Guess what this post is about!
I've talked about this a lot (in my life, not on the blog). What first put it in my head was Social Psych class sophomore year--every year our brilliant professor assigned a Day of Non-Conformity, in which we all went about doing Non-Conforming things and wrote a page about our experience. He then distributed compiled anonymous snippets of our responses, so we'd get a sense of how it affected people. Well, this happened to coincide with Halloween, and one girl wrote about how Halloween costumes exaggerated gender roles. She wasn't talking about sluttiness, but rather femininity--she dressed as a fairy, and other girls went as ballerinas and whatnot, while guys often wore macho costumes like superheroes.
I read this and thought about all my friends, and what they had worn. Male costumes included: Ziggy-era David Bowie, Barbara Bush, and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Female costumes included: all four Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Splinter, and a pirate (which I took way too seriously). Some friends' costumes were femme, but didn't particularly emphasize the fact--the female vampire was a vampire, and female. Etc. So my basic conclusion was: I love my friends.
As for my costumes, they tend to be fictional characters who are somehow bad-ass. Usually physically (Xena, American Maid) but sometimes brainily* (Daria, Carmen Sandiego). This year my costume is uncharacteristically "cute," but I love it nonetheless, as the music video the character's is very uplifting. We are all that little bee girl. But the outfit I'm copying is that of a 10-year-old...and guess what, I'm a little older than that. I feel basically naked in the get up, but whatevs. I'm not sure how I feel about the "slutty costumes" issue. I find them lame, but that might be because I'm so into Halloween--I don't like it being used as JUST an excuse to dress slutty. My roommate was explaining** that costumes can be slutty if they're also somehow clever, and I think that's probably my stance: there's nothing wrong with wanting to look sexy, but be original at least! French maid: bad. Slutty Ghostbuster: awesome (especially on a man, which is where I saw that.) I mean, I'm annoyed by straight-from-the-wall-at-Ricky's outfits to begin with, whether they're slutty or not, so that's my bias. So if your French maid costume is HOMEMADE, I'd probably be ok with it. And if you made your own Slutty Ghostbuster, that's extra awesome.
*Yes yes Steve, not a word, I know.
**I think, it was to someone else so I missed half the conversation but she should still get the credit.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
[Some kind of clever title about Halloween and gender roles]
Back! And, Coincidentally, in Black.
Hello, Suffragettes and Suffragers!
It's been awhile. I apologize for not announcing my week off. I was busy sucking at my ACTUAL job, which as I'm sure you know takes a lot of energy. So, to get everyone up-to-date:
-I haven't asked the guy out but I might if the moment arises. (Don't wanna force it...or do it in front of my boss, cuz THAT'S pretty awkward.)
-Jezebel posted on a subject we've discussed.
-Despite my fear of dieting, I might try Weight Watchers. Mostly because Tina Fey did.
-My Halloween costume is unintentionally skimpy. Joel Stein would be so disappointed. As would a lot of other people. My own post on the subject will happen soon, and then I can link to that, too!
Speaking of things to come:
-Stuff about Buffy! And Catholicism. (Obvi.)
-Feminist of the Week (with an explanation as to why I'm dropping the "male.")
-My own thoughts on Halloween.
-I dunno, some feminist stuff probs.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Internalizing. You know, the way drinking arsenic is like internalizing.
As part of a recent post, I went back and read the Amazon online excerpts of He's Just Not That Into You. As you may remember, I took particular exception to the notion that women should never ask men out because if a man is truly into you, he will ask you out. Always. In a timely fashion. Quoth Greg Behrendt:
Many women have said to me, "Greg, men run the world." Wow. That makes us sound pretty capable. So tell me, why would you think we could be incapable of something as simple as picking up the phone and asking you out? You seem to think at times that we're "too shy" or we "just got out of something." Let me remind you: Men find it very satisfying to get what they want. (Particularly after a difficult day of running the world.)
