inducing early labor. However, I recognize that my body after birth will never be the same as my body before birth. It seems like women have an obsession with going backwards in life. Anti-aging creams, and longing for the body they had when they were fifteen. But you can't go back in time, only forward, and why not be excited for the body that awaits you?

Pregnancy changes you. If not emotionally and spiritually, at least physically. The hips widen, the stomach relaxes, the uterus enlarges. These are permanent changes. I am not sure if I am in the camp that is, "proud" of birth and views these changes as badges of honor, but I am certainly not someone who wants to cover them up, as if the only worthwhile position for a female to be in is the pre-pregnancy flirtation, hyper-sexual, defined by desire position. I think "mother," is a worthwhile thing to be. I think, "professional," is a worthwhile thing to be. I do not think a woman has to be sexy and feminine in order to be happy and complete. With that in mind, forget the pre-pregnancy body, I am looking forward to the post-pregnancy body and my continuing journey through life. 

Doulas and painting and salsa, oh my...

We met with a potential doula today. I am still not 100% sold on the idea of a doula simply because it is another expense added to an already expensive process. However, I was absolutely amazed at how comfortable I felt with her. Some people are just so naturally warm and open that I can't help but feel at ease with them. I am a little bit jealous because I know that I am seen as an aloof, colder person, and it definitely takes me quite some time to warm up to people. This distance is something that I create, and I know that it makes many people feel uncomfortable around me. I have just never figured out how to break through that distance. I think the "average" person is somewhat less detached than I am, and then there are these warm, glowing superstars that are absolutely attractive to others. People just gravitate towards them. Even I feel comfortable around them, which says a lot. Anyways, this woman was definitely one of these warmer ladies. She put me at ease almost immediately, and gave us some great comfort and tips for additionally resources even if we decide not to go with her services. All in all, over just a cup of coffee I would say I feel about 5% more comfortable with the hospital process of birth and my choice of birth center (pretty much the only birth center in Varna that is willing to work with doulas). So yeah, not 100% sure we will hire a doula, but definitely considering it more seriously as the date approaches.

And approaching it is...

I honestly have no clue what my official due date is. I change it based on my mood. I know it is sometime in February, towards the beginning-middle. However, before getting pregnant my body was so unpredictable (I thought I was pregnant two times before I was actually pregnant due to wildly late periods) that now I don't really trust standard calculations for when I conceived or my due date. My midwife is planning for the week following the fourth of February... sometime. Anyways, due dates are such an estimate anyways, and it can really be anywhere from week 37-42... which would be two weeks from now up to almost two months. Not a lot of reassurance about actual timing there, but it makes me realize that maybe we should be preparing now, instead of planning to have that time all the way until week 40 to get ready.

At the moment we are switching rooms with my in-laws. Their house has two bedrooms. In the back of the house is the "children's room," where Nikola and I are staying at the moment. At the front of the house is a larger room with one wall filled with large windows that faces out over the garden and we will be moving into that room later this week, so that there will be room for the crib and the baby can have more natural light. First, however, comes the task of painting the room, which is never as simple as it seems like it should be. Currently we have moved all of the in-law's furniture into the living room, and things are a little cramped/chaotic. Plus, I haven't quite figured out what we are moving into the room with us and what we will put in storage. Will I have time and inspiration to paint? Do I still need the dual monitor setup I am currently working with? How much knitting and sewing will I realistically do? Because we know that we will be looking for our own place in the spring it becomes a little tedious to figure out what to pack and what to move now so that we don't have tons of useless stuff cluttering our lives. One of my friends told me that she was able to do a lot more than she had thought she would. Many others tell me they are able to do less. Part of me can imagine myself laying in bed all day, cuddling with the new baby, occasionally taking walks (have to finish the mei tei I am crocheting) and not doing much more for the first few weeks/months. But maybe I will go stir crazy.

