My Proposal for TV Ratings on Anti-Unity Values (AUV) in Gender
Behavior
By
Chris M
Get the instructions to this report at: www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy20/g20lecturenotes409bs/2004/
1.
Preface
Go to Report 2
My second
report was about the daily emotional spin cycle (but my other classmates did a
report on “Mapping the Threefold Self in Gender Relationships”). It was a way in which we could measure our
reactions and emotions in doing a certain activity that we do everyday (i.e.
driving, studying, going to school or work, etc.). This was one of the ways in which we could
become more aware of our own feelings, thoughts, and actions, otherwise known
as the threefold self. The threefold
self involves three aspects of a person’s personality: the affective (feelings),
cognitive (thoughts), and the sensorimotor (actions), which all affect our
emotions. Then, we used a technique
called bridging, in which we would try to shift our negative emotions into
positive ones.
In doing this report, I found that that
the threefold self is in constant movement with each other (hence the word
“spin,” or “cycle”)—they are all interconnected and are working together. I don’t believe these three things can be
separated. For the affective self
affects, or rather controls, both the cognitive and sensorimotor self, so this
is how they are all interconnected. I
think that the emotional spin cycle can make a person more aware of their own
behavior and help them change negative feelings, thoughts, and actions into
positive ones, for that reason the bridging technique can be very helpful. You
can find out more information at: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/leonj/leonpsy16/g16reports-instructions.html.
This third report is about Anti-Unity
Values (AUV) on television. Anti-Unity
Values are values that do not promote gender unity, but rather gender disunity. We probably see these values (i.e. lying to
each other—deception, not listening to each other, adultery, etc.) played out
in everyday television and media outlets.
I think the purpose of this assignment is to make us more aware of
cultural and social attitudes of gender behavior and relationships in our
society, and to see if they coincide or not with the gender unity model. I think that it is a good way to see what
kind of values we hold as a society and if they move away from gender unity or
stick to it.
2.
Introduction
The Gender
Unity Model, as from my first
report explains, is a model of how a couple can reach unity, and become as
one, using the threefold self: the affective, cognitive, and sensorimotor. These are the three levels of unity, and the
first, or lowest level is the sensorimotor.
This is the level where couples enjoy doing activities with each other
and involves more of the physical aspects of the relationship. This is also considered the dominant area of
the relationship. The second level of
unity is the cognitive level; this stage of the relationship is based upon the
equity model. It is deeper than the
first level and involves what the couple thinks about on many different issues;
if the couple becomes more connected on this level, they can move on to the
third, and highest level, the affective.
This third level is the deepest and inmost level in the gender unity
model. This is where a couple each feel
like they are loved in the relationship and lose the feeling of competition and
conflict. They support each other’s
feelings, desires, and needs; it as if they are one.
Another
classmate describes the threefold self as a way in which couples can reach
unity through the threefold self, and achieve perfect harmony. He then goes on to discuss the threefold
self, which I mentioned above. He says
that the sensorimotor level is based upon the physical contact the couple have
with one another. He also says that the
sensorimotor can be based upon all the interaction the couple have with one another
that is looked at by outsiders, which I found as an interesting way to look
it. He describes the cognitive level as
where a couple can discuss all their feelings with one another and try to
understand each other better. The
affective, as he explains, is when the couple can focus on one another one
hundred percent of the time and reach perfect harmony.
Check out this
report at: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/kent/report%201.htm
Another
classmate wrote that the threefold self, in relation to the gender unity model,
is a way in which couples can form a “unbreakable romantic relationship” by becoming
united. He describes the sensorimotor
level as where the couple uses their sensations, perceptions, and motor acts in
the relationship. This is the external
and basic stage of the relationship. The
cognitive level, as he says, is the level in which we discuss what we think
about many different topics and there is an equal amount of power and
decision-making given to each couple, this is based upon the equity model of a
relationship. Ultimately, this part of
the relationship, as this person says, is a “political power agreement” between
the couple. In the highest level of
gender unity, the affective self, he writes is the inmost level that couple can
reach and is where they are harmonious together. But in order for couple to reach this part of
the relationship, they must abandon the first two models, which is the
traditional-dominant model, and the equity model.
