Fuck The Clever Post Titles: Just Don't Call Clinton A Bitch, Okay? Awesome. Glad We Had This Talk

Feministe has a great post up about why it's important to call out anti-Clinton misogyny, regardless of whom you support. An excerpt:

I’m focusing on the misogynistic stuff thrown at Clinton because this, as you may recall, is a feminist blog. And while there are hundreds if not thousands of other blogs as well as entire networks and mainstream media outlets rushing to the defense of Obama (thus rendering anything I have to say pretty well redundant), there are few outlets calling out misogynistic attacks on Clinton and/or on her supporters. And it matters that somebody’s calling it out. It’s got nothing to do with who’s the better candidate, who should win, the “delegate math,” or what have you. Vote for whomever you feel like voting for; I’ve been on record from the beginning of the primary that feminists don’t have to vote for Clinton to be feminists, since feminists get to make up their minds the same as anyone else does.

Read it. At least read some of it. It's really important, and tackles several issues, especially that of how such misogyny affects women in general.

Now it's personal experience time! I have a friend who is totally smart and not an asshole provided he's sober, but apparently decides to change things up when he's drunk and/or high. (What I'm about to describe is the only first-hand experience I have of this, so I'm not trying to comment on his character.) Basically the argument was over whether it's okay to call Clinton a bitch. He was high and not responding to anything I said so I eventually just left, but I will give you lucky readers the answer to this question:

No, it is not okay. Asshole.

It doesn't matter what you think of her. It doesn't matter if she is a bitch*. You don't say that about women in politics, you don't say that about women in power, you preferably don't say that about women, period. I came up with a great linguistic example (by which no one seems impressed except me, but I am way impressed so whatever): the word "niggard." Etymologically, it has nothing to do with the infamous N-word, but it unfailingly brings that word to mind so you really just shouldn't use it in public, not because of its meaning but because of its connotations.

Maybe this example doesn't impress my friends because it's really a debate tactic aimed at people who don't know they're being sexist. Because "bitch" is misogynist in both origin and typical usage, whereas "niggard" is racist in neither. Perhaps a better example is that you shouldn't call women "hysterical" because of the sexist origins of the term**, but to care you'd pretty much have to not be a misogynist in the first place. This friend was actually insisting that bitch is not a sexist word, ever. But like I said, he was high--when sober, he probably remembers that the word literally means "female dog." He also argued that he sometimes calls men bitches--I tried pointing out that people call men bitches for different sets of behavior than for women, and the thrust of the insult is that you're saying that the man is a woman. Which is, as we all know, A TERRIBLE THING TO BE.

Not that you have to like Clinton. This friend of mine's stance is still "Anyone but McCain!" whereas this other dude in the conversation took the horrifying stance "If Clinton wins I'll vote McCain." There are only two reasons to support McCain: 1) you hate women, and 2) you're a Republican, which means you hate women anyway so there you have it. There's also the possible 3rd reason that you're an independent and don't actually know anything ABOUT McCain, but if you're any sort of Democrat and prefer him to Clinton, I have this to say: dude, I'm sorry you hate your mommy and everything, but do you have to take it out on the rest of us? Do you really hate vaginas so much that you want to force mine to give birth regardless of my wishes? Douche.***

And that's The Word.



*And btdubs, I have never been given any evidence that she is a bitch. A politician? Yes. A bitch? Fuck you.
**From the Greek for "wandering uterus," a condition that was ascribed to women in explanation of "madness." In the 19th century it was used as a catch-all diagnosis for any issue a woman was having, and was sometimes treated with clitoral stimulation, which would result in a "hysterical paroxysm," something we're all fond of. (Vibrators eventually came into use because doctors' hands got tired. No joke.) Freud led the transition from hysteria to neurosis, which was a non-gendered term he used to discuss male and female patients alike, and now the term is not recognized by the psychological community, as it is not only sexist but vague and not particularly helpful diagnostically.
***A douche is, of course, a gendered product, but it's a bad one, so the insult is valid.

