FTWomen

In Which JESSICA VALENTI Agrees with a Comment I Made, and I Feel Famous

2010-04-25T15:33:00.005-05:00

So this is my really pathetic, temporary, self-serving return to this blog, to document In History the moment when I felt really cool for having a particular comment on Feministing be generally well-received, and then had Jessica Valenti herself write, if only in a few words, how she agreed with me. And then I died.

The original post was about the Madonna episode of Glee, and was basically super critical in ways I considered unfounded. It's not often that I find feminist commentary unnecessarily harsh, but this was one of those times. So anyway, view that post here.

My comment was as follows:

"Sometimes, this level of scrutiny is exhausting.

I would DEFINITELY agree the "wheels" episode of Glee was problematic, though I still would give the creators some (if only minimal) credit for trying to talk about a group of people that most media ignores. Though, I didn't hear the "sardonic" tone in Sue's voice when she said "handicapable." I heard Sue's standard tone of voice and that's all, but I suppose that's subjective.

But I thought this Madonna episode was great. Just really, really great. I mean honestly, when is the last time anyone heard the pay gap and the words "misogynistic," "sexist," and even "FEMINISM" mentioned on a top-rated tv show? Or any tv show for that manner (whoops...clearly I meant matter)? I know lip service isn't everything, but it meant a lot to me that this issue was even brought up. I was squealing. Not because this episode was perfect, but because it tried really hard.

As for the issues surrounding sexuality...I guess I just thought it was very high-school, which is, after all, the context here. Some kids decide they aren't ready to have sex. Some kids feel pressured to have sex and are disappointed when they do. Some kids, like Santana, have tons of sex and just don't think it's that big of a deal. How many 16 year old kids have fully "empowering" sexual experiences? It doesn't work that way for everyone, and I don't think this episode came off as either sex-positive or sex-negative. It was fairly neutral and that was fine by me.

Beyond that, asking that all the high school girls treat each other with constant respect seems like a lot to ask. That's not the high school I remember. I would like for there to be a little bit more of a sisterhood on Glee, too, and I actually think they're moving in that direction. Rachel is no longer unanimously hated by ALL her peers. And, when she was? Well, I don't know, she was SUPER ANNOYING. That's kind of one of the great things about this show, in my opinion: even the characters you WANT unconditionally to love sometimes remind you that they are, in the end, only human.

And finally, phew, I never understood the supposition that Rachel was painted as the "ugly" character. I think she's painted like the nerdy girl with ridiculously preppy clothing who loves to sing and is more than a little arrogant. Of COURSE the mean girls draw ugly cartoons of her. She's "not popular"! That doesn't mean that the audience is instructed to view her as ugly, and in reality I think it might be the opposite.

In any case, this is probably just me being a Gleek, feeling all defensive. But I also have to applaud Glee for trying, and sometimes I think it's just nice to appreciate a small move forward for what it is. For me, this episode was just that. I look forward to a perfectly feminist show in the future too. For now though, I REALLY like Glee."

And then, Jessica commented the following:

"I agree...I actually really, really liked this episode of Glee. I certainly don't think the show is perfect, but this episode just made me happy."

It was just a few words, but that's all I needed. Am I coming back for real yet? Let's be honest...probably not. But it's little moments like these that make me REALLY want to try.

This Is All

2010-01-20T19:15:00.003-06:00

I promise, someday soon, to make a real return. I need to get back in the swing of things, get back to reading and caring about every marginally feministy issue I come across. Unemployment, alas, has made me lazy and even a little apathetic. But (fingers crossed) I think the tides are turning, and I'll be back to work, and hopefully thereafter back to writing.

For now, please read every last word of this beautiful tragic moving stunning blog post about the topic that started this little faltering project of mine: the relentless rape joke.

Great Expectations

2009-12-12T13:41:00.004-06:00

I just finished Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs by Chuck Klosterman. I have some thoughts. But I promise this won't be a "book review" per se. My memory isn't good enough for anything like that. Even though I'm pretty sure I read this book in the span of a week.

Something that has always been rather troubling to me is a person with attitudes that I perceive as "inconsistent." This, I realize, is a concern that could only belong to a strict partisan. I know I believe this thing, so I know I believe in other things that people like me believe in too. It's not that my beliefs are contrived or insincere, but I find it convenient and reassuring to find that I fit the mold in some way or another. I am a liberal, so I am for gun control. I'm for gay marriage. I'm against preemptive military action. I'm for latte-sipping, or whatever.

Anyway, people who don't follow this mold are troubling to me, though technically I guess I should appreciate their willingess to think for themselves. Maybe it's an unfair coincidence, but it just seems that most of these people aren't actually moderate or independent or label-less so much as they are apathetic. That may very well be the case with Chuck Klosterman. But at the beginning, I for some reason assumed he was a liberal. And then I was let down.

Here are some of the totally dubious reasons I suspected he might be progressive: he's relatively young (37, but about 30 at the time this book was written). He wears thick black framed glasses. He criticizes hipsters, but let's face it: he basically is one. He wrote a collection of nonfiction essays about why he thinks he's right about everything (ok so I'll even admit! Some of us are know-it-alls). Sounds like a liberal to me! With liberalness comes great responsibility. Or really, it makes me think you should be somewhat feminist.

Why, after all this time, do I continue to believe that hints of liberalism contribute to a feminist worldview? After so many run-ins with HuffPo, I should know better.

So my biggest problem with this book was the unexpected sexism. It's one thing to hear about it or read about it coming from somewhere like Fox News. It's another to be hit with it from a source who you had every reason to trust, at least, to not bring it up. But there were other issues I had with the book, or, truthfully, the author. For instance: I am sure that if Chuck Klosterman and I were to meet, I would hate his guts. And I don't even think this is an easy feat to accomplish. I've read lots and lots of books by people whom I suspect are somewhat douchey in real life, but I was either able to ignore it or find their personalities humorous. To use a rather outlandish example, though still another non-fiction humorous essayist: David Sedaris (I'm pretty sure that even Chuck Klosterman would admit that he doesn't deserve to be compared to Sedaris, but I've been wrong about him before). David Sedaris should be somewhat unlikeable to me. He can be a bit elitist. He doesn't like kids (not that I love them, but I think disliking them is usually a bad sign). He is (or was) a big-time drug user. He's rather self-involved. Yet I find none of these traits unappealing. With David Sedaris, his "negative" traits are combined with a great deal of unassuming sweetness and geniune appreciation for the human condition. He's flawed, but because of that he seems human.

Chuck Klosterman, on the other hand, seems mostly like an asshole. He has a few moments where he displays a hint of compassion, for example criticizing atheists who insult the intelligence of their religious counterparts. Even still, these comments seem hollow. It's hard to pull off criticizing other people for criticizing people, and I don't think Klosterman has it figured out. He does, however, believe he has it all figured out. Again - this is a trait David Sedaris also possesses, but he makes it seem adorable. Klosterman, I guarantee you this, is the sort of person who criticizes you for ordering Bud Light, because he knows the cooler house specialties. Whatever. I know about six Chuck Klostermans, and none of them have girlfriends and all of them like shitty music just because it's brand-new and nobody's ever heard of it. I could go on, but I promised you this wouldn't be a book review, and there's the actual feminism issue to discuss.

I guess I realized it was going downhill when Chuck wrote a chapter on how Pam Anderson is "the most crucial woman of her generation." He apparently used to get mad when people referred to Pam Anderson as the present-day Marilyn Monroe, but now he gets it. Fine. I might actually have to agree there. There is somewhat of an interesting discussion on why Klosterman feels ashamed to be attracted to Anderson, because it makes him feel "stupid." But I lose him when he goes on to talk about why Anderson must date certain people to fulfill our expections about her "postmodern" sexuality (I'm not really sure what he means but it seems to be equivalent to "trashiness"). Klosterman writes "Pam is the embodiment of modern female sexuality, and that embodiment is a Barbie Doll. But that's not necessarily bad, it's what intellectual men want (because she can be appreciated lecherously and ironically)." First, OMFG, do I ever hate it when people describe certain actions as being done "ironically." If you want to fuck Pam Anderson, you want to fuck Pam Anderson. There's nothing ironic about that. As far as I can tell, adding "ironically" to traditionally uncool actions allows hipsters to pretend they're still cooler than everybody else. Second, uhh, Barbie Doll is what intellectual men want? I...don't actually think that's true.

In another essay, Klosterman writes "For the past 25 years, culture has been obsessed with making males and females more alike (**sidenote: oh REALLY?!), and that's fine...But what I've noticed is that this convergence has mostly just prompted females to adopt the worst qualities of men. It's like girls are trying to attain equality by becoming equally shallow and selfish." His proof? Ally McBeal and Sex and the City, of course! Because those shows are ALWAYS viewed unanimously as feminist-friendly! Klosterman's statement is uneducated at best and loaded at worst. It really fucking pisses me off when people make lofty statements about what "culture" is doing to people and what is or is not viewed by feminists as "empowering." If culture were really obsessed with making males and females more alike and not actually as polarized as possible, I would probably have a lot less to complain about these days.

In addition, I really hate this kind of argument, because it's always veiled as egalitarian. It's like when somebody asks a powerful man (i.e. President Obama) about their plans or goals or something, and he says "Oh ask the wife! She calls all the shots!" Ba-dum-bum CHHH! Calling men shallow and selfish, for instance, and insinuating that women are inherently "better" is still sexism at work. It just makes you feel like you're pro-women when you're not. The same goes for a joking nod to some sort of household wifely influence. Both are basically comedic tools meant to excuse the guy from having any sort of real discussion or real accountability for the state of sexism today.

There are other, smaller examples of sexist doucheism in this book, though Klosterman is careful to pay lip service to the ladies by casually mentioning "misogyny" here and there (though, in one instance, it was to say that the defunct Man Show isn't bad because it's misogynous, but because it makes women who already think all men suck...think they suck even more). I'm not impressed. On a few occasions, Klosterman describes women for what they fail to be, for example calling his friend (his friend! who probably read the book!) "not exactly Gisele Bundchen." This in an attempt to apparently explain why it was curious that a SERIAL KILLER chose to dance with her instead of a more "striking" girl in the same bar. He also describes a waitress as "not-so-anorexic," which is just about the most vile way to describe a plus-size (or, actually, with that definition she could be a size 4) woman I've ever heard. Not-so-thin and not-so-anorexic are two very, very different things. Klosterman apparently equates thinness with anorexia, which is probably offensive to thin people and/or anorexics.

In another essay, Klosterman mocks the a female presenter at a music conference who, seemingly justifiably, complained that hers was the only all-female panel. This panel was called "Personal Stories." (Of course it was.) She says "I make music in a sexist world that views the male experience as general and the female experience as personal." Klosterman, in another fake nod to us girls, says "To me, the latter designation actually seems preferable to the former, but what do I know?" What do you know, INDEED. Easy, for someone whose existence is taken as the standard, to offhandedly remark that personal trumps general. Afterward, of course, he basically calls this woman an idiot for suggesting that academia and music are two of the most sexist professions that exist. I always find it curious how often some random dude seems to contradict claims of sexism...with blatant sexism.

Now I suppose some of this crap is supposed to be "schtick." And there, I guess, is where Chuck Klosterman fails (in my mind) as a writer. If he IS going for the likeable asshole thing, he doesn't provide nearly enough evidence to prove his humanity. If he's really like this (which is what I suspect), then that's a whole other can of worms, or something else icky.

I didn't hate the book (clearly I didn't love it either). I think Chuck Klosterman did best when writing about universally agreed-upon topics, like why The Sims is great or why soccer is stupid (kidding...sort of). He is funny, sometimes, and he does make some decent points. Still, I found a lot of his writing confusing, and his logic hard to follow. Then, the sexist stuff was just icing on the semi-crappy cake.

I Have Been Bad.

2009-12-11T14:31:00.002-06:00

Like, you know, naughty? Because it's Christmas, or whatever? Forget it.

Anyway, I realize this break has stretched a bit beyond the intended week allowed for Thanksgiving. But see, then I didn't do so hot on my test. And then I stopped working, and started playing The Sims 3 (problems!). I also have taken to not really getting dressed that much, and mostly wearing sweatpants, because I don't leave the house THAT often (wow, the makings of a great personal, right here).

Strangely enough, having loads and loads of free time is not as conducive to power-blogging as I might have expected.

But that changes today! Or, well, starting today. It remains to be seen whether I will start being diligent again. But I shall try. So I came back today for two reasons: one being that my number 1 fan requested that I do so. Two (and this is a big one): this just in...Lady Gaga called herself a feminist!!

Swoon. Now I can love her with 100% of my being, as opposed to the former 97%.

I knew she'd come around, I really did. I thought, here is a young woman who is clearly in the middle of some very serious life changes. She has moved from a relative unknown to an international sensation in the space of a year or so (I remember pushing "Just Dance" on my friends and bar DJs roughly 18 months ago...nobody knew what I was talking about.). Some 23 year olds (ahem) have called themselves feminists for upwards of five years. But not everyone, and that's ok. I was willing to hang in there for Lady Gaga. And she pulled through! Because she's amazing.

The giveaway quote follows, though you should really really read the whole article here:

"I'm getting the sense that [the interviewer is] a little bit of a feminist, like I am, which is good. I find that men get away with saying a lot in this business, and that women get away with saying very little...In my opinion, women need and want someone to look up to that they feel have the full sense of who they are, and says, 'I'm great.' "

Yes. We. Do.

I feel like a proud mom, or something less creepy. A proud friend. I had every reason to really like Lady Gaga. And now I have every reason to really love her. No, calling yourself a feminist isn't everything. But it means a lot. And Lady Gaga isn't a women's rights activist. It isn't her job to back up that statement with lobbying and advocacy and feminist music. Sure, that would be awesome too. But it is her job to be an entertainer, and that title requires no political stance whatsoever. In fact, it sometimes requires that you have none. So it means a lot when somebody like her is willing to risk a bit and stand up for something she believes in. She's done it for gay rights, and I hope she continues to do so for feminism.

After all, she's just finally putting a label to what we already knew about her for so long. And I think that's splendid.

Things I Want You To See - Thanksgiving break edition

2009-11-23T18:19:00.003-06:00

So I'm going to take a cue from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and take a week break, starting tomorrow. Here's the thing - I'm taking GRE Round 2 (Empire Strikes Back) next Monday, and I really have to get down to business on the studying front. Reading news and blogs and simmering with rage on a daily basis makes it slightly harder to focus on simple geometry (or geometry that should be simple, anyway...argh).

Plus, yours truly has a birthday coming up. The big 23. Then there's Thanksgiving, and my number #1 fan being home. So I'll still be thinking about feminist issues daily. I'll just be talking about them in person with her instead of taking to the ol' blog. But just for this week, so DON'T PANIC. I will have a hell of lot of free time on my hands come December 1st.

So, without further ado, a few things to look at to keep you occupied in my absence.

1. Amanda Hess at The Sexist with a great take on the "If It Were a Man" defense of sexism. It might be a little simplified, for sure, and I think there's a lot more to be said on this. But it is an important point to consider - are those people in power, by various intrinsic aspects of their nature, capable of being the recipients of "isms" like racism and sexism? This is a point I have often tried to explain to others - black people can be prejudiced against white people, and against each other for that matter, but can they truly be racist? I think the answer, in at least the way which we now understand racism, is no.

2. A feminist who defends Twilight. Well, sort of. I love Kate Harding so...ok. I'll think about this one. But I still say the whole thing is 100% overrated.

3. Adam Lambert kissed another dude at the AMA's last night and it was AWESOME! (**Quick watch it before the YouTube police take it down again! Don't fear the gays, people!) I have to seriously, seriously applaud him for that. We desperately need a proud, out, ballsy, and, yeah, raunchy male entertainer. Visibility matters! With her take on it, Kate Harding at Broadsheet. (See, I really do love her.)

4. When even (especially?) the "chick flicks" are sexist...we movie-going ladies really have a problem.

5. Lou Dobbs is thinking about running for president in 2012. That's not feminism-related, I just wanted you to know the world is ending.

Yumminess of Rob Pattinson aside...

2009-11-20T18:45:00.003-06:00

Twilight sucks.

Brooding, sparkly-faced, somber vampire hotties who want to physically harm you and simultaneously keep you pure, abstinent, and bored out of your fucking mind? Just say no.

I like this one better.

That is all! Happy Friday.

OMG congrats!! Ladiezzz Are Number 1!!!

2009-11-18T18:44:00.003-06:00

So HuffPo (God, I know, I really need to find a more egalitarian political blog) has been running this feature for a few weeks now by author Marcus Buckingham, about how us women these days are so crabby and depressed all the time. Supposedly he is a "leader expert in personal strengths," which sounds like a really real job.

Anyway, the other day he wrote one of the stupidest articles of all time ever. Basically his premise is that men are becoming more and more "like women." This really-clearly-thought-out theory is, of course, accompanied by a picture of a man wiping a counter with a sponge. From there I knew I was in for a treat.

Buckingham literally writes the following: "The outcome of the gender wars, if wars they were, is clear: women won."

Well, blow me over with a straw! All this time, I thought I didn't have equal rights or representation or freedoms and liberties and all that boring political crap, but lo and behold! I am actually on the winning team. Gooooo women!! So what is it, exactly, that we won?

From Buckingham's perspective, it seems that women "winning" means that men are starting to take a little bit more responsibility for household chores and child-rearing. You know, girl stuff. He writes: "In 1977...72% of men believed that men should be the primary breadwinners and women should be the primary caretakers of home and family. Today, only 42% of men hold those opinions, which happens to be almost exactly the same as the percentage of women who feel that way (38%)." OK, well four percentage points off isn't "almost exactly the same," but whatever. In any case, is this supposed to make us happy? That just barely half of men think that it's ok if men aren't the primary breadwinners and women not the primary caretakers? Worst...victory...everrrrr!

Another aspect of our victory means that men today are less masculine. Now, I'm kind of struggling to see how that in any way benefits either sex. I guess if you believe in biological gender roles, and men become more "feminine" over time, one could argue that women are gaining in influence. Still, with references to a dancing-and-singing Zac Efron and the "oh-so-delicate Robert Pattinson" (really? He sucks blood to survive, man! Doesn't get any less delicate than that!), it seems that Buckingham intends more of a warning nod to all the girly men out there rather than a pat on the backs of our nation's women. Rather than celebrating a world with evolving, increasingly permissive gender roles, Buckingham thinks the men are going soft on us. (Minds out of the gutter.)

There's another great theme here, about "choice." Buckingham writes: "To the victor go the spoils. And what are the spoils of this particular war? The spoils are choice. Women have more choice than ever before in their work, home, and lifestyles." OK, yeah, maybe "more than ever before." But we are far from achieving real choice, my outrageously-cartoonlike-named friend.

Furthermore, it turns out that the overwhelming array of choices so recently gifted to our male counterparts is actually totally our fault. We're making stuff hard on them, guys! Buckingham argues with himself on this one:

"The choice-filled world that women have bestowed on men is a tough world. Tough on women; even tougher on men. At least that's what the data reveal. In 1977, 41 percent of women reported feeling some level of work/life conflict, whereas only 35 percent of men did. Today, about the same percentage of women report work/life conflict, but 59 percent of men are now similarly torn. Or maybe it's not tougher on men. It's just that men aren't used to it, and so they feel it more. And so they complain more, as all novices do."

Uhhh, bingo! I think old Marcus might have made one point I can actually get behind, at the end there. So men have to get involved in home life now too. They have to balance work, and family, and home. Well lads, welcome to a little thing called "the second shift." A warning: it's chaos down here. But don't worry, you'll get the hang out it. Look at us ladies! Just a few thousand years of being responsible for round-the-clock work, and we have got this mf-er down pat.

For another take on this piece-of-shit article, see Bitch magazine.

I...Kinda Agree With Sarah Palin (WTF?)

2009-11-17T18:17:00.007-06:00

So Newsweek put Sarah Palin on the cover, with the fairly damning title: "How do you solve a problem like Sarah?" This I do not object to. I do think her politics present a whole host of problems, actually. But the accompanying picture is one nabbed from her photo shoot in The Runner's World magazine. Hands on her hips, wearing the shortest of shorts, posed like she's on the red carpet...she looks good, of course. She also looks cheerleader-ish, too casual, and unprofessional. Sarah Palin says this photo selection is sexist.

Grab your pig-shit umbrellas people, because I agree with her.

Here's her full statement (well really, her ghostwriter's statement, as you will see from the inadvertent third-person use of her name) from her Facebook page:

"The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this "news" magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner's World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness - a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention - even if out of context."

Weirdness of imagining skin-colored, gendered books aside, Palin has a point (I phrase I surely thought I'd never say). Yes, she took this photo willingly. But it was for a runner's magazine, so she wore running gear as is appropriate. This article does not attack poor running form, or why running is even a real activity (my question). It attacks Sarah Palin, the ex-politician and current public figure. Selecting this photo suggests that she is not to be taken seriously, not because of her actions or her words (and God knows she's supplied us with plenty of fodder in both) but because of her lady-ness. I mean, really, look at those legs.

I am ashamed of fellow liberals who are attacking Palin for crying sexism. If we limit our social consciousness to our own party, then we are no better than Republicans who harassed Hillary Clinton for "playing the gender card" or President Obama for "playing the race card." There is no such card game, and if there were it would be the least fun game ever. People of all parties should be allowed to raise legitimate concerns of racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist actions.

Yes, it is true that this claim sounds a little like the pot calling the kettle sexist. Sarah Palin is no feminist. But an anti-feminist, by definition alone, is not immune to sexism (a fact that would, one would think, convert them to our team one of these days). Sarah Palin absolutely has experienced sexist treatment from the day she stepped on stage with John McCain in Arizona. She'll probably experience a lot more. And just because I don't really like her, or anything she stands for, doesn't mean she should have to shut up and take it.

In fact, feminists should be happy, I would think, to see a conservative woman bring attention this issue. If liberal women address sexism, and conservative women address sexism, then maybe the naysayers will begin to see how dramatically it affects us all. That being said, one's use of the sexist charge should not apply to oneself alone. Sarah Palin is right in calling the Newsweek cover sexist, but I hope she remembers to apply that charge where appropriate in the future, outside of how it immediately affects her own life.

For more on this topic, see Amanda Hess' take, one Jezebel post, and another from Jezebel with a brief link to MSNBC coverage. I don't agree with the two dudes Andrea Mitchell per se, but I can't say I didn't get a good chuckle out of Democratic strategist Steve McMahon's statement, irrespective of the sexist cover situation:

"This is a woman who is basically the Tonya Harding of authors. She came out and kneecapped every single person who helped her along the way. And she's making millions of dollars for it. She has no right to complain, she has no reason to complain. She can complain all the way to the bank."

Tonya Harding comparison? Fairly accurate. But still, she does have a right to "complain." We all do. Just because she's a narcissist lying machine, doesn't mean she doesn't experience sexism. OK?!

She's baaaaaack!

2009-11-16T19:09:00.007-06:00

Mika Brzezinski didn't forcibly spoon-feed us enough prehistoric garbage last week, so she wanted to "clarify" a few things with another blog post on HuffPo today. The article is aptly, creatively titled: "Don't Forget to Have Kids -- Part II."

Brzezinski lets the reader know right off the bat - some people were not amused by her post last week. She cites the following tweet from a reader: "Not only is your post embarrassingly stupid, it's offensive to anyone who believes in reproductive choice." Hear, hear, I say! But let's make one thing very clear: if you SOMEHOW didn't "get" (read: agree with) her post last week, it's not because Brzezinski expressed a condescending, elitist, and regressive view of women. No. It's because you're bat fucking crazy.

And here are all these other, wiser, woman-ier women who were on their knees, thanking Mika for freeing them of their annoying "aspirations," or whatever. Even Brzezinski's OWN ASSISTANT agrees with her! Can you believe that? What a coincidence.

Sarah, another real ladylike lady, says her friends were "relieved" to read the blog post. These women "weren't sure what to do with their desire to get married and have children." Um, get married and have children?

One of the most annoying things is that Brzezinski thinks she's reminding women of something we've "forgotten," when really, there is perhaps no message a young woman hears more often than the reminder to always be keeping an eye out for "the one." And we better hurry, too, because you know having kids gets harder after 35. Or, according to others, 27. And really, if you don't want to be an OLD mom, you should be having them by 26, definitely. And if you want to enjoy a little bit of married life with just you and the ol' hubby, you should probably get married by 24, latest. So, thanks, Mika, really, but we don't need your patronizing suggestion that we could even, for one second, forget about what we should really be thinking about.

Another super-annoying thing about Brzezinski is that she's got feminists pegged all wrong (who doesn't, except for us?). She writes "For years, feminists have been insisting that we women could have it all." At its most basic level, that might be true. But what feminists have been MORE insistent about is that "having it all" is really fucking hard, considering the way every aspect of our lives is set up to prevent it. If anything, feminists have worked to try to make it possible for women to "have it all," if by "all" we mean the basic human right to live one's life in accordance with one's wishes. Women absolutely should not have to choose between children and career. But Brzezinski doggedly refuses to accept first that many women may be happy without children, and second that focusing on family first to "put off a dream job" is a choice of only the very privileged.

And, of course, Brzezinski brings up bra-burning, writing "For those who still want to take off their bras and burn them, so be it. But I'd rather find one to wear that is pretty."

Seriously? Fuck you. Seriously.

That little statement packs a few powerful punches, even setting aside the fact that "feminists-as-bra-burners" is totally an urban legend. First, this sentence indicates that feminists are "other." They could not possibly be like Mika, wanting a family above all else. They're too busy setting lingerie on fire. Second, her weirdly self-righteous dedication to "pretty" bras speaks to more than one feminist stereotype. We're ugly. We don't care what we look like. We are unfeminine.

Another twitterer (tweeter? whatever) argued that "We don't all lose sleep over finding the perfect partner, whether that partner is male or female. The dreams and aspirations of women cannot be summarized so neatly." This, I think, is a totally valid argument, and includes a nice nod to non-heteronormativity, a wide swath of the human population that Brzezinski refuses to acknowledge ("A woman shouldn't feel the need to shy away from wanting to build a life around a man she loves," "One can love her husband and be a strong career woman," etc.).

Mika responds to the tweet with a pseudo-feminist fave: "You go girl. That's your opinion and I respect it." It's just that you're totally wrong, and also really a complete fucking idiot. This article is not for you women, those who "consider a lifelong relationship a...badge of weakness or a sign that [you] missed the boat on the women's rights movement." No, this article is for real women, the girly ones, the ones who consider those precious, lifelong, heterosexual relationships "valuable."

Right. Because either you consider a husband and kids the central focus of your life, or you consider them worthless and anti-feminist. By Brzezinski's definition, we are all either Suzie Homemaker or some crazed, lesbian, anarchist witch.

Brezinski rambles on for quite a bit longer, and honestly my eyes start to glaze over toward the end. There's a line about how being a wife is the most fulfilling proposition in her (and, if we have half a brain, our) life. Another about how having a husband doesn't preclude her being a strong career woman, but it does make her go to work "fulfilled." And then, a fake-ass apology to those women psycho enough to not want children: "My apologies to those women who don't want children but if you could, keep your invective-laden, F-bomb laced tweets to yourself." Saucy!

You know what? I could go all FUCKING day, lady. And I'd rather wade through dozens of curse words to hear a message than to be talked down to by someone who thinks she's helping me by telling me to get knocked up. Women experience enough sexist, classist, racist, and heteronormative bullshit just by living, and we definitely don't need the added help of Mika Brzezinski.

I am a clinic escort, and I am proud.

2009-11-14T19:14:00.004-06:00

At the clinic where I volunteer, there are generally anywhere from three to twenty protestors outside. Some of them walk loops up and down the sidewalk, chanting Hail Marys and clutching rosaries. These are older people and they only stay for about half an hour. There are a few younger women, in their thirties, who hand out pamphlets and speak to the patients, telling them "it's not too late" and that they should go to the life clinic down the block. Another protestor, a young man, wears a monk robe (though he is only a seminary student) and brings props. Today he set up a crib, with a large cross inside, on the median between the road lanes.

I walked behind the group of older protestors today, on my way in. When I got closer, the most aggressive thirty-ish female protestor spotted me and said, "Young lady, you are not helping women by being here. You should leave."

There are aspects of the necessity of abortion rights that I struggle to explain. My mother asked me how I explain my views. She wants a good argument. But when pressed for why it isn't necessarily important that the male partner know about or "permit" the abortion, I hesitated. This is not to say that I am unsure of my position, but rather that I find it hard to explain to someone who doesn't feel such strength of opinion.

I am not sure what to say about whether or not life begins at conception. Frankly, in terms of abortion rights, I'm not sure if it matters to me. A fetus is inseparable from its mother's womb. It is, by nature, an extension of the woman's body. And should a woman have the right to live freely in this world, she must be allowed full control of her body. If women wish to be more than their wombs, they must be allowed the right to control their reproduction.

Maybe I'd be more supportive of anti-choicers if even one single "pro-life" organization supported contraception. But they don't. And maybe I'd be more supportive of pro-life legislators if they were, in every other respect, pro-family. But they aren't.

All this being said, if there is one aspect of my job and position that I struggle with least, it is that I am absolutely sure that I am helping women by being there. Despite what the protestors think, our patients are not evil. They struggle, and sometimes they cry. And sometimes, like today, one of them walks out because she just cannot go through with it. And that's ok. Unlike our protestors, I would never presume to know what another woman should do with her uterus.

But for the ones that do stay - I know they are happy to have me, and the other escorts, there. Some women are completely content with their decision, and I am happy that they are able to be so self-assured. Still, many of them wish they didn't have to be there. One woman, about 37 years old, got out of her car today and said to me, "You know, I really want to thank you for being here, on the worst day of a woman's life."

And really, I think that explains it all.

You and me could write a bad romance.

2009-11-12T18:43:00.000-06:00

Small burnout. It's been a crappy few days for women's issues. I'm still seething over Stupak. I'll be back soon (hopefully, tomorrow) with another real topic for discussion.

But in the meantime, can I just say how much I love Lady Gaga?

I love a good female pop act who writes her own music, has killer vocals, an original look, a unique fashion sense, and a devil-may-care attitude. It also doesn't hurt that she's an out bisexual and very supportive of the gay community. In my book, that makes her a role model for a lot more than just her music.

Don't get me wrong - she's not the ideal feminist role model. This is mainly because she says she's not a feminist (unfortunately, this seems to stem from her belief that there is too much of a man-hating stigma surrounding feminism...oh, like we haven't heard that one before). Still, she has said the following:

"You see, if I was a guy, and I was sitting her with a cigarette in my hand, grabbing my crotch and talking about how I make music 'cause I love fast cars and fucking girls, you'd call me a rock star. But when I do it in my music and in my videos, because I'm a female, because I make pop music, you're judgmental, and you say that it is distracting. I'm just a rock star."

"I genuinely am empowered from a very honest place by my sexuality. What’s more primal than sex?"

"[My gay fans] love sexual, strong women who speak their mind."

If it acts like a feminist, and talks like a feminist...sigh. Here's hoping that Lady Gaga comes around and joins our community, for real, one day. Until then...I"ll still enjoy her kick-ass music.

Oops! Forgot about my uterus.

2009-11-10T20:53:00.001-06:00

Once again, the Huffington Post meets my expectations. Of sucking.

In a piece literally entitled "Don't Forget To Have Kids," Mika Brzezinski writes about how women today are putting off having children too long in order to satisfy their other, lesser desires in life. You know, a meaningful career. Higher education. Taking the time to find a suitable life companion and not just a sperm donor.

I wasn't aware that "forgetting" to get married and have kids was such a rampant issue. I was under the impression that these life changes required a significant amount of thought, effort, and planning. But Brzezinski wants to make sure we are thinking about it RIGHT NOW. In our 20s for sure. I, about to 23, am apparently walking the fine line between prime baby factory material and withered spinster lady.

Brzezinski calls the effort to "put off" having a family the "most shortsighted concept [she] has ever witnessed." Because running off to get pregnant at the first possible opportunity is all about long-term decision-making and cost/benefit analysis. In her mind, it is apparently much wiser to scare the shit out of those of us who consider potentially (maybe) having kids someday into doing it RIGHT NOW than it is to suggest that we consider how this decision might dramatically alter oh, the rest of our lives on earth forever and ever.

My favorite quote? "Bad news, girls. The odds are definitely better on getting the right job than getting a good partner for life." Hey! A little depression with our regressive gender-roles. It's an odd line to take when unemployment is the highest its been post-WWII. You probably are not going to get a job, and you're even LESS likely to get a man! You "girls" are really fucked! But hey - since we're all unemployed and everything, best use every available second at your disposable to fulfill your true life's meaning: finding the appropriate husband with whom to "develop your memories."

Brzezinski tries to be cute. "And remember," she nudges, winking, "you can always change a job. I hear it's much harder to switch out a husband." Ha ha ha HA, complications of the rigid institution of marriage and the difficulty and pain of divorce. ROFL!

Then, the real kicker: "But let's talk about the greatest gift a woman can receive: being a mommy." Childish language aside, I am shocked as all get-out that such retrograde garbage can be announced so forthrightly on a supposedly progressive blog. Did she really just boil down a woman's worth to what is produced in her uterus? Oh yes she did!

Lest you be a huge fucking idiot and IGNORE Brzezinski's advice in favor of waiting for your "dream job," she's got another terrifying warning there too: "Your 'dream' job can wait, because chances are good that you will find this prize you so desired wasn't a dream job after all." Yes, because careers are the real bargain, whereas marrying to become barefoot and pregnant at 24 is always every bit as rewarding as one dreams it will be. I sigh, contentedly, to think of it now: a lifetime of diapers, running errands, and vomit. College schmollege. Sign me up for eHarmony right now! Clearly, I haven't got a moment to lose.

Things I Want You To See

2009-11-09T18:33:00.000-06:00

1. I am in perpetual awe of Amanda Hess at The Sexist, but this takes the cake. I want to keep this entry in my back pocket for every time somebody needs to be lectured in why "rape culture" is a real thing.

2. Good news (I hope I hope I hope) regarding the Stupak Amendment, via Jezebel.

3. A real shitty article from The New York Times (wtf?) which a. puts gender and sex issues in the "Style" section (which, we have learned, is a media favorite) and b. diminishes legitimate sexual identity and transgender issues to a question of "dress code." A key quote: "In September, a freshman girl at Rincon High School in Tucson who identifies as male was nominated for homecoming prince." News flash, NY Times, if a person identifies as male, you DON'T call him "girl." Assholes.

4. Via Feministing...gotta love a 90s Hillary tribute.

5. Michele Bachmann is a huge fucking embarrassment, as per usual.

6. Can't find a link to support this, but did you notice that the Speaker called all congresswomen "young lady" during the healthcare House debate? What's up with that? Infantilization of women isn't a real problem, my ass.

It's a shit day to be a woman.

2009-11-07T18:26:00.000-06:00

Too pissed for full, coherent thoughts. Today's the big day for the healthcare bill (or what's left of it), and House debate continues as we speak. Though, to be fair, it's not so much a "debate" as "angry white guys continuously interrupting and out-shouting female congresspeople." See what I'm talking about here.

If that weren't bad enough, some Democrats (DEMOCRATS) have signed on the Stupak amendment, effectively preventing healthcare companies in the exchange from covering abortion in their basic plans. Congresspeople complained that citizens' "tax dollars" would fund abortion, which of course is absolutely untrue. It's just a further kick to our government-locked-down uteruses (uterii?) that this whole debacle was initiated by a Democrat in the first place. Ever hear of a thing called the Democratic platform, asshole? It's pro-choice.

The Democratic party is growing increasingly anti-choice, along with the rest of the country. It's time to get nervous. It would be nice, for once, if pro-choice activists worked harder to reshape the debate in our favor. Jane Hamsher, in a piece at HuffPo, writes about the problem, and rightly criticizes NARAL and Planned Parenthood here.

We are letting extremists win with ridiculous rhetoric that is wholly inconsistent with their supposed "moral" positions. Thirty senators, for instance, voted against the Franken Defense bill amendment that would have prevented the U.S. from contracting with companies abroad who don't allow rape victims to bring charges to court. 100% of these jag-offs are "pro-life." Here's another little interesting tidbit from Cristina Page, also from HuffPo:

"In 2007, The Children's Defense Fund published its Congressional Scorecard on the best and worst legislators for children. The organization scored congress members' votes on many of the policies that help pregnant women decide whether to parent or abort. The votes were on Head Start, increasing the minimum wage, reauthorizing and increasing funding for S-CHIP, increasing funding for children with disabilities, job training, Medicaid funding, helping youth pay for college, and tax-relief for low-income families with children. Based on their votes on these issues, the Children's Defense Fund ranked 143 congress members as 'the worst' for children. Of the 143 worst legislators, 100% are pro-life."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

You can call yourself "pro-life" all day and night for all I care. But let's not pretend like that means anything. It isn't "pro-life" to usher a fetus into the world only to do everything you can to make sure it and its family fail. Don't pretend like you give a SHIT about taking care of people once they are brought into this world. Pro-lifers don't own the moral high-ground. They aren't even near the moral high-ground, they're in some massive moral crater (caused, no doubt, by climate change issues THEY DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN). This is not about life, it's about one thing. That is controlling women's bodies because you don't trust us or our sexuality or our ability to make decisions about our own lives.

Come back to me when you are anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-discrimination, anti-rape. Let me know when you're pro-gay marriage and pro-gay adoption, because you care about every child having a caring family with parents who love their children and each other no matter what. Call me when you'll vote for every pro-contraception and comprehensive sex ed bill that comes your way, because you know that the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Then I'll let you call yourself "pro-life."

Until then, go fuck yourselves and your pseudo-moral bullshit. I'm not buying it.

**UPDATE: The Stupak amendment has passed, and it wasn't even close thanks to the 60+ Democrats who voted for it. And you thought the 2008 elections meant we could breathe for four years. Not so fast.

***UPDATE 2: The healthcare bill has passed the House with a mere 220 votes (218 needed for passage). It's a sad day when you wish your part was more like the GOP, in that they blindly vote the party line. Here's hoping we can get the Stupak amendment stripped from the bill in conference committee. Watch for any opportunity to call your senators and tell them to remove this unprecedented strike against women's healthcare rights!

Because liberal women love boobs, or something.

2009-11-04T20:12:00.000-06:00

Part of my morning ritual at work, besides the obligatory scan of CNN, is to check the Huffington Post. And then I read it again at lunch. I like it because it provides a decent amount of snarky liberal news headlines, and I don't really know any other great sources for liberal (but still, you know, real) news. It's also a huge forum with tons of different authors, some good (Drew Westen) and some bad (that French guy who keeps defending Roman Polanski). But much like what those two authors share, the majority of HuffPo bloggers seem to have one main thing in common: maleness.

This morning I looked at the page, and of some twelve or thirteen "main" blog posts (those along the left side of the page), just one author was a woman. OK - two if you include Arianna herself. But she's always there, top left. That hardly counts. So ok, maybe one day of stark under-representation is a coincidence. Except that it's not. But fine, it could be. So I examine the rest of the front page for clues of more secretive female exposure - a story about Hillary Clinton, perhaps. What I saw, however, only confirmed my secret fears about HuffPo: it doesn't really (really) have a feminist agenda. At all.

There were four main stories about women on the front page of the Huffington Post this morning when I first checked (it has, of course, changed throughout the day). The closest to the top (and therefore the one with the most visibility) was entitled "Dolly Parton and Jessica Simpson Talk Boobs." While that may be an entertaining/mind-fucking topic of thought for some, it isn't exactly intellectually stimulating.

The next female-related story down the page was about Kate Hudson losing 20 pounds. KATE HUDSON. It's for a movie role, but the headline doesn't mention that, and we are left to wonder about how lazy our fatty selves must really be if Kate "I-turn-sideways-and-disappear" Hudson is dropping twenty big ones. Encouraging! Empowering!

Next up? A look at Sarah Palin's style (and how it has presumably suffered) since the end of her run for vice president. This is where female politicians find themselves all too often on HuffPo - in the Style section. When Hillary Clinton celebrated her birthday last week, she was not honored with a blog post looking back at her career achievements and long-standing commitment to women's rights, but with a couple of pictures about how she used to wear headbands a lot.

And the bottom-most story about a famous woman on the Huffington Post today was a story about Rihanna. This falling in the "Entertainment" category, like the pieces on boobs and Kate Hudson. First, a note on that - some of these stories surely belong to the entertainment file. But when the only stories about women on a huge aggregate-news page belong to either "entertainment," "style," or the dubious "living" section (splashed all over with purple, a curious section that suggests either that women are...alive, or that men's lives are above and beyond "women's issues"), it becomes clear that women are not taken seriously, even in so-called liberal media forums.

And about Rihanna in particular - I would like to think that a young female role model such as Rihanna would earn a more noteworthy media presence in light of her recent decision to speak out against domestic violence and the silence surrounding it. That is not an "entertainment" story. It is a political and social issue piece that happens to involve a female pop star. That simple fact alone should not relegate the story to the "Entertainment" section, alongside (I shit you not) a piece about Jeremy Piven's man-boobs (no doubt, a serious global crisis, I admit).

HuffPo does have several women bloggers. They don't have near the presence of male bloggers. With Arianna Huffington at the masthead, maybe I shouldn't be so surprised that HuffPo fails to represent progressive views when it comes to women. She is, after all, known for her anti-feminist views (in 1973 she wrote that feminism's aim was to "destroy society") and was none-too-friendly to my homegirl Hillary in the 2008 primary elections. She has also allowed blog keys to Alec Baldwin (famous for verbally assaulting his 11 year old daughter and for being a "men's rights" activist) and Bernard-Henri Lévy (the aforementioned "French guy" of Roman Polanski-defending fame). Huffington has, of course, become more progressive with time, and I've seen other blog writers assert that she identifies as feminist now. Well, identification and action are two different things. Call me crazy, but I don't think that a genuine feminist would allow QUITE so many posts about nip-slips and Megan Fox's scandalous outfits. These things may truly occur, but they have no place in what is purportedly meant to be a progressive, intellectual forum.

There are so many amazing female social-political writers out there. Few exist, in any substantial influence, outside the blogosphere. I wonder why they are not deemed worthy of The Huffington Post. Perhaps they, having seen one too many stories like the one posted last week about women stripping to prevent climate change, aren't even interested in writing for HuffPo. In that case, we have a vicious cycle on our hands.

All I know is that I'd like to see more women writers and media personalities out there. Rachel Maddow is pretty damn amazing. But even she can't hold down the fort alone.

No Means No...No, Really.

2009-11-02T21:06:00.000-06:00

I was really all set to write a lighthearted entry about Halloween and the whole "slutty" costume phenomenon. I do have real opinions on that topic, but I was ready for some laid-back pondering or something. I wanted to point out that I saw not a single store-bought "sexy" outfit (though, to be fair, I only attended a house party, and I saw lots of girls in coats. Who knows what was underneath?). Myself, I was notorious anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-atmosphere, pro-McCarthy, anti-reality congresswoman Michele Bachmann. I had a protest sign I thought was funny: "HEALTHCARE IS FOR PUSSIES." You know, because Bachmann hates women. And health.

But then, this fucking article. Amanda Hess of The Sexist broke it down here. I have some things to add, because I don't think I have her self-restraint when it comes to ranting. Like for instance, let me get this off my chest real quick: KATHRYN HOLMQUIST IS A STUPID FUCKING IDIOT AND I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS SHIT IS FOR REAL.

I could go through this thing line by line, and I will for parts. But I am afraid that I examine it too closely, I will see written in between the lines a description of the apocalypse, or catch swine flu or something. Deep breaths, self. Here we go.

Right off the bat you know we've got a bat-shit crazy situation on our hands. Holmquist writes in her introductory paragraph that it is a "lofty expectation of human behavior" to expect that a boy not rape a drunk girl who is "sprawled naked in a boys arms." It's not just that she's naked. It's that she had the gall to FLIRT. I mean, dear God. So anyway, she goes on to write that we have these ridiculous expectations that boys be gentlemen (in her view, gentlemen = non-rapists) and yet don't expect girls to be "ladies" (umm, defined as...non-raped girls?). The idea is a tired one: girls who drink and dress provocatively are asking for it. I've heard it before, though never quite so unabashedly. Well done, Kathryn! You made Tucker Max look like Feminist of the Year.

Holmquist first tries the scare-you (or more likely, your parents)-straight approach: your 15-year old daughter IS drinking, and she IS having sex. If she's not, you can bet your sweet ass that her trampy, boozy friends are. And like all teenage girls, she is powerless before her friends' demands that she engage in "sex games with boys." No doubt peer pressure is a real, and often troubling, issue for young people. But Holmquist removes all decisive power and independent thought from young women, insisting that they cannot decide of their own accord when to have sex - or when to not. After all, the main line of this article is that girls, at some point in the course of sexual interaction with a boy, lose the right to say "no."

The author writes: "It can be devastating, with the girl feeling betrayed and no longer trusting her own instincts. She may live with the emotional pain of it for years. And all because she believed that it's never too late to say no." Hold up. Did Kathryn Holmquist just suggest that there is an arbitrary point (seemingly up to the boy) beyond which rape is ok, even if the girl says no? What and when is that? I was under the apparently quaint impression that both partners must consent to sex for it to be legal. There is no magic point at which one-sided sex becomes acceptable. However, Holmquist happily joins the victim-blaming set, suggesting that parents better talk to these hussy young daughters before they go and get themselves raped.

There are two choices of advice here: one, that preferred by Ozzy Osbourne (who, as a leftist, I always have looked toward as a responsible role of progressive parenting): "Don't do drugs and use a condom." The other, though labeled an "extreme," is preferred by Holmquist: "I trust you completely and I know you would never drink, or do drugs or have sex because you are such a sensible girl. I am going to sleep well tonight knowing that I can trust you." Weird, that Ozzy Osbourne is the less-creepy of these two parents. But the latter statement, Holmquist proudly writes, is sure to lock up your daughter's virginity "to the age of 24 at least." Ah, 24. The age at which all young women cross the threshold into sexual maturity and are able to bang freely. (Fingers crossed!)

Holmquist is wrapping things up, but throws in a super-weird metaphor comparing a teenager's know-it-all attitude to J. Lo's "Latin curves" or something. Because no antiquated, offensive, demeaning, rape-apologist article is complete without a needless and nonsensical racist remark! The author then writes: "The worst advice you could possibly give would be to tell her that she can always say no, even when she is no longer in control. Girls, just like boys, need to be told about the likely consequences of their actions."

Let me give you a moment for that to sink in.

Got it? The WORST advice you could give a young girl is that she may voice her desire (or lack thereof) for sex. Yeah, she went there. Should you teach your daughter the phrase "no means no," you might as well just drop her off at the orphanage now because you're a goddamn failure. Her little tart act of, you know, wearing clothes and walking about and talking to boys is just going to get her raped, so she better suck it up. She has it coming. Holmquist even has the audacity to say that drinking makes it more likely that a girl will "get laid whether she wants it or not." Are you serious with that terminology?

This is what we're talking about when we say we live in a rape culture. When a person can write about rape and dismiss it as "getting laid" (a term commonly acknowledged to mean sex that is wanted), we live in a culture that doesn't take rape seriously. When a person can write such a blatantly victim-blaming article and get it PUBLISHED in a public forum, we have a serious fucking problem. And Holmquist tries to brush it off with disclaimers, saying that of COURSE she doesn't think that girls who behave in certain ways "deserve what they get" (really?). But what's most important is that you act like a lady. Boys, by nature, get drunk and are sexual predators. It can't be helped. She writes: "And boys, for their own protection, need to understand that a drunk girl who he thinks wants sex, may turn around the next day and accuse him of rape. " Yeah, it's really boys who need to be on the lookout here. Everyone knows that rape accusation is THE most devastating aspect of a rape.

Let's get this straight, once and for all. A girl, or a woman, can never do anything to make it ok for a boy, or man, to rape her. There is nothing a person can do to "ask" for rape. In the discussion surrounding why rape happens, it is important to ask not why women "get raped" but why men rape them. There is a person attached to this crime. It is not one-sided. And it beyond inexcusable to suggest that a girl or woman cannot say no, at any point, during sex. We are human beings and we know what we want. We also know what we don't want, regardless of our age or our skirt lengths or how much we have drank. Responsibility and acting like a fucking "lady" have nothing to do with this. Boys and men DO need to have self-control, and they need to not rape people.

Maybe there will be one day when I can find no rape story to write about, no matter how hard I try. But for now, it is all too easy. Rape-apologists abound. For that reason alone, one should be able to understand, as I mentioned a few posts back, that rape isn't funny.

Oh! And I almost forgot. Fuck you, Kathryn Holmquist, fuck you and your twisted victim-blaming and disgusting excuse for ethical advice.

The Musical is Political

2009-10-28T19:22:00.000-05:00

I am probably starting to seem like a CNN fanatic. I'm not...I swear. But I have to respect them for running this opinion piece on their front webpage today.

I immediately identified with the author, LZ Granderson. He writes about Chris Brown, and more specifically his music. Granderson apparently has four of Brown's songs on his iPod, but he doesn't play them anymore. Ever since the news broke that Brown attacked his former girlfriend Rihanna, Granderson just isn't in the mood.

Granderson calls out Chris Brown not just for his criminal actions but for the following quotation from Rolling Stone magazine : "Honestly, I would just like to get past it. At the end of the day, I'm sorry for what I did, whatever it is." Like me, Granderson is blown away by the last three words of that statement.

"Whatever it is" means that Brown isn't taking this seriously. It means he's been told to gloss over his actions and attempt to move on with his career as if nothing ever happened. And that is not the type of person whose music I want to support. Even when it can be awkward, and even difficult to refrain from doing so.

The minute I read about Chris Brown's beating of Rihanna, I deleted "Forever" from my iPod. I will be honest: it sucked. I really, really liked that song. I requested it often at bars and it was perfect to dance to. And maybe it didn't mean anything to anyone else, but I knew that if I kept that song and continued to listen to it, I was supporting Chris Brown in a (very small) way. This, in itself, was not a radical act. Later, though, I made some choices regarding Brown's music that apparently were much more radical than I would have thought.

I think it happened twice: I was in a bar, I was dancing with my friends, and Chris Brown came on over the speakers. So I stopped dancing. This might sound kind of trivial. But I genuinely could not dance to the song and pretend like I wasn't thinking about Rihanna's face the entire time. I shuffled to the side of the dance floor, and my friends looked at me strangely. I don't want to say they were annoyed; that might be too strong a word. But it was definitely a "Here we go with the P.C. shit again" moment. They wanted me to move on, and like LZ Granderson, I had no interest.

This could easily turn into a huge philosophical discussion with myself. To what extent should our simple, daily life choices be monitored by our political beliefs? What difference does it make to "boycott" the byproducts of companies, organizations, or people we don't support? If I really hate women-bashing so much, why do I still have a sizable collection of misogynistic hip hop in my iTunes library?

I don't know the answers to these questions. But I do think it's true that the personal is political, and vice versa. It's true that it would be impossible to cut out all products and influences from sources which we find contrary to our beliefs. I don't think that's an excuse not to try. For instance, I am probably going to continue unwittingly buying products that donate to conservative causes. Some of that is out of my control. But I can control what I eat, so I'm a vegetarian. These are just my personal examples. Other people feel they can make a difference in other ways, and I respect that. I think the important thing is that we do something about our beliefs and not just hold them close.

Chris Brown is never going to know that on two separate occasions, I sat out on "Forever." But I do. To me, that means something. Chris Brown committed a heinous act of violence against a woman, and I am not OK with that. It might be the smallest act of protest I could do, but its symbolism stands for much more.

LZ Granderson is holding on to his four Chris Brown songs, just in case. I deleted mine for good. Brown is trying to move on with his career, and he wants us to move on with him. I've moved on, alright. On and on and so over Chris Brown.

Already with the roundups...ugh sorry

2009-10-27T21:03:00.000-05:00

I will make this an amalgam of sorts because I was overwhelmed by topics today. Also it was 60 degrees and sunny, probably the second real day of fall yet. And for a girl who loves her 50s and 60s, it was too good to pass up. Soon I will be back with lengthy analysis.

In the news:

1. My favorite Democrat of the moment screwed up royally...but I give him props for acknowledging the particularly damaging effects his insult typically has on women.

2. Kathy Griffin WHY?! Griffin goes on the Late Show and compares her being kicked under The View table by Barbara Walters to...uhh, Rihanna's brutally beaten face. Classy.

3. Happy Birthday, Hillary Clinton! I...love you.

4. This French guy continues to defend Roman Polanski. He calls us (us being those who wish for justice to be served, as the law generally should work in this country/world) a "lynch mob." Right, because wanting a man who raped a 13-year old girl, pled guilty, fled the country for decades, and failed to pay the victim her settlement rightly punished for his crimes is TOTALLY comparable to a group of white racists viciously hanging a black person for being black. This fucker has the nerve to feel bad for Polanski's children, 11 and 16. Yeah, being a young kid who has to deal with that guy must be REALLY TOUGH. God I am so sick of Polanski defenders I could just die. But...thanks to HuffPo who continues to post this guy's ridiculous blogs...I'm sure I'll get a chance to eviscerate him another day.

5. And the most horrifying story of the day. A 15-year old girl was brutally gang-raped after her high school dance, surrounded by a group of up to 20 males. It is unknown so far how many people "participated" (to CNN this means raped, though I would argue that watching the crime complacently constitutes participation) and how many stood around watching. This went on for over two hours. Finally, someone who overheard someone "reminiscing" about the violence called it in, and the victim was found beaten and unconscious. The story is here:

It is stories like this last one that make it hard for me to feel OK about life. I don't want to admit that I live in a world where things like this happen. HOW could this happen? I should say: of course I know that rape happens all the time. We become desensitized, and of course there should be outrage every single time. But in an instance like this, where multiple people attacked this young woman, and multiple other people just watched and said nothing...the problem feels a lot bigger, all of a sudden. It is no longer one vs. one. It is 20 vs. one. Men and boys against girl. To know that there are people anywhere who could watch such horrific violence and not do ANYTHING is almost too depressing for me to bear. I only hope this serious crime is treated with the gravity and sensitivity it deserves in the coming days, and that the criminals who participated (in ANY way) are brought to swift justice. I am disgusted. And I hope that people speak of them for what they are: monsters.

Women Save the Economy...BY SHOPPING!!! OMG.

2009-10-26T18:23:00.000-05:00

Every morning when I go to work, I read the news for a little bit. I often go to CNN, because it is the most trusted name in news, after all. Or it's quick, at least. Or something. So anyway. I sit down at my desk, hop online, and spot the headline: "Women: Saviors of the world economy?" I'm all: hell yeah!

But then it goes downhill. One might think that the picture accompanying such an article would display some indicator of women in economic high standing. Some female CEOs. Or you know, at least a woman with glasses and a briefcase (so we know she means business!), SOMETHING. But no. What we have here, our visual symbol of women economy-savers: some ladies doing what they do best. Shopping! The picture shows a very thin woman with shopping bags, in front of a wall with three more shopping ladies painted on. That's what I call sisterhood!

I think the article tries. The author introduces the facts: women's earning power is expected to grow dramatically over the next five years (to more than twice the combined GDP of India and China, the article tells us...though without comparable statistics we have no reason to be underwhelmed OR shocked by this). Still, corporations are underserving or "ignoring" this valuable "market" (i.e., over half the population). The following quote by Michael Silverstein, businessman and author of the dubiously titled Women Want More, is highlighted on a sidebar and included in the article itself: "The current way companies appeal to women is to take a male product and paint it pink." Oooh! How feminist! Or not, really. I mean I could spend ages on the implications of that quotation. For instance: are all products "male" by default? But there is so much more CNN goodness to dissect, so I'll spare old Mike and move on (though I must note that the other picture accompanying this article is of...a hot pink pair of cleats).

I will credit Silverstein with his example of the whole "paint it pink" phenomenon. He points to Della, the outrageously insulting sub-website introduced by Dell a few years ago to cater to its super-girly (and apparently, brain-dead) demographic. A real quotation from the website: "You'll find netbooks can do a lot more than check your e-mail." Michael Silverstein, ever the lady-consumer's right hand man, notes that "women found it insulting." No shit.

The next portion of the article only serves to confuse (at best) and mislead (at worst). First, we get a bright shiny picture of women's economic future. In my favorite formula for patronizing figurative speech, the author cites the growing importance of women workers with the term "womenomics." (Get it? It's like...money stuff, but women-ier!) The author writes: "Women globally control $20 trillion in annual consumer spending; by 2014 that could climb to $28 trillion." We are getting, like, soooo rich! Aside from the fact that this little statistic is compared to, uhh...nothing, the article goes on to cite Shaun Rein, the marketing director of China Market Research Group. Rein remarks that women are starting to make "as much, if not more, than men, especially in third and fourth-tier cities." He doesn't say where. He doesn't say what defines a "third-tier" or "fourth-tier" city. And seven lines down in the article, the author disagrees with him anyway.

Props to CNN's author for then citing the infamous statistic - women make 77 cents on the dollar for what men earn. The author then go on to describe further plights - very few CEOs are women. Women don't have business mentors. And then there's a charming example (again, from old faithful Mikey) of a female head investment banker meeting with a male head of a large bank. The man dismisses the woman's business ideas, and then the shit hits the fan. "She was practically banging her fists on the table." ERGH! WOMAN ANGRY! And then the man replies "Back off baby, there are bigger fish to fry." When did this little anecdote take place?! 1930?! Was everything still black and white? I'm seeing lots of cigars. This is more a journalism issue than a feminist one but really, some details would be nice.

So now I'm totally confused. Women are saving the economy! We're making hella cash! But...not really that much. Still just over three-quarters what men make. And...well, we're not doing great in the whole "leading-important-financial-institutions" sector. But, you know, we're pounding fists, and stuff. So...good?

There is then a short and interesting blurb (for it cannot truthfully be called more than that) about microfinancing in developing countries, and how these operations cater largely to women, who have proven to be more reliable in using the money resourcefully and paying it back quickly. So...good. Great, even. But what does this add to the supposed theme of this article? Next the author talks about immigrant workers, with female immigrants contributing a greater portion of cash to home countries than men do. And the grand conclusion to the ENTIRE ARTICLE? "Banks are clearly missing out here."

Ughghghgh. This is totally me being a former writing tutor, and seeing my chaotic red pen marks covering oh, about 80% of the article. But the lack of cohesiveness speaks to a deeper issue: where is the logical, progressive, and informative narrative on women and economics? What do all these little stories have to do with one another? Are women growing in economic power, or are we at a standstill? Yes, more money is being spent. But without any relation to what women are EARNING, these statistics mean nothing. Without any relation to what men are spending, it means even less.

The article tells me nothing new. Women are not the economic equals of men. We aren't treated seriously as consumers or as businesspeople. But boy oh boy, do we looooove to shop!

So it turns out...that first little picture summed it up better than I thought.

Why Rape Is Not Actually Funny

2009-10-25T13:46:00.000-05:00

Normally, I fully intend to write about something that happened either in the immediate past or that very day, in order to stick to my outlined plan for this blog as a "sexist occurrences diary" of sorts. So here's my disclaimer: the following event technically happened just shy of two weeks ago. I am allowing myself some lenience because of the GRE-induced delay in starting this blog when I intended to. I hope you'll forgive me. But anyway.

I graduated from college in May, and two weekends ago I had my first Homecoming. It was weird, but that's beside the point. After returning home, I got a Facebook message from my friend who is currently teaching in Europe. He asked how Homecoming had gone; it was a "thread" post where multiple people receive and reply to the message, each person able to see all other's responses. My female friend responded normally. I responded normally. And then another male friend just shocked the pants off me.

He's not normally a creep, really. I mean, OK, he sometimes makes sexually explicit comments when he drinks. And if I were still in school, this particular individual would probably find himself the subject of a handful of blog entries about lewd, sexist comments. They are run-of-the-mill (another problem, sure to be discussed in the future). What I mean is that they never imply violence. Until this message, that is.

So he says this (paraphrased): "I got drunk and ran around messing with people I knew and then anally raped, I mean danced with this (girl) for the rest of the night. It might have been a little rough for her but I liked it." I edited his description of the female because I am almost positive it described our VERY GOOD friend. Who was included in the thread.

There are several issues with this "joke," or metaphor, or whatever fucking figurative speech excuse this is meant to convey. The first of these is: rape is not OK to joke about, actually.

I thought that was common knowledge. Or at the least I thought that to joke about rape IN FRONT OF WOMEN was commonly agreed to be, I don't know, kind of a bad idea. Or at the leastiest least possible I thought, to joke about raping one woman in particular TO HER FACE was acknowledged to be super fucking creepy. I am mistaken, apparently?!

I mean, talk about knowing one's audience. I have not exactly held back my feminist viewpoints from these male friends over the years. In fact, I have made them pretty clear. Maybe this is a quaint idea, but I always thought you should try to avoid saying things that you know will really seriously offend your friends. It's just a little bit rude. And putting me aside, if I ever believed that guys joke about raping their girl friends, I didn't actually expect anyone to ever do it to our faces. Am I being redundant? I'm sorry, I just thought that ALL ASPECTS OF THIS WERE OBVIOUS.

But putting the excruciating lack of consideration and common sense aside, there is the greater issue of joking about rape in general. It. Is. Not. FUNNY. It is not. I don't understand people who laugh at rape jokes, and I really fucking don't understand women who laugh at rape jokes. But the jokes remain prevalent. Just watch five minutes of Family Guy. HILARIOUS!

So we agree they aren't funny, right? Or at least, most women do. So why aren't we saying anything about this? I, being my willfully-confrontational self, responded in the most snarky and caustic way I could think of, while softening my attitude ever so slightly to pass the requisite "remember, this is your friend" marker. But my girlfriend did not. Even though she said it was too far. Even though the joke was ostensibly about her. Even though this particular guy loves her (supposedly) to pieces and would absolutely not have held it against her. She thought it would be "awkward."

This is why I have occasional fits of "omfg-i-hate-all-the-males" syndrome. A guy makes a rape joke about a girl, and she doesn't stand up for herself because she is afraid of what HE might think. The rape joke guy. The asshole with all the power to figuratively tear down a woman and know that it doesn't matter because she will never feel comfortable defending herself.

In an attempt to calm my nerves and hear some "you go girl" support for my own choice to say something, I called my best friend, a theoretically objective commentator. She agrees it was creepy and inappropriate. But she tells me to be "careful" with what I say. She says, "boys are just like that." Way to pinpoint everything I hate about the male-female power struggle in five little words. She says, he didn't mean it like that. He didn't mean he actually wanted to rape her. He meant that grinding (the "dancing," if you can call it that) is maybe similar in motions to that particular act. People use "rape" in hyperbolic ways all the time.

Of course, she is right, at the most basic level. Of course we know he didn't actually rape my friend. He probably doesn't want to (though, I would argue that making such a comment displays a level of comfort with the crime that makes me uneasy). And (some) boys ARE just like that. They are "raped" by exams and tuition or whatever other stupid meaningless comparisons they come up with.

But there is this: just because something is common doesn't make it OK. Just because he said this, and he's a guy, and guys do that, it isn't OK. Why should he be excused because rape culture in the U.S. continues to make light of a crime that affects at least one in six women, and one in 33 men? If we continue to tolerate, and effectively support, jokes about rape, nobody is ever going to realize that it's wrong. If every one of us doesn't SAY SOMETHING when his or her friend jokes about rape, it's only going to get more commonplace. I know it is hard to stand up to somebody, especially a good friend. But we just have to. Because this isn't just about me, or my friend, or you. It is about over three million women. Women are the majority in this nation now. Let's start acting like it, and be a little louder.

Rape is not funny because it has happened to two of my close friends. It isn't funny because there is a 17% chance that it will happen to me. It isn't funny because it is largely a crime inflicted on women, by men. Because of my femaleness, my body is threatened. It isn't funny because it is a personal crime that not only causes its victims physical harm, but mental and emotional harm. It isn't funny because it's hard for me to feel safe. And you, my male friend, don't fucking know what that feels like.

Well hello.

2009-10-25T13:22:00.000-05:00

So here's the idea.

I really like a a few feminist blogs in particular. I really love reading feminist ideas and events in general. There is, however, a gap, in my mind. Not among feminists, but maybe from feminists to "normal people." I don't mean that how it sounds - the terms are not mutually exclusive. Many feminists are normal. Many normal people are feminists. I guess what I mean is that there are a lot of people who are "feminist" but don't use the term. They don't actively seek out feminist media, and they maybe don't get pissed off as often (whoops, did I just support the stereotype that feminists are angry? my bad.). But these are people who would recognize the injustice in street harassment. They don't condone violence against women. They realize the inhumanity of impossibly harsh beauty standards. But for whatever reason...they don't say much about any of this.

Those are the people that interest (and to be honest, frustrate) me the most. They are a great part of my target audience.

The other part, more unfortunate in my mind, is that great segment of people, most often yet not exclusively male, who do not see the inequalities that surround them daily. Of course, it takes great strength to recognize and admonish inequalities that you yourself do not suffer. So they can't be blamed, right? If someone doesn't realize what women and girls go through, every single day of our lives, how can he (or she) be expected to empathize, or better yet, ally with us?

So I guess that's what I'm going for. When I was a freshman in college, I was waiting in line for lunch at the cafeteria with some friends from my floor. There was a sign for the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance, a group I would later run. At the time though, I just said "That's cool. I didn't know we had that group." A male friend standing nearby said: "I guess I just don't think there's that much left to be done, in terms of women's equality or whatever." I said: "I do."

My hope is to write nearly everyday. I am convinced that there will be something to write about everyday. While some feminist blogs and books focus on larger themes of global sisterhood or genital mutilation or the intersectionality of social justice, I intend to focus on the familiar. This is absolutely not because I don't think the grander issues are important. Rather, it is because I believe in starting with what you know. I believe in introducing people, slowly if possible, to the realities of women's lives in the United States at this time. I believe that everybody can be converted to feminism, if only shown how it affects themselves or their friends or their mothers or their sisters or their daughters. It may not be fair and it may not be desirable, but it's a lot easier for people to become invested in an issue that affects their daily lives.

This isn't about feminism, the issue. This is about feminism, my life.

This is for every girl or woman who has felt the inner shrinking induced by male jeers. This is for the young women who have not said anything, at all, when a young man made a joke that hurt. This is for the women who have walked their friend to Planned Parenthood to get Plan B the morning after she was raped. And this is for the men who think this battle is over.

I think people should be a little more angry. If I make five people more angry about what women go through, I will feel a success. That being said, I also hope I can help you through this. I hope that there are days when things look so bright that I have nothing to write about, or that I can only write about how optimistic I feel. I can't make any promises. But I have a good feeling about this.

And oh yeah - the name is inspired by two sources. One is "FTW," the nerdy saying indicating your support for whatever follows the acronym, in this case "women." The second is for my good friend, who, in an adorable demonstration of female solidarity heading into a weekend where we intended to limit attention paid to cute boys, texted me: "For the women!!!!!!!"