Then there are pediatricians to talk to, Bulgarian healthcare for newborns to figure out, my own healthcare (and American taxes) to figure out, thinking about eventually getting a job, running again, biking again, hiking and camping, and generally life after pregnancy. It all seems so exciting! :) And figuring out how to include a baby in all of the fun things Nikola and I like to do is going to be... challenging, in a good way.

But... here it comes, the final push... the last month (or so) ready or not. 

Pain Management

It seems like the biggest debate in birth these days is pain management. It is an obsession. I guess now that we have the option of drugging the pain away we are suddenly faced with choice, and moral quandaries about the extent of human power and what is true experience.

I want to give birth without medication. This isn't because of any study regarding the health of the baby, or the bonding, or anything that scientific. I quite simply hate needles, and even more so, I hate IVs. The thought of having an IV inserted into me, dripping liquid into my veins or spine, makes me sick to my stomach, and I don't think I could stand that for twenty hours. I am the type of person who would tear out an IV, and the nurses would hate me. So, while I am trying to prepare for the eventuality that I might need one, I am also trying, selfishly, to avoid it. If Bulgaria had access to the nitrous oxide they use in England to manage childbirth pain, I would seriously reconsider my "natural" approach.

All of that being said, I think it is obvious I am not on the, "Natural is better," bandwagon that my hippie-self is expected to be on. However, I am not convinced that medicating away birth pain is necessary either.

I was reading an article the other day by a woman who is vehemently against all natural birth movements. She is against home birthing, and advocates for the use of pain medication. According to her it is absurd that we would NOT medicate a birth, as we medicate any other pain. Instead we (as women) are glorifying the pain of birth, or denying it altogether, and insisting that others do the same. It is true. There is a lot of guilt around using pain medication. However, this woman was going to the extreme in the other direction, guilting women for NOT using pain medication. The main comparison people seem to use is a broken arm, or the removal of a cancer, all of which the patient would be heavily medicated for.

I think the idea behind natural birthing is not to deny pain medication, but to take the word, "patient," out of the equation. Birthing became a medical process. It is compared to emergencies. Whereas the natural birthing movement would rather consider birthing a natural circumstance, not an emergency. Moving birthing into the realm of medical expertise is yet one more way that we allow society to make decisions about a woman's body as opposed to the woman herself. Society decides when the woman has labored long enough, when she needs medication, when she needs to be cut, when she needs an enema. Society regulates the birth and just expects the woman to go along with it. Of course, as soon as the baby is born it becomes the woman's responsibility. The very people who are claiming that the medicalization of birthing is done in the best interest of the baby, which society has to protect, want nothing to do with supporting that baby once it is born. As a society we tend to lay claim to unborn babies, quite possessively, and then forsake our full-bodied citizens. It seems absurd to me.

So, yeah, it makes a lot of sense to me to medicate a birth, if you want. It also makes a lot of sense to deal with pain in other ways, and attempt to have a spiritual experience, if you want. The key here is whatever the woman wants. If she wants to give birth in a field, cool. If she wants to give birth in a hospital, cool. Elective cesarian? I wouldn't choose it, but it is a valid option. It is time that we start respecting other people's choices, especially women's. If we want to live in a society that values the individual over community, then community no longer has a right to the offspring of an individual, and the individual should be allowed to choose what they think is best for themselves and their unborn children, without backlash of being considered a "weak woman." Without religious guilt for Eve and her apples. Without the definition of self being how you decide to give birth.

SAHM Guilt

 This article got me thinking about the role of the mother and especially society's conception of the stay-at-home-mom. The article, and many like it, works off of two basic assumptions:

1. People should cling to their individuality. It seems like the biggest fear of people, especially women, these days is to lose themselves in the role of the mother or wife. Going one step further, it makes the assumption that a woman's identity is held within her sexuality. In order to maintain her identity a woman should exercise, wear make up, do pelvic floor exercises, and basically maintain the flirtatious, vixen attitude she had before having children. She must be a woman first, and a wife or mother second. It says very little about her being a human first, and a woman or wife or mother or whatever else in whatever order she prefers. 
2. SAHMs should feel privileged to be able to stay at home. They should not compare their labor to "actual" work, and they should feel guilty that they do not contribute financially. Most of all, they are not allowed to complain about their duties, or claim that they feel stress. Taking this further, there is the subtle claim that work within the household is worth less than work outside of the household, and that money is the biggest contribution you can make to your family. 

