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!
Monday, October 8, 2007
More Linguistics
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
