The sudden impetus for that last post was a recent, awesome, Jezebel thread talking about mysoginist writers.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
No Love For Love
I have never been ashamed to say that I have an unconditional love for Courtney Love. She's maybe not so relevant or interesting these days, but she has represented many important things to me, and I love much of her music. Lots of people hate her because the 90's alternative music scene was highly misogynist (the fans if not the artists--Eddie Vedder in particular is an awesome guy who might get a Feminist of the Week post soon). I was about to liken her to Hillary Clinton but probably that will sound ridiculous--basically, she was a woman married to a famous, talented man who dared to have a personality, who dared to be outspoken and have a career of her own. So, :P to you if you hate on the Love.
Lots of people point to her relationship with Cobain as the justification of this attitude, which only gets me thinking about the fact that we don't give a SHIT how male artists treated their lovers, but boy do we care how female artists treat theirs. I recently learned that William S. Burroughs shot and killed his second wife, and Norman Mailer stabbed his wife with a penknife, at a party. Novelists are different than rock stars, to be sure, but think--do you know or care how your rock idols treat women? Don't you ASSUME that most of them treat them pretty badly? We as a culture tend to romanticize this kind of behavior among male rock stars, or at most shrug it off and point to the quality of their music as more important. Live Through This was a (pardon the term) seminal album, if you don't, y'know, hate women. So don't tell me that's why. If you want to argue that she's less talented that Kurt Cobain, well--aren't most musicians? Is every artist we let off the hook as talented as Kurt Cobain was? Ha, yeah right.
And I'm sorry, she did not kill him. And she was hated before he died, anyway.
And I'm sorry, she did not kill him. And she was hated before he died, anyway.
Everyone Sucks at Math (Not Just Girls!)
Here is something that has bothered me as long as I can remember: statistics show that the average number of sexual partners for straight men is higher than the average number of sexual partners for straight women. Uh...how is this possible? Each straight man is having sex with a straight woman, so the average MUST be equal. This is so annoying, and this August the New York Times agreed with me. To quote:
Dr. Aral said she cannot determine what the true number of sex partners is for men and women, but, she added, “I would say that men have more partners on average but the difference is not as big as it seems in the numbers we are looking at.”
Dr. Gale is still troubled. He said invoking women who are outside the survey population cannot begin to explain a difference of 75 percent in the number of partners, as occurred in the study saying men had seven partners and women four. Something like a prostitute effect, he said, “would be negligible.” The most likely explanation, by far, is that the numbers cannot be trusted...The problem, he said, is that when such data are published, with no asterisk next to them saying they can’t be true, they just “reinforce the stereotypes of promiscuous males and chaste females.”
So, there*.And today's stupidity: in this week's Savage Love, a guest expert gives us this gem:
"Most people have either had a three-way or thought about it. Yes, even women. "
Even women??? The context of this is guy/girl/girl threesomes, so wouldn't more women than men HAVE to be into it??? Jeez. That is incredibly dumb.
*Neighbor Steve is arguing with me over whether or not the statistics are actually impossible, and my response: it is impossible if the male and female sample sizes are even roughly equal, which in these surveys (and in the world at large) they usually are. For the math to work, the number of women would have to be several times the number of men.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Stop the Presses!
I was in the middle of a totally different post (below) when I came across this on Jezebel:
That's right. Christopher Hitchens, whom I HATE HATE HATE* talks about how awful body waxing is: "I had no idea it would be so excruciating. The combined effect was like being tortured for information that you do not possess, with intervals for a (incidentally very costly) sandpaper handjob." So, while I won't go as far as Jezebel as to say this redeems him, it definitely gives him a few grudging points.
*Hate.
*Hate.
You've got some nerve!
As in, because I'm ripping off another one of their articles and showing it to you.
A friend of mine (hi Kyle!) emailed me with a question about sex-positive attitudes in Second Wave versus Third Wave feminism. I sent him a way-too-long email in response, but anyway: It brought me back to Carrie Hill Wilner's essay on Nerve, I, Slut, which talks about the sexual liberty that characterizes the Third Wave--and how this liberty is often twisted into something cartoonish, inauthentic, a new standard to which we must pretend to adhere.
Also, it talks about Sex and the City, and how the show did NOT represent Wilner's sexuality, or that of her friends. I have had trouble articulating this--I have mixed feelings about the show, which I find entertaining but also grating and somehow irking. Wilner puts it well:
But what really bothered me about the show was that it presumed to speak for me, the youngish urban female, and her supposedly newfound ability to Have Sex Like a Man and Use Bad Words. It was "shocking," "brutally candid," "honest." The media spoke of Sex and the City as if it were the fucking Rosetta stone of femininity — as if women could no longer understand themselves without the assistance of premium cable... According to Sex, promiscuity was a glamorous pathology, a mutation of the second X chromosome, something unnatural, temporary, alien — like obesity and cancer, an ailment of modernity that must be endured by those who yearn for the ruddy health of monogamy...I guess what I'm trying to say here is that my sexual touchstone isn't a neurotic bitch with a bikini wax.
[My emphasis.]
There is one episode that exemplifies the difference between what SATC espoused and what I did. It was called "Boy, Girl, Boy, Girl..." and Carrie's plot was that she was dating a slightly younger (late 20's?) guy who reveals he's bisexual, and has had a long-term relationship with a man (plus two with women). FIRST of all, I was alarmed by the squareness of the show's stance on male bisexuality--even Samantha says "dump him." But Carrie goes with it, and ends up at a party with all his friends, who get introductions like, "This is Sue, she's having Ryan and Bob's baby" or whatever, and who've all dated each other in various gender combinations, and Carrie's getting skeeved. Then they all play spin the bottle, and Carrie for the first time in her life has to kiss a girl--played by Alanis Morissette. The kiss isn't bad or good (Carries says it "tasted like chicken"), but she realizes this is not her scene and bails.
So, my problem? I would much rather hang with those crazy kids who freak Carrie out so much than with Carrie and her Gucci-worshipping, pseudo-enlightened friends. (And let's not even talk about Candace Bushnell herself, who just seems awful.) For one thing, I doubt any of my female friends will make it to 33 or whatever without having kissed a girl.* And while when I first saw the episode I conceded that I'd be a little weirded out to be in a social circle where everyone had dated each other, that is actually starting to become my reality so I can't complain. But the real point is, not only do these non-Carrie people have a GENUINELY open attitude about sex and sexuality, they seem to spend more time having sex than talking about it, unlike our Fab Four. I mean, spin the bottle? Awesome. Hopefully the guys made out with each other, too, but SATC would never show us THAT. (Actually, do they ever show us two guys kissing? I'm not sure.)
I did, however, love Miranda. And still do. Miranda was the actual feminist, incredibly smart, loved her job and excelled at it, had a baby and married on her terms, when she wanted to, to the best guy we meet on the show, and basically Has It All. She is also the only one who seems genuinely comfortable with both relationships AND casual sex, and manages to date a black guy with it being all, Look, She's Dating a Black Guy! And Cynthia Nixon was the best actor on the show. Her plotline in the above episode actually redeemed it for me,** as it concerned her insecurities about whether she was female enough, which is something a lot of successful women grapple with. So, kudos to her, but blah to the rest of the show for being so self-congratulatory while also being so narrow.
*Especially since I have probably already kissed them.
**And may or may not have made me cry.
There is one episode that exemplifies the difference between what SATC espoused and what I did. It was called "Boy, Girl, Boy, Girl..." and Carrie's plot was that she was dating a slightly younger (late 20's?) guy who reveals he's bisexual, and has had a long-term relationship with a man (plus two with women). FIRST of all, I was alarmed by the squareness of the show's stance on male bisexuality--even Samantha says "dump him." But Carrie goes with it, and ends up at a party with all his friends, who get introductions like, "This is Sue, she's having Ryan and Bob's baby" or whatever, and who've all dated each other in various gender combinations, and Carrie's getting skeeved. Then they all play spin the bottle, and Carrie for the first time in her life has to kiss a girl--played by Alanis Morissette. The kiss isn't bad or good (Carries says it "tasted like chicken"), but she realizes this is not her scene and bails.
So, my problem? I would much rather hang with those crazy kids who freak Carrie out so much than with Carrie and her Gucci-worshipping, pseudo-enlightened friends. (And let's not even talk about Candace Bushnell herself, who just seems awful.) For one thing, I doubt any of my female friends will make it to 33 or whatever without having kissed a girl.* And while when I first saw the episode I conceded that I'd be a little weirded out to be in a social circle where everyone had dated each other, that is actually starting to become my reality so I can't complain. But the real point is, not only do these non-Carrie people have a GENUINELY open attitude about sex and sexuality, they seem to spend more time having sex than talking about it, unlike our Fab Four. I mean, spin the bottle? Awesome. Hopefully the guys made out with each other, too, but SATC would never show us THAT. (Actually, do they ever show us two guys kissing? I'm not sure.)
I did, however, love Miranda. And still do. Miranda was the actual feminist, incredibly smart, loved her job and excelled at it, had a baby and married on her terms, when she wanted to, to the best guy we meet on the show, and basically Has It All. She is also the only one who seems genuinely comfortable with both relationships AND casual sex, and manages to date a black guy with it being all, Look, She's Dating a Black Guy! And Cynthia Nixon was the best actor on the show. Her plotline in the above episode actually redeemed it for me,** as it concerned her insecurities about whether she was female enough, which is something a lot of successful women grapple with. So, kudos to her, but blah to the rest of the show for being so self-congratulatory while also being so narrow.
*Especially since I have probably already kissed them.
**And may or may not have made me cry.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Make Love, Not Domestic Cold War
Feministing is standing firmly against this article in the (British) Times Online. The article, by "sex expert" Dr. Pam Spurr, contends that women who think they can just not ever have sex with their partners if they don't feel like it are ruining their relationships. Feministing is, of course, upholding the ever-embattled truth that a woman's sexuality belongs to that woman and no one else. But I think we need to give this article a fair shake. Feministing says, "Forget working out whatever issues are making you not want to have sex in the first place. Better that you just shut up and put out as to not piss off your hubby" (original emphasis). But really, the article agrees: "The solution is to take a holistic approach to a relationship and understand that every part of it – careers, finances, family issues, sex – needs nurturing and understanding... Never be bullied into sexual activity that turns you off or be pressured into sex that doesn’t satisfy you. But always be prepared to discuss your feelings and desires and listen to his."
My parents raised me to believe that sex is what keeps a marriage together, so perhaps I'm biased. But the article makes a spot-on point: we have no qualms about blaming a man when he stops wanting to have sex, so we should equally feel that the woman has some sort of responsibility to her partner. Spurr isn't saying, "women must have sex whenever their husbands want it, no matter what, or else they'll be deserted and alone!!!" She's saying that you can't just stop having sex altogether, for months, without talking about it, and expect your partner to be satisfied--whatever your gender is. It's nothing Dan Savage hasn't said time and time again.
So, while I agree that likening sex to taking out the trash is not the best way to get couples screwing again, I think we need to cut this woman some slack.
Friday, November 2, 2007
But what IS this "Third Wave" of which you speak??
What made me broach this topic? A post on Jezebel, my favorite source to steal from, about the 35th anniversary of Ms. magazine and why they can't bring themselves to care. A quote:
It's like, according to them, you're not a real feminist unless you're doing something boring and constructive without any flash or pizazz. Why does everything have to be so dour? There are fun aspects about being a woman, you know. That's probably the biggest divide between second and third wave feminism. There's this emphasis on the "serious" shit, which is indicative in their coverage of grave news, and insistence of an anti-pornography stance.
I basically agree with them, though I do fear that many of today's feminists choose the personal OVER the political, and that we need both pizazz AND activism. But anyway, it reminded me of a Nerve* article I read awhile back that gave a good explanation of third wave feminism. I link you to the beginning of the article, but the stuff about what the third wave means to the author (Ada Calhoun) is on the second page. Here's a particularly nice quote:
I think growing up post-AIDS, we who were born in or around the '70s had to be more honest and upfront with each other about sex; it made us more equitable, curious and fair. We became well educated about date rape but sensible enough to laugh at the absurd rigidity of the Antioch Rules.
Third Wave women, as I know them, are financially independent. They're happy alone, or they're looking to create families with partners rather than providers. They are politically active, voting, signing petitions, contacting their representatives and being conscious consumers and respectful employers and employees. They enjoy sex, especially thanks to the enthusiastic presence of feminist porn companies, anthologies like Gynomite, sex-toy stores like Good Vibrations and Babeland. They are represented in the media by reasonable, funny feminist writers like Jennifer Baumgardner, Rebecca Traister and Lynn Harris; on TV by Tina Fey and Samantha Bee. Third Wave women are women from all over who have an innate sense of their own value and potential...They are self-aware, adventurous and live supportive lives with men and with each other.
Third Wave women, as I know them, are financially independent. They're happy alone, or they're looking to create families with partners rather than providers. They are politically active, voting, signing petitions, contacting their representatives and being conscious consumers and respectful employers and employees. They enjoy sex, especially thanks to the enthusiastic presence of feminist porn companies, anthologies like Gynomite, sex-toy stores like Good Vibrations and Babeland. They are represented in the media by reasonable, funny feminist writers like Jennifer Baumgardner, Rebecca Traister and Lynn Harris; on TV by Tina Fey and Samantha Bee. Third Wave women are women from all over who have an innate sense of their own value and potential...They are self-aware, adventurous and live supportive lives with men and with each other.
Some people argue that what we're going through now is not actually a new wave--more like Second Wave 2.0. I think there's truth to that, but it's not the whole story. This new wave has broadened itself, and our causes extend to race (Second Wave was notoriously white, to the point that some black feminists had a different name for themselves--Womanists), sexuality (hurray for LGBTQ!), and the notion that there are many ways to be a feminist. There are still core issues upon which the movement rests--there is no feminism without contraception, and housewifery is still a tricky issue--but the guiding forces are freedom and collaboration.
There are plenty of cliches I can throw out there. We today don't think of bras as tools of oppression but as sources of physical comfort (especially us well-endowed girls--ouch!) and expressions of sexuality. We don't have to choose between marriage and identity, and we can find men who share our beliefs and are allies as well as friends and lovers.
Perhaps all of this is obvious, but it's good to lay a groundwork. So, what do you guys think? What does the third wave mean to you, and what parts are confusing/unclear? What differences do you see between these recent waves, and what experiences do you have explaining feminism/having it explained to you?
*My other beloved source of theft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