As I said in my previous post, this is very annoying because most of the guys I know often DO feel nervous and shy, and generally think that asking a girl out is scary*. (That passage is also annoying because he's like "aw gee, men don't rule the world, we're not that competent!" and then uses men-ruling-the-world to support his argument.) Maybe it's a generational thing--Behrendt is 44--but as I've said, I know many couples in which the girl made the first move, many guys who are gun shy when it comes to the daunting Ask Her Out thing, and many guys who find it very cool when girls get the ball rolling.
BUT. In rereading all this, I seem to have internalized it. Yes, Susan has a crush, and her crush is flirting with her, and her friends are urging her to casually suggest the time-tested let's-get-coffee-sometime. But if he were interested in more than just flirting, wouldn't HE have made such a suggestion? This is sort of a workplace crush, and I am sort of higher-status, but just nominally. BUT STILL. Please give me your thoughts, and be brutally honest.
A little context: he is age-appropriate and may or may not know how hot he is.
*Because they are normal human beings and asking someone out is, in fact, FRICKIN' SCARY.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Mythbuster? Menstrual Edition.
This week's myth is another doesn't-apply-to-everyone kind of myth. Tell me what you think:
Period sex.
(And I don't mean screwing in Elizabethan garb.)
In the words of Vincent Chase, "It's not something I hope for, but I've done it." Now, some women don't enjoy sex during their period--things do get sensitive, after all, and cramps aren't exactly an aphrodisiac. Some women particularly like it--more lubrication, it can actually help cramps, and sometimes the hormones make a girl randier. But a lot of guys assume that blood on the field stops all play.
I tend to agree with Vince. It's something to work around, but not necessarily a problem. I wouldn't expect a guy to go down during those red-letter days*, but there's actually little interference when it comes to intercourse. So, the myth is that menstruation always means Do Not Enter. I encourage guys to be open minded, and to get laid!
*Ugh, no more well-worn euphemisms, I promise.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The Hive Mentality
I was just, for some random reason, rereading an old Nerve book review about one of those novels in which men are awful and this is cool because it's just being honest about how all men are awful. The book review doesn't really make it clear whether anyone should read this book, but it linked me to a letter that the book's editor sent out (which led to a whole other shenanigan) that began thusly:
This reminded me of the 3 minutes of my life I'll never get back because I thumbed through He's Just Not That Into You. While I don't find the concept of this latter book so repulsive, here's why I threw it down in disgust: what's with this conceit that all guys are the same? It seems to make sense until you think for a second and ask yourself...how could you possibly know whether or not all guys are the same? What if some guys were different and you JUST DIDN'T KNOW THEM? And other things to that affect. Do I claim to know with certainty how all women think? No. And yet I'm looked upon with a derisive chuckle if I dare to think that some guys are not necessarily like some other guys. Whatsisname who wrote The Average American Male and whatsisname who wrote He's Just Not That Into You know guys who are like them. They clearly don't know most of MY guy friends, who have meangingful long-term relationships with women they love and desire. (Unless OHMYGOD THEY ARE LIVING A LIE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT SOCIETY WANTS OBVI!!! STEP AWAY FROM THE AWESOME GIRL YOU THINK LIKE BUT REALLY DON'T, TRUST ME!!!!) Ahem. So where does this come from, this condescending attitude that if you think there are some guys who actually like love, you're foolin' yourself babe?
(Full disclosure, I did in fact read ALL of Be Honest--You're Not That Into Him, Either. What can I say, it was a bad January. And that book was written by a guy who was all, Hey, some of us like relationships, so stop wasting time with the jerks who, rather than being LIKE ALL MEN, are jerks! Cuz jerks are jerks! So that was cool.)
More on the F Word
Jezebel reports on a new study finding that feminism helps heterosexual relationships, feminists have better sex lives, feminists date more and more seriously, etc etc. This is all awesome. The reason I'm telling you this in the context of Jezebel is that they have a weird little mini-debate in which two of their editors--one a "feminist" and one "not"--talk about how feminists have it better. A quote from the self-described non-feminist:
WTF does this mean? That only feminists care about how they look--and that all of them do, because looking hot is what feminism's about? This makes no sense. I don't get it. It makes me sad when people cook up these weird definitions of feminism.
Probably she is just trying to twist her life to fit into what the post is trying to say. Like, "we need a non-feminist...hmm...I don't listen to Bikini Kill or hate frat boys so I guess I count...and I guess I could have a better love life? Because of, uh, stuff! Yeah, that's it, stuff."
Weird, Jezebel. Weird. And you guys are normally so great!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Male Feminist of the Week! "You'll Probably Hate Me" Edition
I know you've been wondering all weekend: who will be this week's Male Feminist? I know your game. Constantly refreshing your web browser in the hopes I might post early, setting up office pools as to who the lucky fellow would be. Well, your long painful wait is over! The newest Male Feminist of the Week is...
I know, I know, I know: What??? Freud???
Simmer down now.
So, yes, there was the whole "penis envy" thing, the "masculinity complex," the unfortunate "women who like clitoral stimulation are neurotic" theory. But this is what I've always held: Freud did great things for women. Like all people who are ahead of their time, Freud was still a product of his time--back in his day, even concepts of female anatomywere phallocentric and inaccurate, with diagrams of the uterus and ovaries looking like an inverted penis and testicles [trying to find an image; not doing so well]. My main point has always been this: Freud pioneered the radical idea that maybe someone should start talking to women. Asking them questions! Ascribing value to their thoughts and feelings! Figuring out why they had the troubles that they had*! Most of his patients were women, and he respected their pain. Even more progressively, he convinced the Western world that women had natural sexual desires that were as healthy and vital as men's**.
Freud got a lot wrong about women. Freud, frankly, said a lot crazy shit. But he was inventing a new way of looking at life, and was bound to fuck up a little. And he also admitted that in order for the world to truly understand female sexuality, we would have to wait for the female psychoanalysts. He knew he had shortcomings. And his shortcomings were far outweighed by the attention he paid to a long-ignored gender.
It's hip to hate on Freud, especially in our generation. I think most people who hate on him know little about him. There are certainly things in his oeuvre to roll your eyes at, but he took major steps forward in terms of Western culture's understanding of the female gender. He is my homeboy. I hope he will be yours.
*For heaven's sake, women were running around smelling burnt pudding that wasn't there!
**He also was insistent that homosexuality is innate, incurable, totally healthy and in general peachy keen, which was good for men and women alike. ("It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too.")
All's fair in love and advertising?
The blogosphere is abuzz today because advocacy group Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood has written a public letter to Unilever, the company that owns both Dove and Axe, charging them with hypocrisy. Why? Because Dove ads promote a positive body image, and Axe ads are degrading to women.
So, my roundtable question: are Axe ads genuinely more degrading to women than your average commercial?
Obviously, the commercials are really stupid. Axe purportedly smells gross, and I doubt I would date anyone who falls for the advertising enough to buy the awful product. While I object slightly to the "questionable hook-up?" ads for the body wash, the body SPRAY ads don't offend me more than a lot of other ads that genuinely objectify women-- these ads say, "if you buy our product, women will want to sleep with you." This is not exactly a new tactic--Axe is just far more blatant about it. I'm inclined to say that the campaign is degrading to everyone--men just as much as women.
Furthermore, while it's not technically hypocriticalfor a parent company to have 'children' companies that cater to different demographics, I've always found the Dove ads themselves somewhat hypocritical. It's great that they use real-looking women, but they do so in the context of selling us semi-expensive "skin firming" cream. They're sort ofsaying that these women are beautiful, but they're also saying they need to change the way they look. I think the ads do more good than harm, because it helps adjust the atmosphere--we're constantly bombarded with the infamous Size Zeroes, so having even an occasional Size Ten puts a chink in The Man's armor*. But it's still exploitative, and still telling us our bodies are wrong, and bad, and need fixing.
So, while I applaud Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood's efforts, I'm not going to get up in arms about it. Thoughts?
*Albeit a tiny, tiny chink.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Mythbuster #4: The Harmless Flirtation
They're out there. People who are in committed relationships, yet go trawling bars looking for single people--not to hook up with, oh no no, because that would be cheating. Just to flirt with. To lead on for 20 minutes or so, without mention of the significant other who is conveniently absent. Sometimes this flirting gets physical. Sometimes they will get your number and then throw it away. Sometimes they will finally reveal their status only to treat *you* like the crazy person and seductor/ress.
And they think this is okay.
That is this week's myth: that it is okay to jerk people around, get their hopes up, and waste their time. The people who do this are only concerned with the morality of it in terms of their S.O. They don't actually give a thought to the people with whose heads they are fucking.
First I say to these people: haha you wish you were single, I actually am single and have what you want and thus am better than you and you are lame and possibly going to Hell*. Secondly I say, just to clarify: this is really mean. It is selfish and weak, and I empathize with selfish and weak, but come on--if I can feel empathy, so can you. You may remember (unless you are one of those people who's always in a relationship, in which case bite me) that being single, while fun, is also very frustrating. A little flirting is fun, and you certainly shouldn't shout "I have a girlfriend!" if someone so much as talks to you, as though ze is a vampire and you are holding up a wooden cross. But you know what you're doing. You know where the line is. And you know that to a single person, who is probably going through the hard slog of finding someone to date or bed, serious flirting is just that--serious. The person you are flirting with could be spending that time with someone they could actually GET, but instead they are touching their hair and batting their lashes for you. So don't fool yourself. Stop making people cry.
MAKING PEOPLE CRY.
(Okay, not everyone will cry. But some will. Some of us, depending on timing and drink consumption, will end up despairing over the fact that no one likes us UNLESS they have a girlfriend, and would never want us if they were single, and what's wrong with us and how are we sending out these messages and oh my god, maybe we really are as fat as we think we are. This is unfair to the single person, and unfair to their friend who would probably rather be partying and not comforting them in the bathroom. Hi Michelle!)
*Not that I have ANY experience with this issue, or am in ANY WAY emotional and melodramatic on the subject. Oh no, perish the thought!
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Speaking of books...
Doris Lessing won the Nobel Prize for Literature today. She's the 11th woman to win this prize! So today's a big day.
Lessing's novel The Golden Notebook is considered a pioneering feminist work. Lessing herself rejects the term "feminist," and has basically said that feminists want to get rid of men, but we'll forgive her because she's 87. However, the Swedish Academy (ie the folks who gave her the prize) call her "that epicist of the female experience, who with skepticism, fire and visionary power has subjected a divided civilization to scrutiny." She was famously deemed "unfeminine" when the novel came out in 1962, to which she responded, "Apparently what many women were thinking, feeling, experiencing came as a great surprise.”
Full disclosure: I didn't know who she was before today. Now I'm pretty sure I'm gonna run out and buy her book. Yay female Nobelists! Too bad she didn't get that $1.6 million when she had more time left to spend it.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Words words words
This is great! Please EVERYONE let me know what books you loved, as a child/youth, that informed your understanding of sex and gender. Was anyone else out there a Marion Zimmer Bradley fan? Those books gave me a LOT to process.
Maybe this is why I like Disneyworld so much...
Let's talk, briefly, about porn. I don't have time right now for a full long post on the topic, so I'll say this: I am, generally speaking, pro-porn. Partially this is because I do not believe that any medium, art form or genre can be inherently without merit. (The "fuck TV" crowd needs to watch Six Feet Under, stat.) It's partially because I understand why the average person would find porn appealing. I mean, people having sex. Makes sense to me. And it's partially because I find porn appealing every now and then. (See: the part about how porn is people having sex.) But there are also excellent arguments AGAINST porn that I often have trouble totally refuting.
On Nerve right know there's a great essay by Shalom Auslander about the porn of his youth (and how it interacted with his Ortohodox upbringing) as compared to the porn of today. His description of the porn he first came to know and love is one of the best arguments in favor of porn I've read:
"… the fantasy world of pornography seemed like a parallel, if gooey, version of the Garden of Eden my rabbis had just described to me. Legs were eternally spread, bodies were proudly exposed, heads were thrown back in ecstasy. In porno there was no guilt, no shame, no fear, no anger. Black people fucked white people, white people fucked black people, men fucked women, women fucked women, and, in a magazine named Blueboy, buried at the very bottom of the pile, men even fucked men...With inspiring abandon, women lavished attention and in turn were lavished upon, and men spilled their seed on the floor and the chair and the couch and the bellies and the backs and the faces and the lips without fear of retribution... do what you want, the leaders of Pornoland declared, but judge not, scorn not, worry not.
He then recounts his discovery of the modern porn that includes things like "choke-fucking" and other delightful and violent things that he wouldn't want to imagine (much less see) a person going through. Now, I'm certainly not opposed to S&M porn and whatnot, I'm no Vanilla Lobbyist, but there is definitely a spectrum and this far end of the spectrum, which is becoming more mainstream, is definitely disturbing.
So. I like the essay because it nicely (and experientially, my favorite!) sums up two opposing sides of the argument, and reminds us that "pornography" can mean a lot of things. Have a read (it's short), and let me know where you stand.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Book Wyrms
The Guardian had a feature last week in which women discuss what book opened their eyes to feminism. It's a good read.
As for me: I've been a feminist at least since I was 5 years old* and, I grew up in a feminist household against which, aside from baseline adolescent obnoxiousness, I found little reason to rebel. (The world outside provided plenty of jerks--I didn't need to create them at home.) To probably-misquote Stoppard's Coast of Utopia, regarding England's ability to have liberty without formulating lots of theories about it first, "They like freedom because it's freedom." So it's not really until the past year or so that I'm actually READING feminist texts. (And I can't stress enough how great Manifesta is.)
So. My first influential book? Dealing with Dragons. But I don't like the new cover as much as the one from MY old copy:
Anyway. I reached this book in, I think, 4th grade? Patricia C. Wrede wrote the kind of stories I didn't know I'd been waiting for--smart, witty books with smart, witty heroines. There are four in the series. Dealing with Dragons, the first, introduces us to Princess Cimorene, who is sick and tired of being a princess--she has to take embroidery and country dance lessons, and generally sit around being silly and proper. Rather than moping, she sneaks in fencing, Latin, and magic lessons on the side (until she gets caught). When she discovers she's been betrothed to a really annoying prince, and after some advice from a talking frog, she runs away from home and becomes the personal assistant of a fascinating dragon named Kazul. (Kazul is also female, but gender differences are apparently irrelevant amongst dragons.) She then has adventures, kills things with swords, fireproofs herself, melts some wizards, helps some friends, and makes a lot of chocolate mousse. In future books she goes on to find love and all of that, all in the course of her regular adventuring, and all with a level head.
The books are great. The writing is vivid and mature, and often very tongue-in-cheek, with winking references to famous fairy tales. (In one book we meet a man who is clearly a Rumplestiltskin, but who has become SO overrun with kids he's changed his name to Herman, in the futile hope that mothers will manage to guess it.) Two of the books are from the POV of a woman, two from a guy, and all are filled with wonderful powerful female protagonists, all of whom are in someway unexpected, all of whom casually and simply deviate from whatever norms and stereotypes govern them.
If you like YA fiction, read them! If you know kids who do, give them as gifts!
And you can always throw in some Simone de Beauvoir while you're at it.
*More on this some day.
Two PSes
1) Please, everyone, send me any suggestions you have for Male Feminist(s) of the Week! And for that matter, suggestions for Mythbusters. Or anything else, really.
2) I'm thinking I should also do a Female Feminist of the Week. Just because we know the woman feminists exist doesn't mean we know much about them individually. Plus, it seems kind of not-feminist to only talk about the men :) I'm also sorry to make this seem so gendered--I'm not excluding trans individuals, but I will deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
Love,
S
Male Feminist of the Week!
Hello again dear readers.
It is sadly difficult to find substantive information on our male feminist friends. A preliminary google search mostly brings up obnoxious rants on whether "male feminist" is an oxymoron (which I confess I haven't REALLY read yet because I'm very busy right now and can't afford to depress myself).
BUT. I just today found a link to this fellow:
He is the man behind No Cookies For Me, a male feminist blog that I think you would all enjoy. Recent posts involve issues such as chivalry (and how people who say the feminism killed it don't actually know what the word means), the underrepresented sexism of police, and misogyny in gaming and webcomics.
But, to quote my buddy LeVar, you don't have to take my word for it!
More Linguistics
In prepping for this weeks "Male Feminist of the Week," I've discovered that a lot of men and women in the movement feel it is inappropriate for men to call themselves feminists--they should, rather, consider themselves "pro-feminist."
This goes, basically, against everything I believe in. As far as I'm concerned, most people I know are feminists, whether or not they embrace the label, whether or not they have evolved feminist stances on every issue, whether or not they are feminist activists (or, indeed, actively feminist). I don't think you have to fully understand what it's like to be a woman in order to support and further feminist causes and ideals. To quote my friend Steve: "I don't need a special group just because I have a dick."
I think it could be argued that people of any gender who are more passively in favor of feminist ideals should be called "pro-feminist." But defining it along gender lines is divisive, exclusionary, and more than a little depressing. Calling men feminists encourages them to take up the cause--calling them "pro-feminist" makes it sound like they sit on their recliners watching the game going, "yeah, I'd let my wife work--whatever, right?" It makes it sound like it's okay for men to sit on the sidelines passively saying, "you go girl" and shrugging their shoulders about anything subtler than the 19th Ammendment.
You go, you male feminist you. We're in this together!
Friday, October 5, 2007
More on Hair
Oh yeah, and you know what else hair is good for? Reducing painful friction. Seriously folks-- bumpin' fuzz without the fuzz? Ouch!
(Oh also it traps pheromones to make you more sexually attractive or whatever.)
Mythbuster #3: [Insert cheesy euphemism for pubic hair]
This is not quite a straight-out Mythbuster, because the truth? I don't know what guys like*. All I know is, I am pretty riled up over the subject of the bikini wax. I'd thought we were finally starting to hit a backlash against the whole 'landing strip' thing, and now Time Out New York has an oh-so-cute little article making it sound de rigeur. HOWEVER, they neglect to actually ANALYZE their own little infographic:
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Sex and the City: SO OVER IT [Spoilers, like you care]
Things have been leaked about the upcoming SATC movie. Namely: that Charlotte is pregnant and Carrie gets married, presumably to Big.
WTF??? These facts have officially made me dislike this movie. (Before this, I didn't care.) The WHOLE POINT of Charlotte and Harry adopting was that Charlotte ended up with the family of her dreams...but not her expectations. She learned to build a life outside of the WASPy visions she'd grown up with--even Carrie's final voice over said something about building a family different than expected!
As for the marriage--what I liked about the ending of the show was that it didn't specify whether Carrie and Big were going to get married. Carrie had said that, after the Aidan fake-out, she wasn't sure she ever wanted to get married, and the show's ending preserved the possibility that they would be more of a Susan Sarandon/Tim Robbins-type couple--life partners, without the societal label and the expectations it brings.
I've always had mixed feelings about this show, but I liked that it posed the idea that there are different ways of ending up happy. Some people get married, some people get married more than once, some people find love in different ways.
If Samantha and Smith get married, I'm demanding my money back. Not that it's likely I'll pay to see it.
From Susan B's Archives: Sluts
Hi gang! Here is one of my favorite essays from Nerve. It came out some time ago, but I wanted to share it with you all. To sum up, it's about the backlash against young women actually making good on their sexual liberation, being instigated chiefly by second-wave feminists who are maybe a little jealous. It's from the perspective of a recent college graduate, and it's both thoughtful and frank, with an appropriate dash of glib thrown in. An excerpt:
[Please keep in mind that I think a "Golf Pros and Tennis Hos" party sounds like the lamest thing ever, but if I insert some of the parties I did frequent at Wesleyan*, my alma mater, it makes sense.]
The essay pretty much speaks for itself. But basically, I'm tired of this shit, of Katie Couric going on TV and decrying blowjobs, tired of articles that remind me of the Feminine Mystique-era studies saying that college education made women unsatisfied with being house wives, so maybe they shouldn't go to college. As my good friend Alden once said, "I sort of can't understand why people wouldn't like hooking up. It's like not liking ice cream." Of course, an excess of ice cream can sometimes be bad for you, but everyone has their own limit. And people don't cluck their tongues at you if you eat ice cream without wanting to marry it.