Check out his
report at: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409bs2004/lau_r/report1.htm
I think that
we are usually more able to identify what we think than what we feel; but
women, on the other hand, are better able to identity their own feelings than
men are. Women are also more aware of
their partner’s feelings than they (their partner’s) are themselves. I think that these three levels in a
relationship happens in stages and that they are connected, so we cannot
separate them. But if we reach the
highest level of unity, which is the affective, than we are better able to
improve our sensorimotor and cognitive connections.
3.
Class Oral
Presentations and Lecture Discussion
Oral 1: Topic: Reference
11: “Doctrine of the Wife for Husbands:
A Spiritual Practice for Achieving Unity”
In this oral,
this student discussed the doctrine of the wife, which comes from the Writings
of Emanuel Swedenborg.
Agreement on
ideas of gender unity:
I think this
is related to the gender unity model because in the model the couple’s goal is
to be united as to become one. In this
model a couple tries to become truly conjoint by using the threefold self. In this model, conjugial love has two
principles: the first is called differentiation, and the second is called
reciprocity. In differentiation, no part
of a man is like a woman and no part of a woman is like a man. This means that men and women are built
differently, physically and spiritually, which is called total differentiation
or diversity. The second principle is
called reciprocity. In reciprocity, the
unity increases due to the differentiation of the parts of the male and
female. So, because of the differences
of the sexes they become more unified through reciprocity. Thus, a woman’s parts are built to fit the
man’s, and vice-versa, which makes them more able to reach unity.
I think this
is related to gender unity because it states that a man is more resistant to
this unity. According to this model,
women are more aware of their own feelings and their partner’s, so they have an
easier time in reaching unity; whereas their partner (the male) has a harder
time in being aware of their own feelings that they, at first, oppose
unity. Women are ready to conjoin
themselves to their partner, but their partner refuses in order to keep their
independence. If he wants to be united
with his wife, he needs to give up his power and give in to his wife’s
understandings and decision-making. Basically, he must voluntarily submit his
power to his wife in order to reach unity.
Also, as I
said above, men and women are differentiated from each other, yet
reciprocal. It says that men and women
are born with different things, for example, it says that women and men are
born with different types of intelligences. In this oral, it says that men are
born with wisdom and understanding that they get from the Lord, while a women’s
wisdom is inmost and celestial, which also comes from the Lord. And this is in due to the biological
differences between men and women, and the more differences, the more
united.
Disagreement
on ideas of gender unity:
I am not sure
if this is possible unless they are married for a longtime and know each other
very, very well, or at least trust each other.
I have a couple of questions about this statement: what if the wife is
wrong, does the husband still have to agree with his wife in what they do? Can the wife ever be wrong?
Or what if the
wife decides on something that is unrealistic, like buying a really expensive
home that they cannot afford, what does the husband do? And I think that many of us can get along
even though we may not agree on every single thing, so is this statement really
realistic? I do think that couples
should agree on major decisions but even if a couple does disagree; I believe
that they should have a way of working them out to reach a better understanding
of each other.
I had a couple
of questions with this statement. I was
wondering what the evil tendencies are that we inherit from our parents. Then, it later says that we must overcome
these “evils” by a process called regeneration that has to come from being
“born anew by the Lord’s help,” but what about those who do not believe in the
Lord? Does that mean that they cannot be regenerated, as a result, not being
able to unify?
Oral
2: Topic: Feminine Wisdom (www.newchurchissues.org/wip/MF/mf97es.htm),
Agreement of
ideas on gender unity:
This relates
to gender unity because in the model the couple has a differentiation of parts
but yet reciprocity in physicality and spirituality. Basically, they are
different but they fit. In this oral, it
says that two wisdoms are complementary and conductive towards each other to
form conjugial love, just like in the gender unity model. Because men and women are built differently,
increasing the level of unity, they are complementary towards each other. Its like they must balance each other
out.
A man and a
woman can complement each other in a cognitive and affective way. If the man
realizes that woman’s perceptions of certain situations are to balance his own
perceptions, then he will feel more enriched.
Once they realize that each of them complement each other, they can have
a better chance of reaching unity.
Distinctiveness
is predestined by the lord in order to become conjunctive with each other, and
conjunction is to share what is distinctive with one another. In this oral, it also says that the “husband
is truth and understanding” and the “wife is good and will.” This again attributes to the concept of
differentiation and reciprocity. If they are conjoint in the sensorimotor phase
(traditional-dominance model) and the cognitive phase (equity model), then they
can move on to a higher unity, the affective level, that is only if they lose
the two lesser models, traditional and equity, behind.
