
A few years ago, I remember falling to my knees and kissing the living room rug when I heard on a pseudo-news broadcast that Selma Hayek had said during an interview, “I keep waiting to meet a man who has more balls than I do.“
You see, I’ve been saying the same thing, almost word for word, for too many years.
I would look at myself in the mirror, while applying my mascara and making sure the blush was applied with a light hand, and think, “good grief, the trash that comes out of your mouth . . . but it is true, I keep waiting to meet a man with balls as big as mine.”
The ambivalence between my words and how I wanted to see myself rankled me.
In an instant, the drop dead gorgeous Ms. Hayek, as voluptuous and feminine as any stereotype driven male dominated aesthetic could ask for, validated me.
I wasn’t just an angry, ball busting woman. I spoke my truth, and Ms. Hayek knew that truth as well.
Anger, feminism, traditional roles, gender bending, had nothing to do with it. It was my reality: I want to meet a man who has the unmitigated gall and foolish, in your face courage that I have.
Worth noting, this is a truth for many women. As scientific data is showing more and more, men are far more driven than women by “what is appropriate,” despite mythologies to the contrary.
Men more so than women fall back into comfortable norms, the fear of change being more threatening to them than the ever adaptable female psyche.
Women are more prone to enjoy breaking the mold, getting rid of the old and creating change.
Every since that day I fell to my knees, kissed the ground, and said, “Thank you, Selma,” I’ve kept an eye on Ms. Hayek’s impressive career.
The odds were against her. No actor who begins in Mexican soap operas ever reaches, dare I write it, professional gravitas in Hollywood. The rise to the top in tinsel town is difficult, but add to that a thick Hispanic accent and the baggage of a C.V. reading “Mexican soap opera,” and the odds were overwhelmingly against her.
She overcame the odds, and the impressive mammary glands were no doubt a big help.
Ms. Hayek astutely used her beauty to make inroads in her industry. And then she jumped headlong into a project of important story telling, bringing to life on film a character whose story needed to be told, Frida Kahlo. She stripped herself of pretense and in portraying an artist, emerged as one.
Not just a set of a mammary glands. The real deal.
In The Gaurdian today, I found this article on the front page, though it looks to be most everywhere now: Selma Hayak Breastfeeds African Baby.
There is an edited YouTube video on the Gaurdian article that I recommend watching, if you’re inclined. The only other available versions have inane commentaries attached to them, or I would have posted a YouTube video for this entry.
I thought Ms. Hayek’s gesture epitomized a woman’s love, unconditional nurturing, beauty, and warmth. And Ms. Hayek also promoted a long standing personal agenda: she’s been an advocate for raising international awareness, especially among developing nations, on the importance of breastfeeding.
Selma Hayek’s impromptu advocacy and courageous kindness are exactly what you’d expect from a woman with a huge and impressive set of . . .
cojones.
Selma Hayek. My hero of the week.
Time article on Selma Breastfeeding to Raise Public Awareness

Honesty, You Gotta Love It . . .
June 1, 2009 · 10 Comments
I have said similar as Charlie Brooker to friends.
Male and female.
I’ve even touted legislation for the past years years that I call “affirmative action voting.” It’s a kind of compromise between those who believe in “voter testing” and actually having womyn’s voices and lives represented in the law of the land.
For something like a hundred years, womyn were denied the right to vote, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were literally laughed out of Congress (read: white men) when they first presented the Constitutional amendment giving womyn the right to vote to that ‘noble body’ (read: male body, writ into the law).
Over forty years later, after the death of both womyn, the amendment written by Ms. Stanton was finally ratified.
As a corrective to those years, I’ve proposed “affirmative action voting.” This voting test requires a physician’s statement of biological gender. Have a penis? Sorry, outta luck for a few decades. (And guess what, size won’t make a bit of difference.) Take a number and wait your turn.
Silly?
No sillier than the presumptions that governed this country for over a hundred years, and it is in fact the precise standard that was applied in denying the womyn the right to vote.
Perhaps not so silly as it sounds. Or perhaps it is only silly if a womyn proposes the standard be applied to men.
I think it more than fair to employ a little affirmative action voting for a few decades, making everything the way it should be, evening things up a bit, giving the little ladies the reigns for a few years.
Let’s see what happens after a decade or two.
I am so glad Charlie Brooker wrote this column.
So much better coming from a man.
Honesty, you gotta love it.
Though I doubt many American men are ready for this strong a dose of it. Honesty, that is. G-d bless them, it’s a hard habit to develop, and there is certainly little in this testosterone driven culture compelling to behave so.
This week’s must read opinion, because instead of bantering about the specifics, let’s start getting a good look at the forest amid the trees.
Gaurdian Commentary: Charlie Brooker Calls On Women To Rule The World.
Categories: Advocacy · Behavior · Columnists · Courage · Economy · Empowerment · Equality · Gender · Gender and Identity · Global Economy · Global Warming · Hermanity · Hope · Identity · Ignorance · Learning · Legal Theory · Men · Old Baggage · Politics · Popular Culture · Power · Psychology · Redemption · The Guardian · Women · Women's Subordination · Womyn · Writers · Writing
Tagged: Advocacy, Commentary, Gender, Hope, Imagination, Men, Political Commentary, Power, Reality, Save the Planet, The World, Truth, Women