How does this apply to me, you may be wondering? I don't like to get TOO autobiographical, but suffice it to say that I don't date much, and my number of belt notches, if you will, is totally sane and reasonable and also way higher than that of almost everyone I know. To my mind, my sexual history is no better or worse than my friends'--in college, as now, I hooked up on my own terms; sometimes drunkenly**, sometimes randomly, always safely and sans victimization. There are some hook-ups that seemed stupid later on, but I never actively regretted them. "Walk of Shame" was always considered a tongue-in-cheek term, as it most often seemed a Walk of Gloating. (The morning after I lost my virginity I got to walk home in heels, a long black evening gown, and a big ol' Austrian crystal choker. Oh, and a big ol' smirk. It was a red-letter day and I wanted people to know, damnit!)
I have a problem with this idea that sex should only be had with someone "special." Cuz, you know who's pretty special? Me. Sex is often better when BOTH parties are special, but that doesn't make it the only brand of peanut butter on the shelf***. I'm now thinking of the recent Onion article, "Study: Casual Sex Only Rewarding For First Few Decades." And again, smirking.
I hope I'm not sounding OPPOSED to people who don't have casual sex. But now that not everyone I know is a Wesleyan kid, I've run into people who are weirded out by those of us who DO. I don't get it, guys--what's the big deal?
*Naked Parties, The Sex Party, Queer Prom, in general most parties at Eclectic, that one Chi Psi party I randomly went to and announced my plans to get "drunk as an unrequited poet" (and succeeded, with shady results...)
**if by "sometimes" you mean "usually"
***What?
Morning Thoughts
Is it wrong that I feel slightly guilty for buying a scone this morning? I'd already had breakfast and wasn't particularly hungry. I can pretend I feel guilty for financial reasons, but it wasn't expensive, and I don't feel guilty for having bought coffee as well (when I'd already had coffee).
The scone's delicious, though. I recommend the whole wheat raisin from Balducci's--not at all dry, but not so soft it feels like a muffin!
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Male Feminist of the Week!
This will hopefully be a regular Monday feature. (I forgot yesterday.) I figure that at the beginning of the work week, we could all use a little pick me up!
Dear Reader,
In these times of trial, it's important for us to remember we're not alone. We're frequently bombarded with negative messages about men--they're jerks, they're all alike, they will hurt and confuse us and break our hearts, they're not capable of real emotion, and worst of all, each and every one of them hates women. Few things depress me as reliably.
But do not despair! Because there are wonderful men out there who are not afraid to take up the cause, who proudly call themselves feminists, mean it, and prove it in both word and deed. So for our inaugural installation of this series, I bring you my favorite contemporary male feminist:
This man of many talents (TV, movies, musicals, graphic novels, demon dances of joy and shame) has produced some of the great works of modern feminist pop culture. Most saliently, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Aside from this being my favorite show of all time, it was explicitly feminist in its conception and (unlike Rob Thomas's initially comparable Veronica Mars) continued to be vocally feminist throughout its seven-year run. His more male-centric shows Angel and Firefly also include varied incarnations of strong women--scientists, warriors, and high-status prostitutes, sweet girls who enjoy casual sex and loving wives who kick serious ass. He sensitively depicts the conflicts and tribulations that being a woman often presents, without making his characters look neurotic or weak.Furthermore, he has spoken at length on feminist issues. In a semi-recent essay on Whedonesque, he decries "honor killings" torture-porn horror movies, and sexism at large. (And introduces the concept of Womb Envy!) An excerpt:
Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished. (Objectification: another tangential rant avoided.) And the logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are, at the very least, expendable...I just think there is the staggering imbalance in the world that we all just take for granted. If we were all told the sky was evil, or at best a little embarrassing, and we ought not look at it, wouldn’t that tradition eventually fall apart?
You make it sound so clear, Joss. I find myself pleased that you had a son--please breed us a race of men like you!
Posts