These assumptions, and all of the advice that comes out of them, continually irritates me. Truthfully, I usually click right past these blog posts and move on to something that isn't tinted with anger and/or guilt. But sometimes I can't help myself. Sometimes I stop and read these and wonder if this is really what people think about life. 

First of all, I want to say that I do feel extremely privileged that I will be able to be a SAHM. I realize that for many mothers now days that is not a choice, especially all of the single mothers working hard on every front. However, I think it is a choice for more people than recognize it as so. The idea that a family NEEDS two incomes to survive is absurd. There is the option to move some place cheaper, to cut back on expenses, to curb the consumer lifestyle and to get your basic needs covered through one income. Yes, not having the latest Apple products, or not sending your child to a summer camp may be a difficult choice to make, but it IS an option. From what I read this is becoming more difficult in America, and perhaps changes are needed on the societal level. If we are a society that still values the nuclear family then we should allow for basic family needs to be met through a single income. If we no longer value the nuclear family then we need to start making other arrangements for the raising of children so that everyone can continue providing just enough for themselves. 

With all of that being said, just because I recognize my position within the home as a privilege (which should be a right) does not mean that I intend to feel guilty about it, as if working within the home is less difficult than holding a job outside the home, or as if I am somehow worth less than working mothers and fathers. I refuse to agree that a homemaker does not know what stress is. Balancing budgets, creating family schedules, learning about nutrition and gardening are all fun things, but they can all be stressful. If you dislike your job so much that all you feel is stress and anxiety towards it, perhaps you should look into a different job instead of claiming that those who enjoy their societal role don't know what stress is. However, here we come to the big question: Is being a mother an actual societal role anymore? 

It seems like it isn't. Adults are identified by their jobs, and jobs are narrowly defined by the money they make. It is valid to be a housekeeper or a nanny, looking after someone else's children, but it is not valid to claim working within your own family as work. Perhaps it isn't fair to claim "mother" as a societal role. After all, there are plenty of single individuals struggling to make ends meet on their own, with no one to share household duties with. These people seem to hold a disdain for, "breeders," who would dare to claim that one income should support not just one person, but four people, while one adult does nothing except manage a home. Maybe they have a point. Maybe we have equalized ourselves right out of the definition of family. If so, I am quite sad. 

The other part, that a woman must at all times maintain her individual identity outside of her familial roles, just seems tiresome to me. People keep claiming that a woman should be able to support herself, in case her husband leaves her. She should not get lost in the relationship with her husband, and she should not get lost in her role as a mother. As an extreme there are women who have c-sections just because they do not want to change their sex lives. Perhaps a bit more normal is the idea that a woman needs to keep separate bank accounts, have a source of income, and maintain her sexuality through fashion and makeup so that her husband always wants her and she will be desirable if he leaves her. 

To me it seems like this is just operating from a stance of fear, constantly planning for the worst case scenario. When I got married I gave up my life as an individual. It was scary to consider before I met Nikola and yet it is the most relaxing, wonderful sensation now. We agreed that we would love and support each other forever, and I choose to believe in that. That means I have no problem combining finances, working to support his income efforts, or earning an income while he manages things at home. We decided to form a household, and to put that first. That means that I honor our household before my own fears and insecurities. 

Finally, I have to ask when being a woman meant being sexy and made-up. I feel like so much more than a piece of fashion. If I never have sex again I will still feel like a woman. Bearing children is a part of being a woman, for some people. Cooking is. Painting is. Writing is. Living, breathing, loving is. Being a woman is not about high heels and a fancy bag. It is not about wearing make up. It is not about having a tight pelvic floor. It is emotions and desires and interactions. "Be a woman first, so you can be a better mother," is just bad advice. Instead, allow being a mother to become part of your identity.