Even when the
two sexes are born, they are given different parts. According to this model, women are better
able to recognize their own emotions, as well as their partners, due to their
biological and socialization processes, experiences, interests, and their
mental structure. But men have a harder
time realizing their partner could have better perceptions of his feelings and
motivations than he does, himself. That
is why women have an easier time at unity, since they are already born to
unite, than men, who may, at first, resist it.
Disagreement
of ideas on gender unity:
This statement
is under the word of “Preamble” and it also states that: 1. Equality leads to
unplanned pregnancies, unloved and insecure children, and single parent
families; 2. that there are noticeable consequences in the social and economic
fields. I am a bit confused and have
questions about this statement like what does this exactly mean? And what does
the word “prejudice” mean in context to that sentence? I do not agree that
equality leads to accidental childbirths and such. I might be a bit confused
with the context of this sentence, but I do not agree with it. Is this trying to say that all people born
accidentally are unloved and lead to single parent families? I have grown up in a single parent household
most of my life and never felt unloved, nor insecure.
I do not
disagree with this statement as much as I am confused by it. It says that males are born with intellect,
and with the fondness for knowing, understanding, and becoming wise, whereas
the woman is born with being will-orientated and with the love of joining
herself to the affection of the male.
So, is this statement—where masculine cannot be changed into feminine,
and vice-versa—saying that one can only be born with either these masculine or
feminine traits, and later conjoin these traits with one another?
Oral 3: Reference 12: Chapter 2, Section 4, “The Surrendered Wife vs. the Surrendered Husband” 4/13/2004
Agreement of
ideas in gender unity:
1.
The surrendered
husband
It says that if unity
wants to be reached, the husband must become the “surrendered husband.” This statement relates to the idea of gender
unity because the male (husband) must give up all of his power to his wife in
order to reach unity, thus in a way becoming the “surrendered husband,” but of
course it is his choice to give her his control. If the husband is abuse in anyway,
physically, mentally, emotionally, etc., then this obviously takes away from
gender unity. If the husband is truly
making an effort to conjoin with his wife, then will stop his abusiveness and
learn to love from her. He basically
surrenders his masculine traits, rejecting the dominance-traditional model, and
tries to conjoin with his wife to reach a higher unity—the affective self.
2.
A woman’s
responsibility for reaching conjugial love.
In the gender unity
model, the wife must be responsible in conjoining with her husband to become as
one. The way I understand it is that the
wife becomes the greatest influence for her husband to accept and strive for
unity in their relationship. And since
the Lord gives her the ability of conjugial love, the husband must embrace her
and trust in her abilities to unite into one being.
It also says that women have
more intelligence, wisdom, compassion, and grace than a man; so he may not be
able to, at first, conceive of the idea of conjugial love. But once he trusts
that the Lord gave his wife these abilities, they can form a conjugial
marriage.
Disagreement
of ideas in gender unity:
1.
A complete man
vs. half a man
In this oral, it states
that a man cannot be complete unless he is married, thus making him only a half
a man. I do not fully agree with this
statement because I think it is wrong to say that unless a person, in this
case, a man, is not married then he is less of a human, or man. Is this idea suggesting that the only way a
person maybe truly happy, and become a whole person, is to get married achieve
conjugial love? I don’t think this statement
can be justified to all males, much less females, everywhere. What about those men who say that they are
truly happy but never married? Or divorced but never remarried? I don’t think this statement is fairly
realistic, especially in today’s kind of world.
I believe that there are more fulfilling things that a person can do,
like helping others, to feel like a whole man rather than just getting
married.
2.
Women and
conjugial love
This statement says that
women are intelligent and wise from inside themselves, the Lord, and from
heaven and will do nothing that is contrary to conjugial love. I am not sure if I agree with this statement,
or maybe I just need some clarification on this, but couldn’t there be a chance
that women do things that do not coincide with conjugial love? For example, some women can be very abusive
and abrasive to others, just like males, so what if she is the abuser in the
relationship--maybe not necessarily in a physical way, but maybe in a verbal or
emotional way? Does this not take away
from the gender unity model? And what is a man to do in this kind of situation?