Read More...

Summary only...

Royal Pain

I spoke a bit before about the combination of violence and sex. The inspiration came from this poster that's been all over Manhattan lately:

This is the kind of thing that always makes me wonder: is this bad for society? I think if I say that this poster sexualizes violence against women, I will not have to explain why. It's pretty obvious once you think about it.

I can't say it offends me, but maybe it should. The reasons it does not offend me are two-fold: one, The Tudors is higher-brow than, say, Captivity,* and whether it should or not that makes me slower to attack. The more-to-the-point reason is that, as discussed, consensual violence is sometimes sexy. So how do we separate sexual violence from violent sex? Is it wrong to find images like the above a little sexy in a kinky way? Obviously, the violence suggested by the poster is not consensual, but the image suggests sexual enjoyment--on the woman's part even more than the man's, really. Doesn't this suggest that you can beat and murder women and it's okay because they're kind of into it? The image is clearly supposed to excite us, titillate us, but as we know from knowing who these characters are historically, the "taking" that the text describes entails, or at least presages, the woman's decapitation.

So the overall question is: Should I be pissed? Or am I complicit because I too find it a little hot?

*Which in part inspired the Joss Whedon essay I mentioned back in the day. Also I should mention that the poster depicted is not even ACCURATE--I read the plot summary on wikipedia and--spoiler alert!--she doesn't actually die. What a rip-off!

Read More...

Summary only...

Susan B's Words To Live By: No Girl-On-Girl Crime

I have nothing but derision for women who say they don't like women. I hope I don't need to explain why--basically, in addition to being insulting because it means they don't like me, it means they are not interesting people, and spend their time sucking up to the male gender because that's who they want to fuck, and they're fooling themselves about why. To say "I don't like women" is to buy into the notion that male=good, female=bad,* and of course it's to buy into assumptions about what constitutes male and female behavior to begin with.

My general theory on, well, everything, is that EVERYONE is pretty lame**, but we notice certain behaviors and ascribe them to whatever gender is relevant to our sexual orientation. For example, a straight girl is going to have relationships with boys, so if her partner is a jerk, that means boys are jerks. And if the same girl's female friend goes after a boy she likes, that means girls are disloyal. But if the genders were reversed, I imagine a straight boy would feel the same way about girls and boys, respectively.

With me?

I say this because I'm about to talk about loyalty, but I want you all to know that I'm not saying This Is How Girls Act. This is how some, not most, people act, and the ones I'm talking about are girls because that's who I'm in "competition" with. I don't know how boys act amongst each other, but I do know that "women are bitches who only like jerks" is as common a notion as "men are jerks who only like bitches." Equal-opportunity bitterness.

But. I will tell you how to be a better girlfriend (as in, to a girl). Today's twin wise-sayings, ready for your implementation:

-If a guy treats your friend badly, and acts like a career jerk, it is your job to shun him.
-If a possibly cool guy is potentially interested in your friend, it is your job to cheer them both on.

Which can really be boiled down to one, all-encompassing commandment:

Help a sister out.

Seriously. I feel that I have always been the kind of friend who wants my friends to be happy, and if this means them getting together with a guy, I will do my best to help. There are totally loving friends out there, of all genders, who WILL NOT DO THIS. I don't get it. I don't want to get it. I just want to say that it is time for this to stop. As I've said--karma works between lifetimes, not within, so we have to do the work ourselves. Justice must be served!

So get out there and serve some fucking justice already. Jeez.


*I should definitely post on Girlie Feminism soon, because it's an important thing to think about and I wish I'd discovered it sooner. So, uh, remind me.
**Okay, fine, has the capacity to be pretty lame.

Read More...

Summary only...

What Would Tyler Durden Do?

So, here's the thing: I like to punch boys. Consensually, of course--I have never struck anyone in anger, but occasionally I'll say to a guy friend, "Wanna fight?" and then we step outside. Bareknuckle boxing, if you will. Always below the neck--my friend Chris wanted the face to be inbounds, but I said, “There’s a pretty boy I’m trying to mack it to.” And he understands that kind of thing.

The first part of my pugilistic impulse is: I like violence. I mean…in order to fight I have to be in the right mood. A very specific mood. The first time, you see, I was bored. Restless. There was a party going on at my house and I’d snuck off to someone else’s, suddenly feeling itchy somehow, like something was rattling around inside me. As is often my problem, I wanted to feel wild, like an artist, a Hemmingway type, a lion. By this point I was done with binge drinking and was taking a serious break from random sex. A physical fight suddenly seemed the way to feel less…trivial. More primal. Less bourgeois. It's exhilarating, really.

There is the therapeutic part, where I can get out all my anger and frustration, both at myself and others. It's definitely cathartic.

And then, of course, there's the part where I identify with male roles, and want to believe I can roll with the boys. But I don't want to win. The reason I fight boys and not girls (aside perhaps from girls not seeing getting pummeled as a good time) is that with boys I don't have to hold back. I don't have to worry about hurting them and I don't worry about them hurting me. That's the point.

I want to know how much I can take. I want to know I'm tough.

I tend to play the Strong Woman role, and sometimes I feel guilty because I'm worried it's all just a front. So yeah, getting "beat up" (but not really) by a guy proves that I can handle getting beat up. Basically: There's no fear he let me win if I don't win.

However, I do walk around acting as though I could take just about anyone. The really good fights (which are 3 out of the 5) had carefully chosen partners, and two of them in particular were the kind of guy who in general looks like he'd win a in a fight.* But this weekend I somehow, drunkenly, ended up in a faux-wrestling match with a guy who does not come off as particularly butch. I not only lost, I ended up on my knees, hitting his arm and croaking "Safeword! Safeword!" because I did not think he actually wanted his headlock to make me pass out, especially as the party was otherwise quite civilized.

[Okay, I'm going to get sexually explicit and reveal some stuff here, so if you think that kind of thing should be embarrassing then please don't read. Really, I'm only embarrassed to reveal things about myself when I think that other people think I should be. People tend not to like casual TMI. So be gentle.]

This reminded me of an occasion on which a guy had me, well, tied up. I'll spare you the details and skip ahead: afterwards, I said something about how I could've gotten free if I'd wanted to. My gentleman friend, almost offended, argued that had he actually wanted to restrain me against my will, he would've been able to. This gave me pause. Powerlessness is, of course, the fantasy...Dan Savage says we fetishize what we fear. But I suppose that integral to that, for me, is the idea that being forced couldn't happen to me for real. And the unsuccessful wrassling with my friend this weekend (he was gay, so don't mistake it for foreplay) bummed me out slightly because part of me wants to know that I could fend a guy off if I had to. Of course, there's a difference between hitting an attacker and running and actually sticking around for a fight. But I still sometimes think about the fact that most of my guy friends could easily beat me to death, could easily kill me with their bare hands.

So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to head off and buy a gym membership. Maybe some kickboxing classes will cheer me up.




*As much as theatre folk can look that way.
**Probably accurate.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Bare Necessities Of Life

Seeing as I'm now "funemployed"*, I've gotten lazy about a lot of things, and one of those is healthy eating. It's occurred to me that I could stand to lose a few pounds--not necessarily from an objective aesthetic standpoint (cuz no one wants to hear that), but because some of my underwear doesn't really fit anymore. Apparently the extra pounds go to my hips and ass, and now I can't even think about anything in the g-string or French bikini family.

However. What with the funemployment, I just cannot bring myself to watch what I'm eating. As I've said before, I think guys should be fine with my body even if I know they won't be, which kills the motivation. And I like boyshorts better anyway. But this has gotten me thinking about food. Namely, that I love food. I enjoy food. And I wonder if an enjoyment of food is related to an enjoyment of sex.

In high school I had an idle interest in palmistry, read a few books on it, found it interesting. One book categorized my "hand type" as Romantic. (I think, this was like 10th grade.) It characterized my ilk as sensual, to the point that we might be a little overweight because we so enjoy the acts of eating and drinking. (I am aware that most people enjoy these acts, but the diet idea of viewing food as nothing more than fuel actually horrifies me.)

There's a minor cliché that fat girls are better in bed. Some people go with the "because they have to be" angle, others go with "because skinny girls DON'T have to be." There's also the idea that conventionally hot ladies, caring more about their physical appearance, are more self-conscious when nude**. BUT, what if it's that, assuming that slightly chubby girls are slightly chubby because of their food intake, and that their food intake is due to their enjoyment of the taking-in, both the love of food and the love of sex are two results of one root factor--their attunement to, and enjoyment of, sensual experiences?

And yes, this is possibly just my excuse to eat lots of cheese. Mmm. Cheese.



*Credit to Sojourner at Diary of a Mad Blacktress for the phrase. I'm unemployed and lovin' it.
**There's also the theory that none of this is even true, but bear with me.

Read More...

Summary only...

Separate But Finally Equal?

My parents are what I like to call "First Amendment Liberals." (Have I said this before? Too lazy to check.) I am much like them. The big tenets are that you can't censor anyones thoughts or feelings, no matter how odious, that segregation is a great evil, things like that. So we sometimes find ourselves like 1% uncomfortable with things like hate crime legislation (cuz you can't punish someone just for HATING) and that high school for gay kids (and believe me, admitting that I was 1% uncomfortable with that, though officially supportive, got me in trouble with some people). This also applies to same-sex education--since we believe that separate is not equal, segregating the genders seems somehow...wrong.

My mom and I had a conversation about this recently. The thing is, we do know that an all-girls' education is probably a good idea. The statistics are a little depressing if you're a co-ed like me--how the overwhelming majority of women in politics went to women's colleges, and stories like this. We talked about whether or not I should've gone to an all-girls' school myself. I remember saying, "Thinking about it now, if I'd gone to an all-girls' school I probably would've been class president."

But then we talked some more, and realized I wasn't exactly a slouch--I headed up the literary magazine, the Gender Issues Committee, and, yes, the a capella group, I was a Peer Leader, I was vocal in assemblies and student body government and spoke at graduation, blah blah blah. I'm not trying to brag (I mean, high school is over folks), but the point is: would it have been better if I'd been class president? And doesn't saying that sort of mean that I think the other girls in this hypothetical school would've been inferior to me?

Well, not really--it's possible that being in school with boys did somehow teach me that those leadership positions were, yknow, covered. I, like most girls, have that typical story of speaking up in class and being shut down for not raising my hand...and then a boy says the EXACT same thing without raising HIS hand and gets praised for it. (And btdubs, I didn't raise my hand because there had been a dumb pause, so I obviously wasn't interrupting anyone. Yes this was eighth grade and yes I still remember. It was something about Friar Laurence.) But in general my teachers thought I was pretty cool. One time I shouted an obscenity in history class (long story) and went to apologize to the teacher later, and he was all "eh whatever, don't worry about it."*

Of course I am acutely aware that I am one of the lucky ones, that I not only had my basically-cool-for-high-school education but also my awesome-feminist-parents upbringing. Maybe I was pretrained to withstand SOME societal conditioning. A lot of smart, innately feminist girls don't get those advantages. So maybe more young ladies SHOULD go to schools where they won't be criticized for being too "aggressive." Thoughts?



*But then this was also the teacher who smiled and stepped aside when we decided to "overthrow" him for French Revolution week. (We took turns teaching, and addressed Mr. Dix as "Turnip.") God I miss that man.

Read More...

Summary only...