This lady says I can be a feminist and like Sex and the City. Whew!
'Cause while I don't do the whole fashion thing (or the whole men thing), I like the whole friends-as-soul-mates thing. MonkeyPants and I have a couple of soul mate friends from back home, and while we didn't talk about men at the coffee shop, we did talk about women (and sports and motorcycles and the patriarchy) at restaurants. We liked to eat, and we really enjoyed each other's company. So that part of the show resonates with me. And goddammit I really miss those friends.
Plus, I always find myself attracted to the strong (and sort of bitchy), slightly odd-looking independent thinker. Which means I had a small crush on Miranda (and an even bigger one on Cynthia Nixon). What can I say? The heart wants what it wants.
In any case, I am about as feminist as one is allowed to be without spontaneously combusting, and I enjoy Sex and the City. I don't love every thing about it, but as a socialist feminist and cultural critic, I almost never love every thing about anything. Occupational hazard, I guess. I've gotten good at compartmentalizing, and I've made room in my happy compartment for Sex and the City. Deal with it.
h/t
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Why I should stop saying fuck
'Cause it attracts people to my humble blog who are looking for shit like this:
1. "why women don't like to be fucked everyday" (It's you, buddy.)
2. "tiny 18 year olds fucking" (Way to steer clear of the kiddie porn there.)
3. "obama girl fucked" (Nice.)
4. "is it healthy for a man to be fucked" (I think yes, but what do I know?)
5. "huge dick mother fucker" (George Bush. Has to be.)
6. "healthy way to get fucked" (Cucumbers?)
7. "for time up fucking" (Wev.)
And this is all just within the last month! As always, it gives me a little giggle that these douchebags end up at GBWI, where perhaps, 'cause you just never know, I am radically changing their worldviews. It could happen.
And now I need to go scrub my brain. Fuckers.
1. "why women don't like to be fucked everyday" (It's you, buddy.)
2. "tiny 18 year olds fucking" (Way to steer clear of the kiddie porn there.)
3. "obama girl fucked" (Nice.)
4. "is it healthy for a man to be fucked" (I think yes, but what do I know?)
5. "huge dick mother fucker" (George Bush. Has to be.)
6. "healthy way to get fucked" (Cucumbers?)
7. "for time up fucking" (Wev.)
And this is all just within the last month! As always, it gives me a little giggle that these douchebags end up at GBWI, where perhaps, 'cause you just never know, I am radically changing their worldviews. It could happen.
And now I need to go scrub my brain. Fuckers.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Just go to Shakesville already
Go here to read Melissa's first installment of "a new series in which [she]'ll be addressing misconceptions or answering questions about feminism and/or feminists." This first post is entitled "Feminism 101: Feminists Look for Stuff to Get Mad About."
It's fucking brilliant.
It's fucking brilliant.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Jane Fonda said "cunt" on TV
See for yourself.
Meredith Vieira apologized for Fonda a few minutes later, but no word on whether Fonda actually felt like apologizing for it. I hope not. If you've seen the show, you get it. Even if you haven't seen the show, there was nothing offensive about the way she used the word.
Had she called Meredith Vieira a cunt, that'd be a bit different.
Seeing The Vagina Monologues changed my entire outlook on the word. I still don't use it, but mostly because now the word is too good for most people. That's right. The C-word is too good to be used with ordinary people. Especially ordinary people who do stupid shit.
Those people are just dicks.
Meredith Vieira apologized for Fonda a few minutes later, but no word on whether Fonda actually felt like apologizing for it. I hope not. If you've seen the show, you get it. Even if you haven't seen the show, there was nothing offensive about the way she used the word.
Had she called Meredith Vieira a cunt, that'd be a bit different.
Seeing The Vagina Monologues changed my entire outlook on the word. I still don't use it, but mostly because now the word is too good for most people. That's right. The C-word is too good to be used with ordinary people. Especially ordinary people who do stupid shit.
Those people are just dicks.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Question: Why doesn't Gender Blank wear make-up?
Answer: Because it might attract the wrong kind of guy.
Another question: Where are this woman's nipples? BTW, that's no girl, but whatever.
Sigh.
Another question: Where are this woman's nipples? BTW, that's no girl, but whatever.
Sigh.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Just the type of girl I am
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What type of girl are you?!! created with QuizFarm.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You scored as Nerdy Girl
|
Yes, big surprise that I'd rank as a nerdy girl. Or a hippie. Or an athletic tomboy. Of course, I'm apparently just as much a loser as I am a tomboy, so whatever. The good news, and my parents would be so proud, is that I'm only 25% slut! (Honestly, I don't think I break into double digits on the slut scale, but I didn't write the quiz. There's obviously someone out there better able to judge my sluttiness, so judge away.)
What type of girl are you? (I can't wait to see just what kind of girl Phydeaux is...)
Monday, October 1, 2007
Did feminism ever happen?
Wanna barf a little? Read this article from the Iowa City Press-Citizen. That should do the trick. If you're too lazy or scared to click the link, I've done you the supreme courtesy of republishing some of the ickiness right here. Get a load of this.