Maybe in general, since
women are ready to conjoin and reach conjugial love, more so than males, they
will not do anything that is contrary to this love, but I don’t think we can
say it is true for all people. What
about those women who are self-abusive (doing drugs, being promiscuous, etc.)
and destroy their own marriage? Does
that not move away from conjugial love?
4.
My Proposal for AUV
Ratings on TV (Anti-Unity Values)
4A. What are AUV Ratings
To explain
anti-unity values (AUV) ratings, first I shall try to explain what anti-unity
values are. Anti-unity values are values
that promote things that depart from gender unity or unhealthy relationships.
For example, some AUVs are making one another jealous, having the idea that men
are more important, lying/deception, promiscuity, etc. So, AUV ratings are ratings that rank how far
away or close couples are in promoting values of unity, mainly on TV shows.
4B. What Procedures I Followed
The procedure
that I followed was to pick television shows that specifically dealt with
couples and their relationships, or something that I saw that seemed to be
related to gender unity and anti-unity.
And then, I tried to compile my own list of what I thought were
anti-unity values from either watching the shows, or what were in all the class
readings that took away from gender unity, and took some from the sample
list. The next thing I did was to create
a scale of how I can measure anti-unity values, so I came up with the idea of
how close or far away the couples were from gender unity.
4C. The Data I Gathered
I gathered
data from a couple of television shows that I like to watch and took
notes. I wrote about what happened in
the show and tried to identify what I thought was an AUV that was being
promoted. Then, I tried to list what the
AUVs were that were shown in TV programs and then gave it a rating. These I guess were my “model” shows that I based
my ratings on, then, later tested it on a different show below in the last
section.
AUV:
Influencing one’s partner by trickery/deception
A partner’s
trickery or deception in the relationship is an anti-unity value because this
falls far away from the gender unity model.
If a partner in the relationship tries to do things by deceit then they
are not fully trying to unite and achieve gender unity. This AUV can tear apart and destroy a
relationship, which can ruin the chance for both partners to reach internal
unity and attain the highest level of unity—the affective. A couple cannot achieve oneness if they are
always trying to hide things from one another.
Although the wife’s thinking is to influence the male, and if he lets
this happen, then can have a greater outcome of attaining unity, but not by
trickery or deception.
TV Show: “The King of
Main
Characters: Doug (husband) and Carrie
(wife)
Summary: In this episode, Doug wants to buy something
from an infomercial but Carrie disagrees, and says something like “do you
remember when we said I would make all the major decisions?” And Doug doesn’t remember, so they go into a
flashback of when they first got married and were looking for a house, for when
this decision was made. So, they look at
the first house—Doug loves it, Carrie hates it—knowing that it is not practical
for them. Then they look at the second house and Carrie loves it and knows that
it is the house for them, but instead, Doug buys the first house without
telling his wife. Basically, in the end
Doug realizes that he was wrong, and they buy the second house.
AUV
observations:
-Making
decision without other partner (going behind partner’s back)
-lying/deceitful
-influencing one’s mate by trickery
-Not listening
to partner
Rating:
4—almost close to gender unity
Evaluation: I gave it a 4 because I thought that in the
end, they gave back the rationality to the woman and she came out as the one
who was right. Although, the husband did
buy the house behind her back, which is an AUV, I thought he later realized
that he was wrong in his decision and finally gave the control to his
wife. So, it showed that the wife was
correct in her decision and the smarter of the two in making the decision for
the other house. And in the beginning
she says that he gave her the power to make all the major decisions in the
house, and in the end he agreed with it, which shows one of the aspects of a
couple trying to reach unity. In the
gender unity model, the male must submit his power to his wife’s
understandings, and the wife is the one that is usually right.
AUV (from my observations): Not
listening to his wife
This is an
anti-unity value because if the husband does not listen to his wife, it takes
away from achieving gender unity. This
breaks down the lines of communication in a relationship, for which a couple
cannot become unified. If the husband
does not listen to his wife, and goes behind her back to do something that he
shouldn’t do, then he is resisting the unity model, and becomes stuck in either
the traditional or equity model. He has
not yet voluntarily submit to her (his wife) if he does not fully listen to
her, or recognizes that she has perceptions of their relationship that promote
unity; if he fails to realize this perception that his wife has, for which he
has not yet achieved, then they cannot become as one and reach total unity of
the threefold self. On the cognitive
level, the husband is to let his thoughts be influenced by his wife, in order
to reach unity. He should try not to
disagree with her, and go along with her thoughts and ideas, if he does not,
then, they cannot move on and go on to the next level.
