We invited our guest on LIFEChanges With Filippo last night because he is an international, multi-media artist creating sacred geometric artwork that resonates with the energy of pyramids and temples around the world. This is a fascinating topic in itself and one that will take on more and more significance as we start to understand the meaning of art and its effect on our health and environment, as we are beginning to understand the effect of music and noise.
However, during the course of our interview, we came to find out that this man who is sounding brilliant over the phone and speaking about things that I had never heard of, at a level that I was having a hard time keeping up with, was and is still, dyslexic, and that he was teased as a child for being weird and he used to cut classes because he couldn’t stand the teasing.
This reminded me of a really practical and would-be funny situation, if children’s daily emotional lives and physical beings weren’t at stake. To bring the point home, I was recently speaking to a man who is a designer and who designs dresses that are worn by celebrities and thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of women alike. He is in the business of helping women feel “pretty,” and arguably, they do, in his dresses. Since he works under a brand name that millions of women know, his own name is not famous, though it is synonymous with the brand. If women knew what brand he designs for, they would treat him like a rock star and undoubtedly have stories for him of memories of how they spent their first dates in his dresses or other special, similar moments of significance.
The point being, that this man was teased as a child, no end. He had a horrific childhood full of abuse and torture by the other children and even by adults because he is and was a homosexual and because he boarders on effeminacy. First of all, who is to say what a male is, does, should be, should look like etc.? What is the definition of a male? Scientifically, according to biology-online.org, the main definitions of a male are
1. Of or pertaining to the sex that begets or procreates young, or (in a wider sense) to the sex that produces spermatozoa, by which the ova are fertilized; not female; as, male organs.
2. (Science: botany) Capable of producing fertilization, but not of bearing fruit; said of stamens and antheridia, and of the plants, or parts of plants, which bear them.
Though there are typical or stereotypical definitions of male characteristics, the actual biological distinction is very clear and is the only thing that is clear. The rest is just sociological or cultural bias. For example, I remember learning how advertisers and makers of home kitchen products successfully put out the image in the mainstream consciousness that a “real” woman, was a woman who stayed home and cooked and baked with their kitchen products. Then when WWII broke out, and all hands were needed on deck to produce war materials, women were depicted in advertising as doing jobs formally known as “men’s” jobs. No longer was the “real” woman supposed to stay at home, the “real” and patriotic and modern woman would be the one working in a factory making war materials.
The truth of who a woman as an individual is, and the individual expression of each woman or desire to express themselves thereof, never changed, only the public perception was swayed. Interesting how I would bet that women who wanted to work in factories before it became “fashionable” were criticized for their desire to do so.
And so with men, what could be more prejudicial than to stereotype and classify men according to their traits, or better yet, judge them as unfit for society and tease them. Going back to our subject, this particular man, or designer, undeniably, is celebrated and a contributing member to society and serving in a big way, in the way, that women feel the need to be served at the moment. As a rule, no one makes fun of our subject anymore. Maybe it’s because we have grown up, and as adults we tend to look at these things less, or we keep it to ourselves, or because we see his value. All this is arguable, but one thing that is not, is that the needs of this man to be accepted and respected and loved for who he was were not met as a child, and society paid him a disservice.
But if we could see how much that disservice actually cost the society at the time, maybe this issue could be solved, if not by love, compassion, understanding and non-judgement, then by simple “economics” as it were. The gifts that this man has with creating “works of art” in fashion, are not gifts that all of a sudden got downloaded to him as an adult. One could say that they were born with him, though arguably, not developed. One might also argue that they “come with the territory”… homosexuality… creativity… arts… some say they go hand-in-hand, though is stereotyping and not necessarily the case.
But nonetheless, the argument stands that this man, had gifts as a child that he could have expressed and most likely would have wanted to express. He could have been not only accepted as a child, but a contributing member to his society back then. Arguably, this man/boy, could have served so many young ladies, and helped them with their self-esteem way back in their formative years by having created for them dresses, or arranged their styling for their school close, or date close, or even their prom attire. He could have helped the young men with the same for their date close, or first job interviews, etc.
If clothes were not his propensity, as a child, he might have chosen to use his artistic abilities in decorating the school classrooms for maximum esthetics, painting and beautifying the school walls with murals, writing school plays to be played out by the drama classes or music for the band… all depending on his propensity as an artist. In other words, he could have contributed to the betterment of not only the students, the classroom, but the whole school experience. One can also argue that children having grown up with that kind of acceptance of others, the ability to see how different people have different talents and how each can contribute, and also having benefited from beautiful classrooms, or well decorated floats or event rooms, a sense of “style” given to them by a fellow student for their special occasions, etc. might make for a better, more adjusted, well rounded, more educated, more self-esteemed person, and member or society.
I wonder who would be laughing at whom, and what the bigger joke is? Is it funnier to laugh at someone’s differences and have a bunch of kids falsely feel good about themselves, temporarily, and one or two children feel bad all their life, or is it sad and pathetic? And is it more advantageous for all involved to have everyone feeling good about themselves, for good reason and for everyone to not only accept, but maybe “economically,” take advantage of all of us being different and of each other’s gifts?