Magic the Gathering Colors and Philosophy

In Magic the Gathering, the colors I play most are White, Red, and Black. I play other colors sometimes (but generally in a deck that has one of those three colors), but those are definitely my favored color. Of all of them White is probably my primary color.

I find exploring the philosophies each color has to be really interesting. (For those who are interested, this article has links to all of the color and dual color philosophy articles on the Magic the Gathering Homepage: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/15.) So, I thought I'd talk about how the colors I play in magic relate to my personal philosophy and views.

I believe that doing the “right thing” is very important. And I believe that the good of everyone is important. I want to work to create an ideal society for everyone. This makes me very White (in the color wheel sense).

Now, Red and Black are the enemy colors of White, so it might seem odd that I play the enemies of my primary color. Isn't it a contradiction? Personally, I don't think so.

I value the good of all, I also value the good of each. While White cares about everyone collectively, it doesn't really care each person wants, viewing it as not nearly as important as the collective good. The problem is this: groups are made up of individuals. And I don't think you can really do what's best for everyone if you don't care about each of them.

That's where Black and Red come in. Black and Red are very individualistic. Red believes in freedom and passion, that everyone should do what they feel, and have the freedom to do so, unrestricted. Black believes in putting its own needs first, that the person who knows best what you want is you.

If you take white's communal mindedness and drive for the good of all, and apply the individualistic principals of black and red, and you can (if you blend it together a bit, rather than seeing it as contradictory), you get a system that is concerned with both the good of the community and the good of each person in it.

Furthermore, White is concerned with what is “right,” whereas Black and Red are concerned with what they want. But what is “right?”

I'm a utilitarian. I believe in doing the most good, least harm. What the correct or “right” action is depends on what will create the largest possible benefit everyone, with the smallest possible cost. (if you want more information about Utilitarianism, there's a great FAQ here: http://www.lri.fr/~dragice/utilitarianism/faq.html)

So, what is the “most good” and the “least harm.” Well, in a lot of situations, the “most good” is what makes people the happiest or most fulfilled, and the “least harm” is what makes them suffer the least. In general, what people want is a good barometer of what will make the happiest and suffer the least (although there are some exceptions—while a drug addict definitely wants more drugs, giving drugs to them will probably cause them more harm in the long run). It would seem, then that allowing people to seek what makes them happy would create quite a bit of good (and therefore often be “right”).

Of course, then comes the part that I disagree with Red and Black on: what happens when those wants conflict? Red and Black would say fight it out and whoever wins gets their way. But this creates a system where the strong frequently trample on the weak. Black and red are fine with that, but it just doesn't seem fair to me. In an ideal world, people would care about the wants of others just as much as their own and if people wanted to competing things, they would work together to consider whether a mutually beneficial compromised could be reached, and if not decide together who should get their way. But we don't live in an ideal world.

That's where white comes in: law and government. The law can mediate these conflicts, and create a system by which they can be resolved. In addition a government can help give the “weak” or disadvantaged some kind of recourse, whether by redistributing resources to those in desperate need of them or by creating systems that prevent people from trampling all over other people. Of course, law can also do the trampling, and that's a problem.

There are some other traits that I share with my chosen colors. I believe in working towards an ideal society (as if this post didn't give that away already), but I also believe in living in reality. In my aims, I very much match up with white, but at the same time, by acknowledging that quite often life isn't good or nice or fair, I can have a very Black mindset. In addition, I believe that emotions are very important, which marks me as red.

In summery: I believe in the good of all (White) and the good of each (Black & Red). I believe in doing the right thing (White) but that each person's wants are important (Black & Red). I believe in working towards an ideal society (White) but living in reality (Black). I also believe in the importance of feelings (Red). To be honest, I'm probably these colors because they're the ones I find most fun to play, but I think blending their philosophies can give a good picture of what I believe.

Hope you found this interesting :).

Crazy little thing called love

Love is fucked up.

 Excuse my language.

I love more than one person. And they all know about it, so I'm not a liar or a cheat. In other words, I'm polyamorous. The thing is, it's really hard to balance everything. I've been asking the people I love and my friends to not get everything they want, so that we all can get a little of what we want, and keep a sustainable relationship. Is this how it works for most people? Increasingly, I find myself sounding like Chejop Kejak from Exalted (who's character quote is "it is necessary"). Everyone has to make sacrifices for relationships to survive. See, there I go again.

I've also recently  taken on more social power on my social group. So I've had to manage all the personality conflicts.

It's funny, because I realize now that I have everything I have ever wanted, and the hardest part is to keep it. And I find my self doing things that I never expected to.

To quote, or perhaps paraphrase Benjamin Sisko, "..and the most damning thing of all is: I can live with it. And I can live with it." I just hope I've made the right decisions.

Oh well, the things we do for love.

Sexualization and Power

So I think I figured something out. Why women feel degraded by sexualized images and men don't. It's about power. When women are sexualized, they feel like power is taken from them, when men are sexualized, they feel like power is given to them.

The problem then, isn't really with sexualization of characters at all. It's about who the sexualization is for.

For the longest time, women's sexuality has been seen as belonging to men. Sexualized women are "eye candy" for men. Why?

And worse than that, if a women does claim her sexual power, she's a bad girl. (See: Madonna/Whore complex). If a woman controls her sexuality, she's dangerous, and not in a "ooh, she's so dangerous, I like that" sort of way.

Maybe some of the sexualized characters in the media do own their sexuality, may they do claim their own personal sexual power. But we are culturally inclined not to see it.

Maybe not seeing it this way is why, at least for the longest time, I haven't been bothered by sexualized characters. One of my closest friends is highly sexual, and she owns her sexuality. Although she's not perfect (nor are any of us), that idea that your sexuality belongs to you, is a positive message to me, and in that way she inspires me. When I think of sexualized characters in my head, I see someone like my friend, someone who is proud of her body, someone who claims self-ownership. She does not flaunt her body because she is told to by society, nor because it gives her power over other people's desires, although she is free to enjoy that other people enjoy her body. She flaunts it because she is proud of it. She loves herself, and is confident and strong.

I know this isn't what most people see, and when I look at sexualized characters the way they do, it bothers me a little bit too. The idea that women are stripped of their agency that way. My body is my own. It doesn't exist for the benefit of someone else, although if I want to use it to give them pleasure, it is my right to share it with them. And if both (or more) of us enjoy it, there is nothing shameful or wrong about that. And that doesn't take the power of my body away from me, nor does it take it from my partner. As consenting adults, instead it allows us to share in each other's personal glory. To claim and enjoy our bodies. And to feel empowered within our selves. At least that's what sex should be, I think.

So, maybe, just maybe we don't need to get rid of sexualization, we need to own it.

Sexual Harassment & Flirting

When I was in high school, I was sexually harassed.

The first day of school, I had to move seats in my free period because a guy kept trying to get me to go out with him despite me saying know. He said things like "I have a car." People came up to me and said, with a laugh, "my friend" (who I had never met before) "likes you." A guy in my English class called me his "Passionate Lover" despite the fact that I had no interest in him and asked him to stop repeatedly. Another guy in my English class tried to pretend (jokingly) that he was my boyfriend. I moved seats then too.
They made me feel like there must be something wrong with me. That clearly if wanting to date me is such a joke, I must not be someone anyone would want to date. They made me uncomfortable with sexuality and my own body. I felt a little sick after these things happened

In college I was flirted with.

The man I would later marry shared my interests, and talked to me about things we both liked, like puns and British humor. He said I was beautiful. He joked with me, and not about me, and treated me like a person. He waited at the top of the wheelchair ramp in the library while I rolled my over-sized back pack up it, because it wouldn't go up the stairs. He found me attractive, and yet treated me with respect.
He made me feel like I was wanted. Like I was special. Like I was beautiful.

This is the difference.

Some more feminism stuff

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com

I need feminism because I am not less worthwhile because I have a husband, a boyfriend, and a girlfriend (and I am honest with each of them).

Am I a bad feminist?

Looking a my last post I worry that I'm a bad feminist. I do believe in feminism. I do believe in equal rights. I guess I would call myself a "sex positive feminist." Am I a bad feminist because I like looking at attractive women and don't find anything wrong with it?

On Objectification and Gaze

Okay, so I've been reading a lot about feminism recently, and I've heard a lot about the concept of Objectification and Male Gaze.
Let's talk about objectification first. I am a bisexual woman. I find both men and women attractive, and what's more I think it is entirely possible to see someone as attractive and even admire that person's attractiveness without treating them like an object. I'll use an example:

Catwoman, the Dark Knight Rises

Catwoman is very attractive in that, er, catsuit. She is also an interesting character with a story all of her own. When I see her as attractive, am I reducing her to a object? Personally I don't think so. I can look at her character as a person with a personality, feelings and flaws and also admire her attractiveness. I found some shots of her quite attractive, but I also found her story compelling. Why are these mutually exclusive? They're clearly not amongst real people, so why should they be for characters?

Another weird thing: I don't think I've ever heard a man complaining about feeling objectified. Why is that? My Mom gets pictures of shirtless guys on her birthday cards all the time. Twilight (say what you will about it's literary quality) is pretty much purple prose about how attractive a vampire guy is. And yet, I haven't heard any guy say that they feel objectified because of it. Why is that? When women often find portrayals of women objectifying?

That said, seeing people as mere objects of sexual pleasure is bad. I don't have a problem with people having sex for pleasure, nor do I subscribe to the idea that there is only one, or two, or whatever ways to have sex. If people want to have one night stands for pleasure, as long as they respect themselves and their partner, that's fine. Respect means seeing them as a person, and treating them that way. And I think that finding someone sexually attractive does not violate that tenant.

Next on Male Gaze: the idea of male gaze is that women in fiction are often presented as they are seen by men. Meaning focus on parts that would be looked at by men--breasts, butt, legs. The problem is this: I'm a bisexual woman. I like looking at attractive women too.

I think "Female Gaze" is growing in our media (see: Twilight, as mentioned above), but yes, examples of it are rarer than examples of Male Gaze. I think equal opportunity fanservice is probably a good idea. But I don't think it's (a) possible, or (b) right to try and get rid of all sexualized or attractive imagery in our media. Should we be bombarded with it everywhere? No. But is it okay, even wanted, sometimes? Yes.

Now, I have a lot more to say about sex, but I think I'll finish up this blog and post another one on some more topics.

Edit: Reading some stuff, I worry that I might have not said some things I mean to say: While it is alright to find people attractive, it is not alright to disrespect them because of it. Most people aren't comfortable with catcalls, etc. There is a fine line between flirting and sexual harassment. I think I'll talk about this next.