TV Show: “Frasier” (NBC)
Characters: Daphne (wife) and
Summary: Basically, Daphne gets this psychic vision of
her husband getting hurt at the coffee shop they usually hang out at, and tells
AUV
observations:
-Not listening
to his wife
-lying/deceitful
-going
behind her back
-Not believing
in partner (and questioning it as if she is wrong)
-having separate thoughts than one another
Rating:
4—almost
Evaluation: I gave it a rating of 4 because in the end he
truly accepts her without needing the results of the tests. He accepts that she has psychic visions and
that she was right, and that he was wrong for going to the coffee shop behind
her back—not listening to her. In the end, right before the results were about
to be revealed, Niles is sitting on the couch, a couple of feet away from
Daphne, listening to her talk to the parapsychologist, saying that her being
psychic has always been a part of her—who she is—and has been around from past
generations of women in her family; upon hearing this, Niles says that he
doesn’t need to hear the test results because he believes her, and accepts her
for who she is.
Like in the
gender unity model, he at first disagrees with her, vehemently believing that
his wife is wrong in her visions, but in the end he realizes that he was wrong
and accepts her. I think this shows that
they were not united on the cognitive level but then, he allows for her
thoughts to influence him (in believing that she is psychic) and goes along
with her persistence and requests, reaching a cognitive unity. He pushes his
own feelings of doubt out of the way and makes room for her feelings, thus
reaching towards gender unity. So, they
may later move on to the highest level—the affective level—of their
relationship.
4D. The AUV Scale
I created an
AUV scale on how close one couple was to gender unity. I decided to make a ratings scale from 1-5,
1-being the farthest from unity and 5-being the closet to gender unity. I tried to see if what they did in the show
was an AUV, then, to see if they resolved it and how they resolved the
problem. If I saw that the resolve of
the problem was in working towards gender unity, then I gave it a higher
rating, and if it was not, then I gave it a lower rating. And I also tried to base the decision of what
score to give to the couple on how their relationship is portrayed on the show,
for example, is it a good relationship or a bad one? Have they been together for a long time or
not? Is there always turmoil in their
relationship or not? So, after all that
I finally gave it a rating.
AUV Rating
Scale:
1—not at all close to gender unity
2—kind of/sort of close to gender unity, not quite
3—somewhat to unity
4—almost there
5—totally united
Here are some
of the AUV’s I created from the examples of watching the TV shows:
1. Going behind
partners back in making a decision, or making a decision without the other
partner
2. Not
believing in the partner and questioning decisions
3. Having a
lack of communication
4. They argue
and disagree
5. Lying to one another
6. One-upmanship in a conversation
-And others
from the list
provided by Dr. Leon James in the instructions of this report.
4E. Testing Out the AUV Scale
AUV: Control of female
This is an
anti-unity value because in the gender unity model the woman becomes dominant
in the relationship, whereas the control of a woman falls into the
traditional-dominance model and this is not a way that a couple can reach
unity. Unity maybe reached when the
husband relinquishes his control to his wife.
In the traditional model, the relationship is based cognitively on
traditions and affectively on reward and punishment. This is purely on conjoining on an external
level, which is the sensorimotor level; they are not connected on a cognitive
or affective level. If a couple reaches
unity, their cognitive and sensorimotor interactions are better improved and
are joined within the affective self.
TV show: “Port Charles: Tainted Love” (Soapnet),
Characters:
Since there are so many characters, I will just focus on the main characters
that portrayed AUVs: Caleb (evil groom) and Livvie (the bride).
Summary: Basically, there is a search for this girl
named Livvie by her friends and family in Port Charles. An evil vampire named Caleb wants to marry
her, mistaking her for someone else, so he
kidnaps her. Caleb has put her
under a spell and has her under his control, making her think she is really in
love with him but she has a true love, Jack, who goes to save her from
him. And in order for them (Caleb and
Livvie) to be married she must also become a vampire but before this happens,
her father and Jack storm in to save her (interesting plot, huh?).