Where the eff are these young women's minds? Exactly how, I ask, is displaying the most vulnerable parts of the most degraded bodies "empowering" for anyone besides the voyeur? I mean, I think women's bodies are really pretty, too, but taking pictures of them and putting those pictures in a magazine like Playboy does nothing but turn human females with pretty bodies into nothing more than objectified sex receptacles, which is pretty much the exact opposite of empowering. Young women are fooling themselves if they think men are respecting the hell out of their pretty female bodies, not to mention the minds and souls that are part of the package. No, the minds and souls can be easily discarded, leaving nothing but a pretty picture to which millions of men will soon be beating off. Those two-dimensional glossy bodies may get pearl necklaces out of the deal, but they won't be the respectable kind.
In a stunning blow right to the solar plexus of the feminist movement, after initial skepticism and disappointment, Mueller's mother is finally really excited for her daughter to objectify herself. It's every mother's dream, really, so I guess I understand. But it's no big shocker that Mueller's boyfriend "has been even more supportive." In fact, and I know you'll find this nearly impossible to believe, he's the one who heard about the audition and urged her to give it a try! What a nice young pimp he's turned out to be, sharing his girlfriend's body with the world like that. Take this boy home to meet your mother, Ms. Mueller. They both seem to have your very best interests at heart, and I'm sure they'll get along famously.
I'm also a huge fan of Playboy's recruitment tactics, decorating a suite at the Sheraton in black, gold and pink. 'Cause you know as well as I do that the only way to attract a hot college woman is to paint something pink. Actually, now that I think about it, that probably is the best way to attract the kind of women who think Playboy is totally neat-o. They've so easily swallowed the Playboy punch that I'm sure they've been taken in by the Power of Pink, too. I just hope they don't break their stilettos in their enthusiastic rush toward all that empowering nakedness.
Cynthia Kaye, the stylist on site interviewing these young women, thinks this is some sort of resume-builder. “You really do feel like a celebrity when it comes out,” Kaye said. “I think it's something that you take with you.” Yes, it totally seems like something you might take with you, say, to a job interview. Or perhaps to have your teeth cleaned. Sadly, you may have no choice in the matter. 'Cause, unfortunately, your dentist and your potential new boss may have already experienced your celebrity status with you, Miss October. And you just can't put a price on that kind of empowerment.
"I’ve always wanted to be in Playboy,” said [Kim] Mueller, a 22-year-old sociology major from Mundelein, Ill. “I think women’s bodies are really pretty and deserve to be shown off,” she said. “I think it’s empowering for women.”
Where the eff are these young women's minds? Exactly how, I ask, is displaying the most vulnerable parts of the most degraded bodies "empowering" for anyone besides the voyeur? I mean, I think women's bodies are really pretty, too, but taking pictures of them and putting those pictures in a magazine like Playboy does nothing but turn human females with pretty bodies into nothing more than objectified sex receptacles, which is pretty much the exact opposite of empowering. Young women are fooling themselves if they think men are respecting the hell out of their pretty female bodies, not to mention the minds and souls that are part of the package. No, the minds and souls can be easily discarded, leaving nothing but a pretty picture to which millions of men will soon be beating off. Those two-dimensional glossy bodies may get pearl necklaces out of the deal, but they won't be the respectable kind.
In a stunning blow right to the solar plexus of the feminist movement, after initial skepticism and disappointment, Mueller's mother is finally really excited for her daughter to objectify herself. It's every mother's dream, really, so I guess I understand. But it's no big shocker that Mueller's boyfriend "has been even more supportive." In fact, and I know you'll find this nearly impossible to believe, he's the one who heard about the audition and urged her to give it a try! What a nice young pimp he's turned out to be, sharing his girlfriend's body with the world like that. Take this boy home to meet your mother, Ms. Mueller. They both seem to have your very best interests at heart, and I'm sure they'll get along famously.
I'm also a huge fan of Playboy's recruitment tactics, decorating a suite at the Sheraton in black, gold and pink. 'Cause you know as well as I do that the only way to attract a hot college woman is to paint something pink. Actually, now that I think about it, that probably is the best way to attract the kind of women who think Playboy is totally neat-o. They've so easily swallowed the Playboy punch that I'm sure they've been taken in by the Power of Pink, too. I just hope they don't break their stilettos in their enthusiastic rush toward all that empowering nakedness.
Cynthia Kaye, the stylist on site interviewing these young women, thinks this is some sort of resume-builder. “You really do feel like a celebrity when it comes out,” Kaye said. “I think it's something that you take with you.” Yes, it totally seems like something you might take with you, say, to a job interview. Or perhaps to have your teeth cleaned. Sadly, you may have no choice in the matter. 'Cause, unfortunately, your dentist and your potential new boss may have already experienced your celebrity status with you, Miss October. And you just can't put a price on that kind of empowerment.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Who needs men, anyway?
So, it looks like men are slouching toward irrelevance once again. 'Cause, see, researchers in Germany were able to take bone marrow and create something rather sperm-like. Which means, as you could very well guess, that women everywhere will kick their men to the curbs any minute now. Any minute now. Just you wait. Any minute now all those bitches are gonna shit all over the Nice GuysTM who have done nothing but love them and take care of them. Bitches.
MSNBC contributor Brian Alexander is clearly worried about just such a situation. After acknowledging that all the fear-mongering about women making babies without Teh Penis is silly, he still comes out with this gem:
He goes on to say that men are nearly irrelevant now, what with all the neglect they experience at the hands of women who are interested in something other than men's every fucking desire. But he sees a place for a few lucky fellers down the road. "Frankly, you only need a small tribe of us guys equipped with porn magazines and plastic cups. You could feed us, groom us and give us a little exercise — pretty much like you do now," he says. Isn't it cute how he envisions himself as one of the Chosen Ones we'd keep around, well-fed and plied with porn? What I want to know, among other things, is why after this inevitable revolution women will STILL be expected to feed and groom men. Can women never escape this lot? Fuck you, sir.
He closes by offering a threat to women's currently oh-so-cushy existence, which, as we know, is supplied solely by these Nice Guys. "So ladies," he says, "laugh it up while you can because once those artificial eggs and the artificial womb hit the market, you’ll be buying your own dinners at Chez Francoise."
And he wonders why some of us are in such a rush to get rid of men.
MSNBC contributor Brian Alexander is clearly worried about just such a situation. After acknowledging that all the fear-mongering about women making babies without Teh Penis is silly, he still comes out with this gem:
"I just want to know why you women are in such a rush to get rid of us. Sci-fi and fantasy literature are full of all-female societies like Wonder Woman’s home island. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd penned a friendly little book in 2005 called “Are Men Necessary?” Are you trying to give us a complex or something?"
He goes on to say that men are nearly irrelevant now, what with all the neglect they experience at the hands of women who are interested in something other than men's every fucking desire. But he sees a place for a few lucky fellers down the road. "Frankly, you only need a small tribe of us guys equipped with porn magazines and plastic cups. You could feed us, groom us and give us a little exercise — pretty much like you do now," he says. Isn't it cute how he envisions himself as one of the Chosen Ones we'd keep around, well-fed and plied with porn? What I want to know, among other things, is why after this inevitable revolution women will STILL be expected to feed and groom men. Can women never escape this lot? Fuck you, sir.
He closes by offering a threat to women's currently oh-so-cushy existence, which, as we know, is supplied solely by these Nice Guys. "So ladies," he says, "laugh it up while you can because once those artificial eggs and the artificial womb hit the market, you’ll be buying your own dinners at Chez Francoise."
And he wonders why some of us are in such a rush to get rid of men.
Monday, June 11, 2007
A four-point-oh in feminism
| You Are 100% Feminist |
 You are a total feminist. This doesn't mean you're a man hater (in fact, you may be a man). You just think that men and women should be treated equally. It's a simple idea but somehow complicated for the world to put into action. |
That test was totally easy. Of course, I've been studying for it for more than 30 years. Yes, in fact, I was a feminist right outta the womb. You can ask my mama. She'll tell you that I said to her, at the tender age of however old I was when I went to pre-school, that I was never going to get married because I wasn't going to have a man tell me what to do. I was just going to live at home and have babies.
Hey, I was in pre-school, folks. I got it half right.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Woman=girl, just so you know
Are they effing kidding with this shit? NEC Corp. is trying to appeal to "working women" with a pink, crystal-Hello-Kitty-adorned laptop. "PC users now tend to be men, but we're hoping to attract women with this product," says company spokesman Shinya Hashizume.
So there you have it. The way to attract women to a product is to 1)make it pink, 2)make it sparkly, and 3)put cartoon cats on it. Why? Because in the minds of patriarchal assbags everywhere, "women" are indistinguishable from "girls." And cats.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Blog wars
I'm in a funk. Seriously. I went out of town for a few days, and when I got back there were a bunch of posts to read, many having to do with the women of color (WOC) response to FFF (Jessica Valenti's book Full Frontal Feminism for those of you who don't live in the feminist blogosphere) and the response to that response. And I've been trying to catch up, but every goddam post leads me to about five other goddam posts, and then, just to make sure I'm being a responsible reader, I have to check out the comments on the posts because someone in about five minutes from whenever now is will be referencing those comments and tearing someone a new one. And one thing becomes crystal clear: I picked a shitty time to get behind on my blog reading. It is nearly impossible to stay even with this one. And more than that, it is mentally exhausting to try. And depressing on top of that. (I'm so tired, in fact, that I can't link to all the stuff to which I've just referred)
For those of you who are just joining the fun, here's a brief recap (from what I've been able to gather).
People With Concerns About the Book: "We think there are some issues that need to be addressed."
Jessica Valenti and Her Supporters: "Shut up."
PWCAtB: "We feel silenced, yet again. That is actually one of the issues we think needs to be addressed."
JVaHS: "Can you keep quiet just a little longer? Oh, and stop being jealous."
You get the idea. You can accuse me of losing important nuances in this recap, and you can accuse me of interpreting the situation through my own biased lens. Fair enough. If you want to read the Fun Feminists Are Always Right version, go visit Feministing. But, in my opinion, my version is more accurate. Not as flattering to white, middle-class feminists, but more accurate nonetheless.
And here's the thing. I feel like I should have something incisive to say about all of this, but what I really want to do is quit reading this shit altogether. 'Cause it makes me tired. I feel like there's a huge responsibility to do more for WOC issues, which wouldn't be hard since my baseline right now is at about zero. Sure, I think about the issues from time to time, and I get outraged with the best of them, but I don't actually do anything. I have the unearned privilege, on accounta my whiteness and my relative class comfort, of not doing anything about them and of not even thinking about them if I don't want to. I have the luxury of these issues not hitting me over the head from the time I wake up to the time I go to bed on most days. And I am cognizant of the fact that these issues do nothing but hit others over the head all fucking day long. This is why I have a responsibility to do more.
Which is why I can't just quit reading this shit. And why I need to read more of it. It's okay for me to feel bad about my privilege and my lack of activity on these issues. Hopefully feeling bad will be the kick in the ass I need to start doing actual work to make the feminist movement more closely reflect my values. Because in my perfect world, feminism is about eradicating the oppression of all people, not just white people, and not just women. The racist, capitalist patriarchy in which most of us live is unfair and oppressive to a lot of people, and it's not really responsible social activism to try to lift out only those who are most like us. We grow more when we listen to people who are unlike us, who come with different experiences, and who use different perspectives.
I am not going to save the world, and I probably won't make any meaningful contribution to people of color and their issues. I am not a Gatekeeper of Feminism, which, in my opinion, is the movement that shows the most promise of helping the most people. At most, I am a gatekeeper with a small 'g,' as all members of movements are. But, thanks to the Miracle of the Internets, I have as much access to the Gatekeepers as anyone else, meaning I can leave comments at the Big Blogs, engage in discussions, post and promote my own stuff, and read and promote the work by feminist bloggers of color. I can also have some real world conversations with real live people in my very own community. I owe it to all oppressed people to acknowledge that my liberation is bound up with theirs and to do what I can where I can with the privileges I didn't earn but which I nonetheless possess. Because that, in my mind, is the only way feminism can deliver on the promise to lift us all up.
We are all in this together. It's time we started listening to each other.
My attempts at listening have led to me adding the following blogs to my daily rotation. I encourage you to check them out if you haven't already. You may not like all of them (I'm not even sure I like all of them yet), but you won't know that yet. Be quiet. Observe. Listen. Learn. Act.
Taking Steps
The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum
Women of Color Blog
Having Read the Fine Print
The Unapologetic Mexican
The Silence of Our Friends
For those of you who are just joining the fun, here's a brief recap (from what I've been able to gather).
People With Concerns About the Book: "We think there are some issues that need to be addressed."
Jessica Valenti and Her Supporters: "Shut up."
PWCAtB: "We feel silenced, yet again. That is actually one of the issues we think needs to be addressed."
JVaHS: "Can you keep quiet just a little longer? Oh, and stop being jealous."
You get the idea. You can accuse me of losing important nuances in this recap, and you can accuse me of interpreting the situation through my own biased lens. Fair enough. If you want to read the Fun Feminists Are Always Right version, go visit Feministing. But, in my opinion, my version is more accurate. Not as flattering to white, middle-class feminists, but more accurate nonetheless.
And here's the thing. I feel like I should have something incisive to say about all of this, but what I really want to do is quit reading this shit altogether. 'Cause it makes me tired. I feel like there's a huge responsibility to do more for WOC issues, which wouldn't be hard since my baseline right now is at about zero. Sure, I think about the issues from time to time, and I get outraged with the best of them, but I don't actually do anything. I have the unearned privilege, on accounta my whiteness and my relative class comfort, of not doing anything about them and of not even thinking about them if I don't want to. I have the luxury of these issues not hitting me over the head from the time I wake up to the time I go to bed on most days. And I am cognizant of the fact that these issues do nothing but hit others over the head all fucking day long. This is why I have a responsibility to do more.
Which is why I can't just quit reading this shit. And why I need to read more of it. It's okay for me to feel bad about my privilege and my lack of activity on these issues. Hopefully feeling bad will be the kick in the ass I need to start doing actual work to make the feminist movement more closely reflect my values. Because in my perfect world, feminism is about eradicating the oppression of all people, not just white people, and not just women. The racist, capitalist patriarchy in which most of us live is unfair and oppressive to a lot of people, and it's not really responsible social activism to try to lift out only those who are most like us. We grow more when we listen to people who are unlike us, who come with different experiences, and who use different perspectives.
I am not going to save the world, and I probably won't make any meaningful contribution to people of color and their issues. I am not a Gatekeeper of Feminism, which, in my opinion, is the movement that shows the most promise of helping the most people. At most, I am a gatekeeper with a small 'g,' as all members of movements are. But, thanks to the Miracle of the Internets, I have as much access to the Gatekeepers as anyone else, meaning I can leave comments at the Big Blogs, engage in discussions, post and promote my own stuff, and read and promote the work by feminist bloggers of color. I can also have some real world conversations with real live people in my very own community. I owe it to all oppressed people to acknowledge that my liberation is bound up with theirs and to do what I can where I can with the privileges I didn't earn but which I nonetheless possess. Because that, in my mind, is the only way feminism can deliver on the promise to lift us all up.
We are all in this together. It's time we started listening to each other.
My attempts at listening have led to me adding the following blogs to my daily rotation. I encourage you to check them out if you haven't already. You may not like all of them (I'm not even sure I like all of them yet), but you won't know that yet. Be quiet. Observe. Listen. Learn. Act.
Taking Steps
The Anti-Essentialist Conundrum
Women of Color Blog
Having Read the Fine Print
The Unapologetic Mexican
The Silence of Our Friends
Monday, May 7, 2007
Is every choice a feminist choice?
I know I'll probably catch some shit for this one, but sometimes you just gotta put some stuff out there, critics be damned*. And the stuff I'd like to put out there today comes in the form of the One-Word Answer Woman's response to Sarah Katherine Lewis's provocatively-titled piece on AlterNet on Friday, Is Stripping a Feminist Act?.
No.
Now, I know lots of you empowerful third-wavers out there will try to muddy the cut-and-dried waters with arguments about how complicated the issue is if I'd just stop and think about it. Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the issue ain't complicated at all. Here's my line of reasoning.
We live, like it or not, under the oppressive thumb of the Patriarchy, an ideological apparatus with the main goal of elevating and keeping men in power and basically shitting on women. In order for this to work in the most squeakyclean way, handy distinctions between the sexes need to be made, amplified, and naturalized. Let's see here. Men have penises; women have vaginas. That's a pretty important difference. Probably the difference. Yes, the grand distinction between men and women is that women have icky vaginas. Thus, women are weak, mostly on accounta they're forever chained to their reproductive functions (and dysfunctions), which causes all kinds of hysteria and moodiness and makes them only really good as sperm receptacles and baby incubators. Or, of course, as professionals who reinforce this idea.
Taking your clothes off for money (or even for free) does nothing to disrupt the Patriarchal paradigm. It encourages the woman-as-sex-hole narrative and makes people think that women actually like that narrative. You know, 'cause no one pays to see a stripper with a frown on her face.
Do I think that women shouldn't be allowed to make that choice? Hell no! Women should be allowed to make whatever choices they want to make, provided those choices don't hurt other people. But I believe pretty firmly that you can't call that choice a feminist one. Why? Because it hurts other women. When non-stripper or non-sex worker or non-porn actress women are held to the same standards of beauty, sexyhotness, and behavior as the professionals, there's really no way they can win. The men who enjoy the "professional service" provided by strippers and sex workers come to expect certain things from their sexual partners. And if they don't get it, they usually get resentful and often get violent. The problem here, clearly, is the men who do this shit. But the women who participate in the sex industry are doing their fair share to prop up the Patriarchy by reinforcing one of its most very basic tenets (i.e., that women are sex objects). At the very least, they're doing nothing to undermine it, and I don't believe you can call any action feminist if it's not challenging the patriarchal system of oppression.
This doesn't mean that these women aren't feminists, just that this particular act is not a feminist one. I am an avowed radfem who often does non-feminist shit. And sometimes the shit I do is actively anti-feminist. For one particularly horrible example, I watch America's Next Top Model. And I enjoy watching it. I like competition shows, and I like makeover shows (both people and houses), and I like talent shows, and this show gives me all of that. Yet I know that the modeling and fashion industries are literally killing women and causing at least some guilt in at least 98% of the female population. For these reasons, I don't call watching ANTM a feminist act. It is personally enjoyable, but it does more to prop up than tear down the Patriarchy.
By Sarah Katherine Lewis' own admission, stripping is not inherently feminist.
Which brings me to another important point: if stripping or sex work is the only available avenue out of poverty, it's not even really a choice. If you have several equally-lucrative options in front of you and you still opt for stripping, then it's a choice. But it's still not a feminist one.
The folks at The Onion lampoon the very phenomenon of female "empowerment" in the February 19, 2003 issue, which, for some reason, just showed up on my RSS feed today. Blocked tubes, I guess. Anyway, my favorite line is this:
So, what I want to put out there today is this: A choice is not a feminist one simply because a woman, or even a feminist, makes it. It may be personally rewarding, but if the "empowerment" it delivers does more to strengthen the Patriarchy's narrative than to subvert it, it is not feminist. Women should be allowed to make these choices, as we all have to get by in the same Patriarchy, and some of us need more coping mechanisms than others to survive. Of course, I want you to choose something else, but that's not my call to make. All I really ask is that you be real about it and don't pretend that stripping and wearing "Hoochie" t-shirts helps anyone other than the Patriarchy.
*One of the nice things about a low-traffic blog such as this one is that I only really run the risk of alienating about twelve people.
No.
Now, I know lots of you empowerful third-wavers out there will try to muddy the cut-and-dried waters with arguments about how complicated the issue is if I'd just stop and think about it. Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the issue ain't complicated at all. Here's my line of reasoning.
We live, like it or not, under the oppressive thumb of the Patriarchy, an ideological apparatus with the main goal of elevating and keeping men in power and basically shitting on women. In order for this to work in the most squeakyclean way, handy distinctions between the sexes need to be made, amplified, and naturalized. Let's see here. Men have penises; women have vaginas. That's a pretty important difference. Probably the difference. Yes, the grand distinction between men and women is that women have icky vaginas. Thus, women are weak, mostly on accounta they're forever chained to their reproductive functions (and dysfunctions), which causes all kinds of hysteria and moodiness and makes them only really good as sperm receptacles and baby incubators. Or, of course, as professionals who reinforce this idea.
Taking your clothes off for money (or even for free) does nothing to disrupt the Patriarchal paradigm. It encourages the woman-as-sex-hole narrative and makes people think that women actually like that narrative. You know, 'cause no one pays to see a stripper with a frown on her face.
Do I think that women shouldn't be allowed to make that choice? Hell no! Women should be allowed to make whatever choices they want to make, provided those choices don't hurt other people. But I believe pretty firmly that you can't call that choice a feminist one. Why? Because it hurts other women. When non-stripper or non-sex worker or non-porn actress women are held to the same standards of beauty, sexyhotness, and behavior as the professionals, there's really no way they can win. The men who enjoy the "professional service" provided by strippers and sex workers come to expect certain things from their sexual partners. And if they don't get it, they usually get resentful and often get violent. The problem here, clearly, is the men who do this shit. But the women who participate in the sex industry are doing their fair share to prop up the Patriarchy by reinforcing one of its most very basic tenets (i.e., that women are sex objects). At the very least, they're doing nothing to undermine it, and I don't believe you can call any action feminist if it's not challenging the patriarchal system of oppression.
This doesn't mean that these women aren't feminists, just that this particular act is not a feminist one. I am an avowed radfem who often does non-feminist shit. And sometimes the shit I do is actively anti-feminist. For one particularly horrible example, I watch America's Next Top Model. And I enjoy watching it. I like competition shows, and I like makeover shows (both people and houses), and I like talent shows, and this show gives me all of that. Yet I know that the modeling and fashion industries are literally killing women and causing at least some guilt in at least 98% of the female population. For these reasons, I don't call watching ANTM a feminist act. It is personally enjoyable, but it does more to prop up than tear down the Patriarchy.
By Sarah Katherine Lewis' own admission, stripping is not inherently feminist.
"The unglamorous truth about my experience as an adult entertainer is that I felt empowered -- as a woman, as a feminist, and as a human being -- by the money I made, not by the work I did. The performances I gave didn't change anyone's ideas about women. On the contrary, I was in the business of reinforcing the same old sexist misinformation you can see in any issue of Hustler or Girls Gone Wild DVD. I wasn't "owning" or "subverting" anything other than my own working-class status. Bending over to Warrant's "Cherry Pie" didn't make me a better feminist. It just made me a feminist who could afford her own rent.
I was raised to believe that feminism means respecting the choices women make for themselves -- particularly the ones concerning their own bodies and their own lives, as full members of a fair society, whether or not I agree with their choices. And every month when I write my rent check -- subtracting the money from my checking account without the teetering, free-fall sense of dread I remember from when I worked long hours on my feet, waiting tables and making espresso, desperately trying to make ends meet -- I am thankful for the freedom I had to choose sex work, in all its polarizing complication."-emphasis mine
Which brings me to another important point: if stripping or sex work is the only available avenue out of poverty, it's not even really a choice. If you have several equally-lucrative options in front of you and you still opt for stripping, then it's a choice. But it's still not a feminist one.
The folks at The Onion lampoon the very phenomenon of female "empowerment" in the February 19, 2003 issue, which, for some reason, just showed up on my RSS feed today. Blocked tubes, I guess. Anyway, my favorite line is this:
"Whereas early feminists campaigned tirelessly for improved health care and safe, legal access to abortion, often against a backdrop of public indifference or hostility, today's feminist asserts control over her biological destiny by wearing a baby-doll T-shirt with the word "Hoochie" spelled in glitter."They're mostly talking about the tendency in today's consumer culture to champion the most mundane of actions as feminist and empowering, not specifically about stripping and sex work. But their last satirical line makes fun of the point I'm trying to argue against here: "Only by lauding every single thing a woman does, no matter how ordinary, can you truly go, girls."
So, what I want to put out there today is this: A choice is not a feminist one simply because a woman, or even a feminist, makes it. It may be personally rewarding, but if the "empowerment" it delivers does more to strengthen the Patriarchy's narrative than to subvert it, it is not feminist. Women should be allowed to make these choices, as we all have to get by in the same Patriarchy, and some of us need more coping mechanisms than others to survive. Of course, I want you to choose something else, but that's not my call to make. All I really ask is that you be real about it and don't pretend that stripping and wearing "Hoochie" t-shirts helps anyone other than the Patriarchy.
*One of the nice things about a low-traffic blog such as this one is that I only really run the risk of alienating about twelve people.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
I won't even walk a mile in those shoes
I know this is probably curmudgeonly of me, since the men in question are trying to do something good, but whose idea was this Walk A Mile In Her Shoes campaign? If you're unfamiliar with it, it's basically a bunch of men who walk in high heels to protest violence against women. It's billed as "The International Men's March to Stop Rape, Sexual Assault & Gender Violence." Which is all well and good, as we need men as allies in this fight.
But why, oh why, would you have as the central theme of the parade one of the very symbols of women's oppression? High heels are dangerous to one's health. Don't believe me? Read this. And this. And...this. In addition, they make it nearly impossible to outrun an attacker - unless that attacker is also in heels, which is unlikely. Finally, walking a mile in high heels will tell men nothing about women's experiences with violence and rape. Not one thing.
Plus, lots of women don't wear high heels at all, yet their experiences of rape and violence are no less real or painful. Men could walk a mile in my normal footwear without the slightest discomfort, which would teach them just as much about rape as walking in heels would (which is nothing).
I appreciate these men's willingness to participate in this event. I do. But if they're gonna walk a mile in high heels, it ought to be in protest of the Hotness Standard that demands that women wear debilitating footwear. Why does oppressive fashion escape the critical gaze here? Walking a mile in her shoes offers lots of striking visual images of dudes in heels, but beyond that, the gesture is meaningless. Empathizing with her lived experience and staging a gimmick-free protest march would be much more powerful.
Just sayin'.
More international assbaggery
News flash for all you non-breeders out there: you ain't shit. If you're not fulfilling your womanly duty to incubate tiny yous, you're not fit for public office in Australia. So says liberal senator Bill Heffernan, international assbag.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
I didn't break the law today. Where's my fucking medal?
What is it about giving medals to just about everyone except people who deserve them? First it was the Franks/Tenet/Bremer Congressional Medal of Freedom, and now Reade Seligmann of Duke Lacrosse fame. Having had the rape charges against him dropped, his high school has bestowed upon him the Delbarton Medal, the highest honor from the all-boys Delbarton School.
His headmaster says Seligmann demonstrated "courage, nobility, integrity and charity" during the "ordeal" of the last year. Then he goes on to say the most asinine thing I've heard in awhile:
'Cause let's face it. I don't have the first clue as to whether Reade Seligmann raped Crystal Gail Mangum because a)I wasn't there and b)I didn't examine her afterward. But the same can be said of nearly all of the people defending Seligmann and his co-defendants, leading one to surmise that these people are defending them for other, more sinister reasons. Reasons relating to sexism, racism, classism, and probably several other isms. And with less-than-stellar conviction rates in rape cases, I'm not inclined to think that many women make false accusations. I imagine some do, but not nearly to the extent some people claim. Who would put herself through all the public scrutiny with such little chance of success? This woman's life has been damaged much more than the lives of the defendants in this case; it just doesn't seem like it sometimes because she started from an awfully low rung to begin with.
So quit with all the public displays of blind support for these guys. It's offensive. Because even if they didn't* rape her, they don't deserve a fucking medal for it.
*The case was dropped for lack of evidence. They were not found innocent. There is a difference.
His headmaster says Seligmann demonstrated "courage, nobility, integrity and charity" during the "ordeal" of the last year. Then he goes on to say the most asinine thing I've heard in awhile:
“You gave us a model of how to handle the pressures that we all experience.”Yes, let us all rally around a guy whose experience is justlikeours. Because it is the average person who is the white son of privilege, who gets to attend a pricey university on athletic scholarship, and who attends parties where African-American women are hired to stroke the male, uh, ego. Yes, yes, we all belong to this elite club, and we're all just as likely to get dragged under by nasty hos who are asking for it, not that we would actually do anything wrong, wink wink. I've lost count of how many times my friends and I have been accused of raping people. See? I'm just like this guy!
'Cause let's face it. I don't have the first clue as to whether Reade Seligmann raped Crystal Gail Mangum because a)I wasn't there and b)I didn't examine her afterward. But the same can be said of nearly all of the people defending Seligmann and his co-defendants, leading one to surmise that these people are defending them for other, more sinister reasons. Reasons relating to sexism, racism, classism, and probably several other isms. And with less-than-stellar conviction rates in rape cases, I'm not inclined to think that many women make false accusations. I imagine some do, but not nearly to the extent some people claim. Who would put herself through all the public scrutiny with such little chance of success? This woman's life has been damaged much more than the lives of the defendants in this case; it just doesn't seem like it sometimes because she started from an awfully low rung to begin with.
So quit with all the public displays of blind support for these guys. It's offensive. Because even if they didn't* rape her, they don't deserve a fucking medal for it.
*The case was dropped for lack of evidence. They were not found innocent. There is a difference.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Does this mean I only have to do 69% of my job?
Women continue to earn less than their male counterparts. How much less? According to a study done by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, the gap already stands at 20% one year out of college (women making only 80% of what their male peers make). Ten years down the line, the gap widens to a staggering 31% (women making only 69% of what their male peers make).
MRAs* and other douchebags** will argue that this difference either doesn't really exist or can be attributed to education, career choice, maternity issues, space aliens, or a whole host of other factors. Anything, basically, to avoid implicating the vaunted institution of Misogyny(R). But the report is careful to report that
Now, some of the afore-mentioned douchebags have done some quick math on this and determined that one-quarter of 20% is only 5%, which is basically nothing, if you ask them. But at the ten-year mark, one-quarter of the pay gap is 7.75% that can be attributed to sexism. Even 5% is significant. Statistically and practically.
I've done my own math here, and the result is pretty sickening. If we start with a hypothetical man and woman with similar degrees, similar number of hours worked, etc., in a position that earns the man $50,000 per year, over a typical career his sexism-generated income advantage would be $173,260. (If he earns $50k, she earns $40k one through nine years out of college - and that's keeping the gap absolutely steady for the first ten years for the purposes of this exercise. It's probably a steadier increase. Anyway, one quarter of the $10k/year disparity equals $2500, and over ten years that equals $25k. Starting at year ten, keeping the salaries the same - except boosting the man's salary to reflect the increased gap - the woman will earn $40k to the man's $57,971. One quarter of the $17,971/year disparity is $4492. If we assume they were 22 when they got out of college and are 32 at the ten year mark and that they work another 33 years until retirement at age 65, that's an additional $148,260 that the man will earn over the woman simply due to sexism. Add that to the $25k from the first ten years, and you arrive at the $173,260 figure. This is a conservative estimate based on all the assumptions made for the purposes of the exercise. And the actual gap, remember, is four times that much. What this means is that our hypothetical man's penis is worth roughly $173,260 over his lifetime***, and it's all passive income - unless he's a porn star).
But here's the real message that needs to get out: Even one tenth of one percent of a pay gap attributable to sexism is unacceptable. Otherwise, who gets to decide what percentage of misogyny merits outrage? We certainly can't let the MRAs decide because in their world anything that is less than 98% sexist is for pussies.****
This is 2007, folks. It's time for a zero-tolerance policy on this shit.
*MRA - n., Men's Rights Activist. These people live on a planet on which misogyny is the most abundant element in the atmosphere.
**No one gave me an alternative word after the last solicitation, so douchebag it is.
***If he's a doctor or a lawyer, his penis is worth much, much more. A teacher? Not so much.
****That might be their actual motto.
MRAs* and other douchebags** will argue that this difference either doesn't really exist or can be attributed to education, career choice, maternity issues, space aliens, or a whole host of other factors. Anything, basically, to avoid implicating the vaunted institution of Misogyny(R). But the report is careful to report that
Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the study found that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained. The group said that portion of the gap is “likely due to sex discrimination.”
Now, some of the afore-mentioned douchebags have done some quick math on this and determined that one-quarter of 20% is only 5%, which is basically nothing, if you ask them. But at the ten-year mark, one-quarter of the pay gap is 7.75% that can be attributed to sexism. Even 5% is significant. Statistically and practically.
I've done my own math here, and the result is pretty sickening. If we start with a hypothetical man and woman with similar degrees, similar number of hours worked, etc., in a position that earns the man $50,000 per year, over a typical career his sexism-generated income advantage would be $173,260. (If he earns $50k, she earns $40k one through nine years out of college - and that's keeping the gap absolutely steady for the first ten years for the purposes of this exercise. It's probably a steadier increase. Anyway, one quarter of the $10k/year disparity equals $2500, and over ten years that equals $25k. Starting at year ten, keeping the salaries the same - except boosting the man's salary to reflect the increased gap - the woman will earn $40k to the man's $57,971. One quarter of the $17,971/year disparity is $4492. If we assume they were 22 when they got out of college and are 32 at the ten year mark and that they work another 33 years until retirement at age 65, that's an additional $148,260 that the man will earn over the woman simply due to sexism. Add that to the $25k from the first ten years, and you arrive at the $173,260 figure. This is a conservative estimate based on all the assumptions made for the purposes of the exercise. And the actual gap, remember, is four times that much. What this means is that our hypothetical man's penis is worth roughly $173,260 over his lifetime***, and it's all passive income - unless he's a porn star).
But here's the real message that needs to get out: Even one tenth of one percent of a pay gap attributable to sexism is unacceptable. Otherwise, who gets to decide what percentage of misogyny merits outrage? We certainly can't let the MRAs decide because in their world anything that is less than 98% sexist is for pussies.****
This is 2007, folks. It's time for a zero-tolerance policy on this shit.
**No one gave me an alternative word after the last solicitation, so douchebag it is.
***If he's a doctor or a lawyer, his penis is worth much, much more. A teacher? Not so much.
****That might be their actual motto.
International assbaggery
Iran arrests 300 women for being 'insufficiently veiled.'
I'd like to kick the Iranian police in the crotch for being insufficiently human.
I'd like to kick the Iranian police in the crotch for being insufficiently human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
