Happy blogaversary to me

According to my records, it has been four years to the day since my very first post on my very first blog, way back in the second semester of ninth grade. I’m reading that post now; it focuses on my emotions at the end of my time working on the school musical, Sondheim’s Into the Woods. I played viola in the pit orchestra, back when I still played violin and viola, before I got interested in the tech side of the theater world. This was so far before I got interested in the tech side, that I still hadn’t overcome my desire to act. I wrote about how I used to go into the theater at lunch, stand downstage center, and declaim Shakespeare to an empty house. I remember only knowing a few monologues—the Prologue from Henry V, Puck’s last speech in Midsummer Night’s Dream, a few bits from Macbeth. Part of “to be or not to be.” But I remember how long it took the penny to drop, how I didn’t realize that it was odd and awkward that I was the only non-drama kid to enter the Shakespeare recitation contest, for example.

I’m getting off-topic. But I think it’s odd, and maybe something worth complimenting myself about, that I was blogging in 2005, long before the new media really took off. I had a Blogger blog since day one, and I moved to WordPress in, if I’m not mistaken, 2007. I never used Xanga or LiveJournal. I talked about silly teenage things, though, even if my platforms weren’t teenage ones.

I was fifteen when Into the Woods closed, the most successful show I worked on in high school. It even got reviewed in the city paper, and some of the people who were in that production went on to take theater and film very, very seriously. But now, in college, at the age of nineteen, I know people who are or will be genuinely famous, who are indescribably brilliant at what they do, be it theater or anything else. In ninth grade, I had no idea how much bigger the world was going to get. I didn’t know how much I was going to grow as a person—a trajectory that’s evident from four years of almost-daily archives—or what the world outside my high school was like. In ninth grade, I hadn’t even begun the weighty processes of figuring out who and what I am that continues to this day.

I had tons of goals for high school. Some of them I accomplished, and some of them I didn’t. I made it alive through four years, an accomplishment which, for anyone, is larger than some people might realize. I made it to graduation without having sold my soul to the destructive culture that is public high school in America. I think that’s why I cried at graduation. I couldn’t believe that it was really happening, that I was really going to receive a diploma. And now I’m here, at Princeton of all places, and hating and loving every minute of it at exactly the same time.

But I’m sorry. I got off-topic again. Because this is supposed to be about blogging, not just about being older, though I think that is relevant too. This is about the first writing I ever really did outside of school—some of it private, and some of it public, but writing all the same. I did, and am still doing, what writers are supposed to do, keeping a journal of my thoughts and feelings and what happens in my day-to-day life. (I should mention, since I haven’t already, that the four-year blog in question is a private, password-protected site, while this new blogging endeavor is only a public manifestation of what’s been going on for years.) At the time that I began blogging, the writing I did was very limited: the only place anyone saw it was h2g2, a BBC-sponsored, Douglas Adams-inspired, haven that once was critically important to my life. But now I’m on the verge of conceiving of myself as a writer by trade. I’ve had enough experience to fill a resume, and I set my sights on very ambitious goals in the writing industry. It’s something that I try very hard at, writing. It’s a huge part of my life.

I know that all my writing is so personal, so much infused with “I,” that it couldn’t be without four years of writing about myself on an almost daily basis. Blogging is how I’ve developed (and am still developing) my voice, in addition to figuring out my identity (as a still-teenager, I feel as if that remains vital). And even of itself, isn’t it a bit of an accomplishment to have kept this journaling concept going continuously from my freshman year of high school to my freshman year of college? I remember when I’d start journals and never write in them again. I haven’t done that in quite a while.

I feel as if this isn’t a very good way to talk about conceiving of myself as a writer, because I’m just typing, and then I’m going to hit “publish” without proofreading what I’ve written. I’m sure someone will find typos and grammatical errors. I’m sure a lot of what I’ve said is clunky and kind of lame and self-absorbed, really. But hey. That’s what I’ve been doing for four years. And I really do feel as if it’s worked so far.

You Learn Something New Every Day

… and I learn a ton of new things every day, actually, because I’m a college student at, if I do say so myself, an excellent university, taking some mind-blowing and challenging classes. But today was one of those days overarched by a big academic concept that you know is going to stay with you for years to come, and that academic concept was this: word choice is vital.

This afternoon I had two “firsts”: my first-ever precept (Princeton calls discussion sections “precepts,” because it is full of itself) and my first one-on-one conference with my journalism professor, a very eminent professional writer whose name I won’t drop because that’s just too crass. I was nervous to the point of nausea for both. The precept was not only my first at this university, it was for my English class, and English is a discipline I am neither confident in nor good at. I am very much in awe of my journalism professor, who absolutely deserves all his renown, and was apprehensive as to how he would evaluate my writing.

To spare you the suspense, I must have come off as an idiot in precept—I was right; I can’t close-read literary passages for shit—and I was blown away by the fact that my journalism professor gave me some positive comments on my assignment. But the theme that connected both idiocy at literary analysis and an apparent ability to write decently was the utmost importance of minutiae.

As you might know, if you’ve studied literature at all, and as I discovered today, an author’s very specific word choices are absolutely vital in determining the meaning of a passage and the author’s intentions with it. Since my course is in English literature, I can mention that there are hundreds of thousands of words in the English language, and since my course is in English literature in the 14th-18th centuries, I can say that English has undergone some seismic shifts in vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, orthography and everything else since Alfred the Great’s scholars codified what was then called “englisc” in the 9th century. And so there is an incredible corpus of English words to draw from—some of them, since my precept was discussing Chaucer, extinct today—each of which could be employed to subtly alter what can be gleaned from the text. I’m not used to reading literature in this way: as a proto-historian (that is to say, I will probably be a history major in 18 months), I usually read literature, if not for pleasure, to gain insight into a particular time period or culture. I’m unused to examining it unto itself. It was an alien and deeply challenging experience for me, because I came into the class with so many things to say and then found that very few of them were at all useful, as we pored closely over the meaning of each word in a single paragraph. And all of those words suddenly grew more significant to me, more powerful. I was daunted by their potency and my complete inability to manage them.

If that weren’t enough, immediately following that ordeal I ascended a rather odd set of stairs to the frigging turret of a building I’d never before visited to meet with my journalism professor. This went considerably better, because the craft of writing is something I can claim to have some instinctive understanding of—more so than literary analysis, anyway. Since it was just us (which is totally ungrammatical but I don’t know how to rephrase it), and since I respect his talent so much, I didn’t feel any more hopelessly insignificant than I should have. And since the overall conceit of my piece was solid enough, we were able to focus on those same minutiae. My professor pointed out some words I’d thought deeply about and some words I hadn’t, addressed my punctuation choices, and questioned the meanings imparted by one way of expressing an idea versus another. It was as if he and I were applying those same close-reading tactics to my work, except instead of being a dead writer whose intent we can only speculate about, I was right there next to him, and I knew what my intent was. I was able to ground my understanding of the words in reality.

But in any case, the point of all this rambling (which, the WordPress word count tells me, is going on for far too long) is that it is vitally important to examine things incredibly closely. There is deep significance—academically speaking, at least; I couldn’t tell you about real life—to all these details, and I should be paying more attention to them, whether to learn how to think in more disciplines than my chosen one, or whether to aid me in becoming better at this writing passion of mine, such that it may become a skill or even a talent. And, moreover, it pays for me to throw myself into my work, doing more than just glossing over my readings or hacking out a paper or an article. It pays for me to hone every detail of everything I do, out of concern not just for my future as writer or academic, but also in the interests of my own pride and self-worth.

On Being Older

I did mean to update this blog quite often, but having to read roughly 600 pages per week has put a damper on that, you see. I’m taking five classes this term, and all of them with much heavier reading loads than last semester. It makes me feel quite the scholar, though, in that funny little pretentious undergraduate way. I like affecting a retro collegiate posture, with my political buttons and my blazers, lounging on my couch reading Lillian Helman or John McPhee and drinking tea.

I spent a lot of high school trying not to seem quite so nerdy. I trained myself to swear more regularly; I studied popular music and television; I made an effort to take an interest in baseball and soccer—though try as I might, I could never really get into football. I suppressed my desires to pontificate about history and read fantasy novels. Instead, I was able to channel my faux-scholarly impulses into modern American history, and a fascination with the Beats and other controversial American literature and culture that’s popular in a sort of hipster sense. I got comfortable talking about sex, and studying sexuality became not only a vehicle for answering my troubling questions about my own identity, it became a way to fill classmates and roommates and other innocent bystanders with an amused interest in the scandalous that was as close as I seemed capable of coming to popularity. I managed to be socially acceptable, but in a way that most of my attention came from people wanting answers to questions—about their math homework, their Latin translations, or even things like sex and drugs that I don’t actually know nearly as much about as I let on.

But college, now, is starting to become a synthesis of all these things. I have never been so single-mindedly radical as I feel right now, or as the past few weeks have desired me to be. And yet my nerdiness, lain dormant for the past several years, is beginning to flourish again. Living in silly faux-gothic 19th-century buildings, and having friends whose cultural literacy exceeds mine, makes me want to rekindle my Anglophilia and my youthful exuberance for military history and dead languages. It’s starting to become a challenge, too: I was looking at study-abroad programs in France and England, and thinking that it’s going to be challenging to go abroad in Europe while still majoring in modern American history, which is what I think I intend to study. I find the tea-drinking, blazer-wearing, borderline-pretentious part of me to be at times at odds with the part of me that writes and rants with anger in my voice and knows Part I of “Howl” off by heart. I can’t uphold conservatism and radicalism at the same time, nor do I want to.

But I think this is the paradox of basically any clichéd retro student, and maybe it’s why I like aspiring to this stereotype. When I was a kid I loved the boarding-school novels and movies about boys who rebelled against the status quo while wearing coat and tie. Trust me, it’s a genre—and I devoured it, perhaps for more reasons than the one I’m describing, which I needn’t go into now, but if I can effect change while being a pretentious git who knows a lot of trivia, so much the better.

And what’s more, I think this is still a way of rebelling. Because my school is still Princeton, not some idealized, Americanized, Oxbridge fantasy. Princeton in reality has a very intellectual academic layer, but its social layer at times is positively anti-intellectual. It is almost, I think, a form of rebellion to be the student who actually does the 600 pages of reading per week, and who cares, and tries to balance too many other writing commitments besides. And, nevertheless, the resurgence of my youthful posturing has not been so absolute that I don’t go to Terrace every week or two, that I don’t still devour anything that’s shocking and controversial, and that my hippie tendencies haven’t been obliterated. In fact, I think I’m more “me” than I ever was, because in college it is increasingly possible to find people who will “get” you, whatever “you” is, and you don’t have to mold yourself into something that folks will understand.

I titled this post “On Being Older” because it was my birthday yesterday. I’m 19 now, which seems so much older than 18, so much farther over the threshold into legal adulthood, so much more of a collegiate age. And while 19 means that I can drink in Canada, and buy cigarettes in New Jersey, it also means that I am continuing that oh-so-very-collegiate process of who I am, how I present, and what I want folks to take away from the concept of “Emily Rutherford.”

My self-thesis of the day about a week ago was that I’m so glad I wound up at Princeton, and not at a hippy-dippy liberal arts college, because I think it’s important in my life right now to have something to rebel against. I tend to define myself by what I’m not, by whom I am and am not aligned with, and I think the resurgent Anglophilia is as much a part of that as is all the writing and ranting. I’m still figuring out how it all goes together; what sort of person I’m going to be, really. But I guess I’ve got time. Nineteen really isn’t all that old after all.

What marriage means to me

I got an email yesterday from Equality California, an organization that is fighting to overturn Proposition 8. Those of you who know me might be aware that this is a ballot initiative whose outcome I was very invested in, and whose passage reawakened in me the desire to do something about my country and make it the sort of place I want to grow up and raise children in. In any case, this email asked me to tell three people who might not otherwise be sympathetic to marriage equality what marriage means to me. Now, everyone in my family, and all the friends who I talk to on a regular basis, are pretty liberal, so I think the closest I can get to fulfilling Equality California’s request is to hold forth on the Internet. So.

You know, the funny thing is, I don’t even see marriage as something at all relevant to me. I’m pretty cynical about Long-term Committed Relationships and Me. I don’t envision marriage as something in my future. Furthermore, I find myself appreciating, in a lot of ways, how the LGBT community has led the way in breaking down the traditional marriage paradigm. I don’t think a formal long-term monogamous relationship is necessarily the right way for every couple to exist, and I don’t think it should be held up as a higher moral good than any other form of sexual and/or romantic commitment. I actually often have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of marriage, especially when it’s put front-and-center in LGBT rights campaigns, because it reeks to me of assimilation. It’s almost as if the mainstream of the LGBT movement feels that the only way to create a future where queer folks are treated fairly is if they try to emulate the domestic habits of what my history of sexuality professor calls “institutionalized heterosexuality.” And I don’t think that’s true at all.

But. But. But just think about what marriage means in this country (which is America, for you foreign readers, but it probably means many of the same things in your countries too). It means security and stability for your children, if you choose to acquire any. It means all sorts of legal headaches erased or made much less painful, from taxes to green cards. It means hospital visitation rights. It means, most basically, public validation that your relationship deserves and has the right to exist. And we (as the queer community) can choose not to play that game; we can choose to say that we reject the outdated and inherently inequitable institution of marriage (if you do believe it to be outdated and inherently inequitable, that is). But on the other hand, reality for a lot of people is keeping their kids safe, keeping each other safe, and just living day to day. Not everyone wants to struggle through their lives just to make a social point. And we should respect that too.

The fact is that marriage is an item—a really big item—on the very long list of things that LGBT folks are denied in America. And yeah, there are some other things I would definitely like to see worked on: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Employment discrimination. Bullying and harassment in schools, and sex ed that generally ignores the existence of LGBT kids. Simple visibility and loudness and outness, teaching folks that there is nothing shameful or wrong about the nature of the people whom you’re attracted to or about the identity you were born with. Just making it clear that queer folks exist and that everyone probably knows at least one. Yeah, those are all hugely important things. Maybe they rank above marriage.

But the way I see it, that doesn’t change the fact that California granted LGBT couples—and the queer Californian kids like me who would like to think that their state cares about their future—a very basic right, and then snatched it away. When I visited home in the last week of October, right before the election, I drove down my street and saw Yes on 8 signs on the lawns. I would see my neighbors, out washing their cars or playing with their kids, and think about how these people who live all around me, and their kids who went to the same schools I did, do not believe that I should have the same rights that they enjoy. And that, to me, is inexcusable.

So, I guess, that’s what marriage means to me. It means, whatever you believe about the institution itself, a basic sense of recognition and validation from your government. It means that your government grants you the right to exist. And, really, is that too much to ask?

UPDATE: That Equality California email was linked to an awesome campaign called Tell 3, which everyone should totally get on board with. The ACLU blog has more.

“Too Extreme”

I often identify as a political radical—or at the very least a liberal. I’m not into this whole wishy-washy “progressive” label, and I’m interested in making my opinions known and arguing back against moderatism and conservatism, especially here at Princeton, where such views are rampant and it’s not cool to be a leftist at all. Because of this tendency, I’ve had the word “extreme” used to describe my writing at least a couple times in my time here. And I could see where it showed through today, when I responded to some things other folks I know had written, so I’d like to share those things here. You can tell me if I’m “too extreme.”

First, replying to a comment someone left on Facebook about the non-feminist Obamas post. She said that she didn’t entirely see the connection between the whole chastity thing and growing up to be strong, independent women, and this is what I said:

I’m definitely not knocking religion for religion’s sake—some of religion’s effects can be very positive. I also don’t have any problem with chastity and abstinence if they’re independent choices free of the cultural pressures that actually do get associated with them when they’re philosophies impressed upon kids in our schools and in our society. The effect is a subliminal one, to be sure, but it’s also one that is teaching our kids—and particularly our girls—that sex is not something they can own and that they can deal with, and is something they should repress. That’s not healthy, that’s not any way to be a teenager realistically, and it also often accompanies a message in particular that discourages girls and young women from owning their own sexuality. That, to me, is a dangerous thing. The trappings of the abstinence movement—like abstinence pledges, and purity rings and balls, do little more than peer-pressure a lot of teenagers, particularly girls (who have enough problems as it is owning their sexualities), into hiding from and remaining ignorant of a part of themselves that isn’t going to go away. Instead, these aspects of our youth culture should be teaching girls much more than just abstinence, so that they’re well-informed enough to make the choice for themselves. But that’s not something our current pop-culture icons, like the Jonas Bros. and Twilight, are very well-equipped to do. In the case of what I mentioned above, I only hope the Obamas are balancing those icons’ messages with messages of their own about the freedom their daughters have.

Then, commenting on a blog post by one of my Princeton peers, who said that she isn’t down with modern feminism:

Ummm… I really think you’ve kind of misrepresented feminism there. One can’t trust “popular opinion,” you know, because I don’t think there’s anything that suggests that feminism is reverse chauvinism.

If you look carefully, there’s sexism all around us in our culture: women do not earn equal pay for equal work, their sexualities and their family choices are stigmatized, it’s considered acceptable to call Hillary Clinton a cunt and a bitch and not get reprisals for it, etc. I myself have been a victim of sexism so many times in my life that I’ve lost count. It’s fucked me up and it’s angered me and there’s nothing to do but fight back.

That’s what feminism is about: fighting back. It’s about striving for that equal place in society that every woman deserves to have; it’s about political goals like reproductive rights and equal pay, but it’s also about social rights like fighting back against sexual harassment, the pressure on women to be chaste and desexualized, and the negative, hurtful comments one hears every single day just because one has breasts and a vagina.

These are the same things Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan were fighting for. I don’t think anyone really sees sex in and of itself as a political act–but the decision to have sex made as a free choice, against the societal pressures that say that women should be meek and submissive? Sex that celebrates a woman’s freedom to decide when and where and how and with whom she can have sex? That’s a powerful notion indeed.

And one last thing: what’s wrong with rejecting the male-female binary? Binaries are all around us in life and they’re destructive and hurtful. This particular one says “if you’re a man, you have to behave like this; if you’re a woman, you have to behave like that.” It tries to neatly pigeonhole every single person into two categories. But that’s simply not true! I’m sure you don’t fit into every single aspect of the “what a woman is” stereotype, any more than I do, or than most of the men we know fit perfectly into the “what a man is” stereotype. Furthermore, there are people who legitimately cannot be classified as one of two genders: transgender and genderqueer people certainly do not fall within those neatly divided lines, and their concern is a very, very legitimate one.

I am a feminist because I have no place in my life for anyone who tries to tell me who and what I can do and be just because I have a vagina. I’m fighting back against all the people who have tried to do that to me all my life, and I’m making my own place in the world, with my own choices. I’m celebrating every day my freedom of choice, and I make sure no one takes that freedom away from me.

Now please, tell me how the right to be treated fairly constitutes being “out-of-whack.”

I’d like to think it’s good for me to get a little riled up before lunch, but that aside, I’m a very proud and very active feminist (if you couldn’t tell by the first few posts on this blog, in which I appear to be typecasting myself). With all due respect to the two commenters I replied to (I honestly do appreciate hearing their views! I just respectfully disagree), it does get me angry when young women who are my age with a lot of the same privileges and upbringing as I had do not see this insidious, harmful force that I see all around us. I see a need to fight back, every day of my life. I see a constant struggle. But maybe that’s just me being too extreme?

Thoughts on the Inauguration

I can’t tell you how excited I am about January 20, this momentously important day, one of the most historically significant days in my short lifetime. But as much as I am excited, I have been troubled: reconciling, for example, Rick Warren, and the censorship of Gene Robinson with all the optimism I have about the beginning of our new president’s term.

What I’ve realized, though, is that for me it’s not so much about Obama as it is about not being Bush. Obama’s a centrist. I’m presumptuous enough to call myself a radical leftist. But Obama in the White House means that moderate views, not far-right neoconservative ones, will become the law of the land. If that means a restoration of the (centrist) principles of the Constitution, I can live with that—even if it means that same-sex marriage will still be illegal, we’ll still be pro-Israel, anti-Muslim hawks, and the war on drugs will continue. Even if those things remain the same in the next four and eight years, if President Obama means that no one will be tortured in the name of my “freedom” I can live with that. If I can go abroad without practicing my Canadian accent, I can live with that.

I’m hoping most of all that this administration will reverse some of the damage done by Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. A couple weeks ago, while walking by the security checkpoint on my way out of Newark (“Liberty” International) Airport, I saw one of those body scanner machines the ACLU warns about. And my eyes widened and I thought what I would do, the next time I flew out of Newark, if they asked me to go through one of those machines. Would I refuse on principle? Would they let me fly? What would happen? Would it be worth my safety to put up a fight? Which option, active or passive, would allow me to better retain my dignity?

Anyway, the reason I’m optimistic about tomorrow is that, even though I know it won’t bring some of the policy developments I’m most passionate about, it will bring a basic sense of dignity back to the White House. I’m pretty confident about that. And things won’t change immediately, and I’ll definitely keep protesting the things that don’t, but I hope that slowly I can forgive America for how it’s betrayed me.

I read Allen Ginsberg’s poem “America” out loud to myself last night. I had never thought very deeply about the lines, before, and I realized that all of it—and especially the last stanza—expresses something of how I feel about my country. This is how that poem ends:

America you don’t really want to go to war.
America it’s them bad Russians.
Them Russians them Russians and them Chinamen. And them Russians.
The Russia wants to eat us alive. The Russia’s power mad. She wants to take our cars from out our garages.
Her wants to grab Chicago. Her needs a Red Readers’ Digest. Her wants our auto plants in Siberia. Him big bureaucracy running our fillingstations.
That no good. Ugh. Him make Indians learn read. Him need big black niggers. Hah. Her make us all work sixteen hours a day. Help.
America this is quite serious.
America this is the impression I get from looking at the television set.
America is this correct?
I’d better get right down to the job.
It’s true I don’t want to join the Army or turn lathes in precision parts factories, I’m nearsighted and psychopathic anyway.
America I’m putting my queer shoulder to the wheel.

The inauguration tomorrow, America, makes me want to put my queer shoulder to the wheel.

Upon the end of the year

It’s that time of year again.

At the end of every year, I try to identify how I’ve changed and grown, what I’ve learned and experienced. Sometimes it’s revealing, sometimes not; I’ll leave you to judge whether my self-indulgence is relevant to anything besides myself.

In terms of momentous circumstances, I think we all know that no year holds a candle to 2008. The election season and its aftermath are testament to that. To come of age in this year of all years has been incredible indeed. I’m still a cynic about The Establishment, but how wonderful that I cast my first presidential ballot in a year when my cynicism could be tempered somewhat. Like, I suspect, many other people, I hope I will always remember where I was at 11:00pm on November 4, 2008, made all the more special because that experience, and the previous several months spent blogging the whole run, were something I owned, as an individual on the brink of adulthood.

That “brink of adulthood” thing is without question the defining aspect of the past year. I usually count the passage of time in terms of academic years, so it’s important to note that this calendar year covered two: part of the last year of high school and part of the first year of college, with an interesting and difficult transition period between. In these two years that make up 2008, I have gone from rebel to “progressive” to rebel again; I have made fabulous new friends and ceased to speak to old ones; I have held something like three jobs with varying degrees of success; I have received my high school diploma, something I sometimes thought I would never do; I have established a foothold in a paradise I alternately love and hate, where I refuse to be part of the blend of freshman anonymity. I’ve cast my first two ballots, opened my first bank accounts and written my first checks, and made my first home away from my parents. I’ve been through quite a few other firsts, too, which are no less important (and perhaps more so), but about which it would be unseemly to write in such a public forum. It’s all been part of the initial–and largest–step in this ongoing project where I take responsibility for my own life and actions. Where I become an adult.

There are so many days I would like to remember from 2008. My birthday party in February; the first Scripps Ranch People’s School I hosted in March; my prom in May and my high school graduation in June; the graveyard shift I worked at the movie theater the night The Dark Knight came out in July; the 10 days I spent alone in my house in August. And then every Nass meeting; every Master’s Tea in Rocky; every Saturday night in Terrace; the crazy night I watched the sun rise; a week spent defending Princeton’s sidewalks; my Princeton Thanksgiving; and the wonderful times I had with friends in San Diego just last week. It all makes me so optimistic for 2009. I have much to look forward to, be it my classes next semester, whatever summer internship I (hopefully) land, my first summer in British Columbia at legal drinking age, or so many more joyous times that I’ll write down so that I remember them forever. 2009 may be an oddly-numbered year, which I find unsettling, but its promise is indescribable.

I do have a New Year’s resolution, and it’s a very serious one, so I’d like to share it in the hopes of inspiring others to adopt a similar resolution. You see, I began to call myself an activist again after Princeton Prop. 8; when I saw Milk in the Loews theater in the Village on the Saturday after Thanksgiving, I was inspired as to how I might live up to the label. The message of Milk that resonated most with me is that it is not acceptable to hide oneself. The bravest thing–and still the most essential thing–that someone can do is to be “out,” in whatever sense you want to ascribe to the word. For Harvey Milk, it was being out as gay, the sense we usually ascribe to it, and it was refusing to compromise who he was for the sake of safety or ease. That’s a powerful idea, and it strikes me how so often we hide who we are, what we desire, what we value–out of fear or out of shame.

My New Year’s resolution is to never hide again. It’s a challenging task, to be sure, but if I can resolve not to lie about or misrepresent myself, if I can resolve not to be ashamed of anything I am, if I can live my life without apologizing for it, if I can stop being scared of what “people” will say or do, then we will all be that much closer to a world where no one need be afraid to say and be who they are. That, I have begun to believe, is how we’ll achieve peace and equality: by not compromising a single shred of our identities.

I usually end these things with a word of thanks, and so I’d like to thank friends: in San Diego, in Princeton, and scattered around the globe. You are my rocks and my mainstays and the people with whom I most look forward to spending 2009.

The best of the holiday season and the new year to everyone.

Gender and Presentation

I live in the Orange Bubble now. It’s what we call Princeton, that mystical land shielded from all politics except the most cultured debates; from socioeconomic class differences and extreme disadvantage; from care or worry or really any of the problems that plague the majority of Americans, especially in these challenging financial times. Any permeability in the Bubble, in the sameness of never having to worry about anything except occasionally academics, is shocking. It is, rather embarrassingly, such a stark contrast that departing from the Bubble causes days’ worth of contemplation. But I intend, here, to talk about not the effects of the economic crisis or even the nature of Princeton’s atmosphere of gross entitlement. I intend to talk about another, to me more surprising, aspect of the Orange Bubble.

I wrote in high school about “my life as a guy,” my constant quest to balance my baggy sweatshirts and short haircut with the boobs and womanly curves underneath. More often than not, this was a mental and psychological challenge, trying to decide how I wanted people to perceive me. Sometimes I found that this made it easier to be accepted in certain, particularly all-male, social circles; more often than not my presentation was and is just an expression of how I feel most at ease. But that usual ease didn’t erase the fear I felt, for example, whenever I entered a women’s restroom, lest my right to be there be questioned or lest I simply be screamed at in alarm.

I still have very serious and confusing questions about my gender identity, but since coming to Princeton, things have changed. I no longer fear to enter the women’s restroom, because no one’s screamed at me all semester; I no longer get double-takes when I wear a tie to a function. For all its conservatism and traditionalism, Princeton students are surprisingly unfazed by a girl doing her level best to look like she isn’t one.

That may be a testament, though, to the circles I travel in more than it is to Princeton as a whole. There are more folks here who are “tuned in,” as my mother would say; who are used to seeing and interacting with young people who aren’t too into the gender binary. And they’re easy for me to find, whether through LGBT groups or in the less-labeled, though alternative, aspects of the undergraduate social scene; or among graduate students and faculty, all of whom certainly have encountered many of the “nontraditional” among their own number. But whatever it says, whether about college, about Princeton, or about the friends I’ve made here, I no longer expect the criticism that I don’t take enough care to look attractive to boys, nor my fellow teenagers asking me outright what my gender is. I no longer, most importantly, even think too much to myself about how I present. When I went to see a Broadway play last month, for example, I wore a skirt, sweater, and boots, easily the most feminine I’ve dressed since my high school prom. On the other hand, last night, I wore a tie just for the hell of it. It’s easier, in this college world, to go back and forth, and to avoid getting entangled in massive identity crises in the process.

Imagine the striking nature, then, of such remarks when they do come, out of context as they are. It was jarring last night, for example, when I was having a conversation with some fellow members of my residential college. I mentioned east-coast standards of dress, and how I’d asked my parents to get me collared shirts for Christmas, so that I wouldn’t feel quite so underdressed all the time in my California sweatshirts and cargo pants. A girl, apparently quite taken aback, exclaimed something along the lines of, “But guys wear collared shirts!” I didn’t quite know what to say, so unused am I by now to the sense of constantly challenging expectations that pervaded my last two years of high school. I looked down at myself, dressed in jacket and tie on that particular occasion, and wondered. I saw this girl often, in the dining hall–had she noticed me? Had she registered at all how I dress, how my hair is cut, how I sit with my knees apart and laugh loudly? Or maybe–and this was the particularly jarring bit–I really am ultra-insulated, in a sort of Rainbow Bubble within the Orange one, if you will, where gender norms are defied daily and everyone has the language of theory to talk about it. Maybe, I realized, people are just more polite at Princeton, and maybe most are as traditionalist as the kids in my high school who didn’t know how to react when a girl asked for guys’ sizes in t-shirts and PE clothes.

I still don’t know what purpose my presentation serves, gender stereotypes being as they are a societal construct. What statement do I mean to make with my appearance and my mannerisms? Am I just being a provocateur, or am I being me? How much of that would I sacrifice not to feel afraid of the constant challenges and confusion that I’m paranoiacally starting to anticipate again? Or is there, perhaps (the conclusion I’m now reaching) an educative purpose to all this? Can something be gained from telling a girl in my residential college that I prefer to wear collared shirts, even if they’re considered a “male” clothing item? Can I consider it an achievement to respond matter-of-factly to all the teenagers’ challenges?

But if I’m still confused as to where exactly this leaves me and my sartorial choices, I know a few things. I write this now on a plane back home to San Diego, a city in a state that I haven’t seen since Proposition 8 passed in November. And I think about what I said and wrote, when that happened, about the need not to hide anymore. As I said many times in the weeks after the election, the past few years of the gay rights movement, and the marriage equality movement, have relied on normalizing. The idea is to demonstrate that queer folks are just like straight folks, and therefore non-threatening; that everyone wants a house and a yard and two kids and is, if not conservative, at least not radical. Not question-inducing. Not different. But I think what happened in California indicated that our future lies in confronting and embracing difference. On a very small scale, my ability to always walk into the restroom of my choice without any girls screaming depends on doing it often enough, and putting up with the screams, until it eventually becomes commonplace. That, in our own ways, is what any of us have got to do to get ahead in this world.

On Thanksgiving

At Thanksgiving, privileged people like me are meant to talk about how thankful we are that we are so fortunate. And I am thankful for that. Even as I had one of the most fun Thanksgivings of my life, I awoke this morning to read the news of the terrible terrorist attacks in Mumbai that killed so many people. Believe me, I’m fully aware of how fortunate I am.

But what I’d like to talk about most of all is how this Thanksgiving represents how well I’ve adjusted to my university community. I sit here, the most privileged of the privileged, able to attend what is arguably the best university in the country, lacking for nothing. And yet the first several weeks of my experience at this university were frankly harrowing. I went through a week of being terribly sick that effectively put me in hospital (well, it was McCosh, but still) and a minor nervous breakdown that got me seeing a psychiatrist regularly. My parents paid for an unscheduled trip home. I couldn’t manage the enormous volume of work. I had no friends, no connection to university life, and I was miserable for it. What’s more, I believed that I was only here by virtue of my mother’s degrees a generation ago, that I didn’t deserve my place as much as my classmates did, and that I was an idiot by comparison.

And now look at me this past week. I’ve assisted in organizing a piece of political theater that’s attracted nationwide attention and reawakened the radical in me, as well as the historian of radicalism–which in turn has gotten me interested in history again as a discipline. Through this, I’ve met all sorts of clever, interesting, friendly undergraduates who are so inclusive that I don’t feel insignificantly stupid. The president of the university gave a guest lecture at my seminar on education policy last Tuesday, and through her words I finally realized what I’m doing at Princeton and why I deserve to be here. I no longer am ashamed of my mother and how her past brought me here–and I had a wonderful email exchange with said president on account of it, which led me to only greater faith in the administration of this place. I’m now at the point where, even though my room and the school itself have emptied for Thanksgiving, I can relish having a little time to myself, instead of just being desolately lonely.

The weather was lovely this morning when I woke up late and ventured forth at about 12:30 to find a place to eat on Nassau Street. I walked all the way down the road–so far that I could see a gas station (with gas below two dollars!) in the distance–and spent about an hour ascertaining that the only place open was Starbucks. But it was such a lovely day, and such a pleasant walk, that I didn’t mind. The Starbucks clerk was resolutely friendly, and despite having to work a double shift on Thanksgiving, he said he was having fun. I was cheered by his cheeriness, I drank my hot chocolate, I wrote about a third of an essay, and I beat a very difficult song on Guitar Hero, one I’ve been working at for a good few weeks.

Later in the afternoon, I went to friends for Thanksgiving “dinner” (I put “dinner” in quotes because like all such holiday meals, it didn’t occur anywhere near dinnertime; not because it wasn’t fantastic, because it was). And this, I think, is the bit I’m most thankful of all for. My friends are graduate students, you see, and with all due respect to undergrads, I’m constantly impressed by how intelligent and amusing they are, and thus by how fantastic it is that they do things like invite me to their Thanksgiving. I spent several hours at their house (well, apartment), ate a wonderful meal, played an incredibly intense game of Risk that I didn’t lose entirely, met some of their friends, and had a fantastic time. I couldn’t believe how quickly the time passed, and that I really spent that many hours consistently enjoying myself. I couldn’t believe that some of the people there were a good 10 years older than me, and yet it didn’t so much matter. And, finally, in the past few weeks these folks have been the spark that’s made me decide not only that going to grad school is inevitable for me, it’s what I want to do.

For me, Princeton has become a place where, as President Tilghman confirmed, I belong (no matter how much disgust I may have for certain elements of the student culture), and where I feel like I can do anything. I feel like an independent person who’s capable of working hard and putting out decent product; or walking into Terrace alone and having a good time; or sitting down in an hour and writing a column that gets me praise from the undergraduate intelligentsia of Princeton or the non-profit progressives of Washington; or opening the university community’s eyes to political injustice; or even, most remarkably, having friends. It all makes me feel as if when my four years are up and it comes time for the next step, I’m not going to be the loser I always fear I will be. It makes me feel as if I’ll be able to do whatever it is that I worry about–that I’ll get my PhD and get tenure, or get that book published, or be terribly interesting and glamorous, or have a social life beyond an old, dark apartment and a dozen cats.

All this has happened weeks before the end of my first semester. There are seven more of those to go–think about how many other wonderful things could happen.

That is what I am thankful for.