AUV
observations:
-Control of
female
-male
dominance
-manipulating
partner through deceptive means
-Selfishness
Rating: 1
Evaluation: I decided to watch this show because the plot
seemed really interesting and different, and since it was a soap opera, I
thought that it would have many anti-unity values. I think that this TV show had many of the
elements that worked towards anti-unity values.
This show had many themes that related to the AUV of controlling the
female, which is more on the traditional-dominance level—the lowest level of
unity (the sensorimotor). Caleb has
Livvie under his control with some kind of spell he put on her, which is a
relationship, from the beginning, that is based on a lie. He also keeps telling her that she needs to
“surrender” to him and his life and that she must enter his world, but in order
for her to do this, she must die first by a bite that is given to her by
Caleb. I find this as selfish because he
just wants her all to himself without giving her a choice, so she must give
into to his needs with disregard to her own needs. But Livvie agrees to this because she is
under a spell, which is a very deceptive way in manipulating a partner.
5.
Conclusion
I am not sure if
this assignment truly helped me in identifying the social and cultural
attitudes in our society regarding gender relationships, but I have realized
that many of the shows that I watch already have some sort of gender unity type
of model intact. By saying this, I mean
that the gender unity model gives the dominance, or leeway, to the woman,
making her out to be the one who is always right and knows what she is doing in
the relationship, and the man seems to not be aware of his own feelings; I
believe that I find this in many TV shows already, especially in sitcoms.
It seems that
the women are always portrayed as the smart ones and always turn out to make
the right decisions in the end, whereas their husbands sometimes do not believe
them and resist their wife’s decision, trying to prove that she is wrong; but
in the end they seem to come realize this and follow along with the wife. It seems that many of the shows, in relation
to social and cultural attitudes in our society regarding gender relationships,
are based on deceit but then, are later solved at the end of each show, for the
most part; but of course our lives are not like sitcoms, where our problems are
solved within a thirty minute timeframe.
One thing that
this assignment has made me aware of is that in reality it is a “man’s world;”
however, it seems like at home, from what is shown on television and such, the
women are the one’s who really run the show at home, anyway. It seems like the man, or husband, would be
lost without the wife, especially, if left with the children. I think this
assignment was a good way to see if there are any parallels of what we learned
in class and what we see on TV, which reflects upon our society, or even our
real lives.
I don’t
believe that my views on social and cultural attitudes in media have changed
from the beginning to the end of this semester.
Nevertheless, it has made me more aware of what a healthy relationship
would be like in regards to the gender unity model. Being fairly liberal, I find that many of
things on TV fit into my ideas about this issue. But sometimes, I think that
there is too much emphasis on sex and not enough on the relationship, getting
away from the gender unity model.
I am not sure
how gender unity will be portrayed in the future but I think it will still
mainly be based on the equity model, or the cognitive level in the gender unity
model. I personally don’t see the
portrayal of gender unity changing all that much from what I see today. I think that there are many ways that people
deal with things in their relationships; television tries to show how couples
deal with certain problems that can arise in life. So, I do not think that there is one ultimate
way a person can reach unity within their relationship.
6.
Future Generations
To the future
generations, all I have to say is hang in there because it gets easier,
somewhat. Trying to learn about the
topics we covered this semester and learning how to upload reports was very
much a battle for me. First, I have
never heard of these topics, which were sometimes very hard to understand, and
second, I had no idea of how to upload reports online but after awhile it got a
little easier, for me anyway. I think
once you get used to doing reports this way, it gets easier, even though
frustrations flare-up once in awhile. I
remember while doing my first report, I was thinking how am I going to get
through this class? Will I make it? But I did. I think I learned a lot in this class about
the gender unity model and about uploading, creating a web page, FTPs, and
other such things, which was an adventure all in itself.
I think that
it helps if you read the lecture notes over and over again that Dr. James puts
up, so the information gets ingrained into your memory. I found this very helpful in doing my reports
and when we would have class discussions. Also, I think the past generational
reports are fairly helpful too. I think that if you get through the first
report, then the next couple of reports will be much more of a breeze to work
through. The only hard thing about doing
the reports (besides trying to figure out how to upload it) was finding the
information that we needed to relate things to gender unity, since, I believe,
that we are the first class to write about this topic. Thus, all I have to say is don’t give up
because it does become easier, maybe not trouble- or frustration-free, but
easier.
Go
back to: