MCA’s Feminist Legacy | The Nation
…that’s what was so remarkable and emotional about the Beastie Boys’ feminist turnaround. Maybe your father says sexism doesn’t exist and your boyfriend disrespects you. Maybe you have to deal with assholes on the subway who rub up against you every day and laugh when you yell at them. But listening to this band that you love so much say that your pain is real, that the world is fucked up and that they are not going to participate in actions that hurt you anymore because they care about you—it was the overwhelming feeling of being made visible. They were sending a clear message to their female fans: this isn’t okay, we have your back, we’re sorry.
Sorry males. But this is true and should probably be adjusted.
Yup.
Source: dating.failblog.org
Joss Whedon: Feminist
- Interviewer: So why do you write these strong female characters?
- Whedon: Because you're still asking me that question.
Source: server16.kproxy.com
Girls: Your skirts are too short so you're going to have to wear pants
It would be interesting to trace the history of policing what girls can and cannot wear to school—-as it was less than a century ago when they weren’t allowed to wear trousers. Ahem
Source: emilyheroy
Woman blames women & feminism for Weiner’s bad behavior; Points to Adam Sandler flick as supporting evidence
I came across this gem yesterday, in which the author says, yes, men behave badly, but really, isn’t it the women involved that are at least half to blame? Aren’t we missing the point, she posits, that without evil temptresses these men would behave as the little angels their true selves wish to be?
Some observers have offered a “boys will be boys” explanation, suggesting that cheating is just something men have always done. It’s true that many of these men seem to think sexual improprieties are part of their job description — and as political leaders they have no shortage of opportunities to act on their desires.
Still, we’ve been much too quick to ignore the role that women — and modern feminism — have played in setting the stage for many of these infidelities … for every disloyal and lewd male lawmaker, there’s a woman (or two, or three, or more) who is all too willing to enable his behavior.
Enable? Oh! “Boys will be boys” because women enable it! Apparently, ladies, you really shouldn’t be on twitter or have email accounts; some dude could send you inappropriate pictures & you’d be enabling such behavior. Ergo, it’s totally your fault. After all, if you stayed in your appropriate domestic sphere, you wouldn’t be so crass as to use the internet at all, and then, these men would be cured of their evil ways by the absence of an outlet. That makes so much sense.
But wait, it’s feminism’s fault! Fighting for equality of the sexes is the culprit of these wily enablers:
More important, more and more men — and women — have forgotten what a healthy relationship (let alone marriage) looks like. For decades, modern feminists have undermined the idea of marriage,
We have? You mean, undermined the idea of marriage with traditional gender roles, and the idea that women should stay in abusive or otherwise bad marriages? You mean the idea that women don’t have any real options other than to marry whatever comes along & stay with that no matter what? Why yes. Yes we have. But the idea of marriage in general, as an equal partnership through life? Um, no. Not so much. You’re confusing us with the GOP.
discouraged romance and courtship, encouraged a laissez-faire sexual culture,
Ohhh right, the “no romance” and “loose morals” definition of feminism. The whole Egads! Women are acting like romanceless undiscriminating sexual beings, like men! How crass! twist.
No, feminism is not encouraging women to denounce romance and embrace casual sex; rather, it is encouraging society not to reward men and punish women for the same behavior but instead to regard such behavior as people’s personal choices. Feminism fights the double-standard. Women are no worse than men for engaging in said behavior. How is this concept difficult, again?
and done everything in their power to eliminate gender roles.
Um, yes. And?
Add to this the academic and professional opportunities available to women today,
Oh NO! Not academic and professional opportunities for women! Where is this world going?
and the access to affordable birth control,
Such a terrible thing, reproductive health and autonomy.
and it’s clear that it’s much easier for women to participate in our “no strings attached” sexual culture than ever before. But this freedom, which has benefitted women so much, doesn’t come without consequences — namely, that it has allowed so many women to think it’s permissible to have an affair with a married man.
Anyone knowingly pursuing a relationship with a married or otherwise committed (in a relationship, not a mental institution, to clarify, although…) person is not exactly acting at the height of morality, but isn’t it the person that’s actually in the committed relationship that’s mostly to blame there?
But wait! An Adam Sandler movie has a ridiculous premise in which a dude poses as a married man to get dates! AND he gets dates! In a scripted movie! It’s like art imitating life! Solid societal evidence of her argument! After all, Adam Sandler is a renowned sociologist and the movie industry in general is known for it’s accurate portrayals of society in a non-stereotypical way.
Clearly, this lady knows what she’s talking about.
Oh, and then there was this bit in the Huffington Post about how Weiner’s wife should have known better than to marry a hot man, because hot men, especially hot rich men, as a rule, don’t make good husbands.
A) Anthony Weiner is hot? Really?
B) My eyes rolled too far back into my head to bother countering this one. Have fun laughing at the absurdity on your own.
Jill Abramson, Feminist Journalist
What’s less often acknowledged is that feminism has always been an explicit part of Abramson’s career. After graduating from Harvard in 1976, the native Manhattanite covered that year’s presidential campaign for Time. Reflecting on the experience this past March, she said, “I remember being in the bar of the Sheraton Wayfarer the night of the New Hampshire primary, so proud of the press credential dangling from my neck. I gazed at all the famous ‘boys on the bus,’ including Jack Germond and Hunter Thompson. But as a very young woman, I didn’t dare belly up to the bar. Those days are over.”
Via Dana Goldstein, The Nation
The Great State of Florida Has No Use For Your Potty Mouth
Last week, on the floor of the Florida House, Representative Scott Randolph used a word that earned him a rebuke from GOP spokesperson, Katie Betta:
“The Speaker has been clear about his expectations for conduct on the House for during debate. At one point during the debate, he mentioned to the entire House that members of both parties needed to be mindful of decorum during debate.”
What was this filthy, awful, nasty word he used, a word so foul as to constitute a break of decorum? Uterus. Randolph made a joke which he credited to his wife theorizing that if she would incorporate her uterus, the GOP would be less interested in regulating her private decisions. Betta went on to explain that the GOP was only thinking of the children:
Additionally, the Speaker believes it is important for all Members to be mindful of and respectful to visitors and guests, particularly the young pages and messengers who are seated in the chamber during debates. In the past, if the debate is going to contain language that would be considered inappropriate for children and other guests, the Speaker will make an announcement in advance, asking children and others who may be uncomfortable with the subject matter to leave the floor and gallery.
Of course. Because showing up to public hearings in the hopes they might hear hot anatomical terms is how everyone in Florida gets their kicks. As soon as I heard about this, I opened up a text pad and started writing a erotic novel I’m tentatively titling Bodily Autonomy, marketed to the salacious tastes of the average Floridian.* A sample:
Ovaries. Uterus. Gametes. Fallopian Tubes. Vulva. Tibia. Ovaries. Uterus. Pelvic Exam. Testicles. Vas Deferens. Endometrium. Pap Smear. Rights.
This is the same state, it is important to remember, where George Rekers was paid 120,000 dollars to spew anti-gay bigotry and junk science in order to prevent gays and lesbians from adopting. Maybe if they would invite real experts and real scientists to testify before the legislature they wouldn’t be so squeamish about people using medical terms on the House floor.
When the Florida GOP tries to excise the word uterus from the political discourse, they are stigmatizing the bodies of millions of Americans so they can take away the rights of those Americans with impunity. They are teaching young Floridians that anatomical knowledge is taboo and scary and utterly failing their duty to produce educated citizens. So when the Florida GOP asks “Will somebody think of the children?” my response is “WE ARE.”
Source: bibliofeminista
Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Women may get the shaft in Walmart suit
Another day in gender discrimination.
to change or not to change
That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet — or so Shakespeare would have us believe. Perhaps that’s true, but wouldn’t renaming certain roses ‘lilacs’ and some ‘daisies’ and others ‘mums’ begin to get a little confusing?
And there’s that pesky rub in the decision to change one’s name after marriage, a decision reserved most often and almost solely for women. Since becoming engaged, I have struggled with this issue. I still haven’t come to any clear-cut decision. No matter what I decide, it will be either a bureaucratic or personal nuisance, or possibly both. Should I keep my name, I will constantly be asked to explain to those I encounter why I made such a decision, or have to explain that no, my last name is not the same as my co-conspirator’s, it is ___. If I change it, I’ll have all the bureaucratic hoops to navigate, contacting all sorts of people and businesses and agencies to let them know that I’m married, my status has changed, and so has my name. (Will I have to do this anyway? I actually have no idea.) By keeping my name, I could be accused of all sorts of things, such as not being committed enough to family, being too selfish, not letting go of the past, and a multitude of other ridiculous accusations that I cannot even fathom. It’s tempting to keep my name just to spite — to challenge — such senseless judgments and preconceptions (or more appropriately misconceptions) about the role women are expected to play as spouses and mothers.
Further, surnames are so loaded with patriarchal symbolism that it’s almost as if I cannot make a completely ‘feminist’ choice. My last name is that of my father, not that of my mother, etc., etc., back through the family genealogy. And then the confusion of naming children. Hyphenation seems an obvious compromise, but an incredibly imperfect one.
All feminist and social issues and annoyances aside, this has been my name for the past 30+ years. Changing it would inevitably confuse everyone who would have no reason to know that my relationship status is changing in the law’s eyes. It would even be confusing to myself, learning to call myself another name, someone else’s name.
On the other hand, the co-conspirator has a much more interesting last name than I, as well as one that carries much more clout around here. (Honestly, if that weren’t the case, I wonder if this would be as difficult a decision. I wonder if therein lies my answer?) Moreover, certainly there is something deliciously enticing about reinventing oneself under a new name, and this is probably one of the easiest ways to go about that. More importantly, it would be nice to share the same last name with the co-conspirator, as a symbol of being part of the same family, and of starting a new one. But in the process, it would be nice to honor both of the families from which we came instead of just one.
Is there a non-awkward way to do that?
These small things, a niftier, snazzier last name that carries a little weight + a reinventing of my public persona currently are of equal weight on the scale with all the rest of my stick it to the ‘man’ mentality. Ideally, the social issues wouldn’t play into it. I’d freely admit to overthinking, but this is my - our - identity, which is not something that can necessarily be taken lightly.
At least I have a few more months to decide.
The tyranny of marriage | Lara Pawson | Comment is free | The Guardian
I had never considered how marriage would change my place in the world. Before we even tied the proverbial knot, I became swiftly aware of discrimination against wives. A job in journalism I was up for suddenly became unavailable: a female manager called to say that now I was married she presumed that it would be difficult for me to be a foreign correspondent.
This was shocking, but the point I wish to make here concerns the privileges accorded to the wedded heterosexual couple. When you marry, you gain a certain unspoken gravitas, as though society heaves a collective sigh of relief: “Thank God they’ve grown up.” Several husbands and wives actually said to me, albeit with a weary smile, “Join the club”. Clink clink. And I soon discovered that marriage really is a club.
Being married pulls you into a new elite. It lends you an air of stability and reliability that singles and divorcees are denied. We assume that those who are unmarried probably have something just a teeny bit wrong with them because they have never managed to persuade another to settle down into that cosy unit of coupledom. This is the smug tyranny of husbands and wives.
What is it about marriage that makes people so smug? It’s as if there’s a relationship status caste system: Married heteros, engaged heteros (yes, somehow the mere promise to the world that you plan to marry results in a collective sigh of relief, perhaps that you’re finally, almost, beginning to take life seriously) coupled heteros, single heteros, and then everyone else.
People talk in terms of ‘my husband/wife,’ ‘my girlfriend/boyfriend/significant other,’ and this to people who know the person by name and his or her relationship to the speaker. Such behavior seems a subconscious prioritizing of the speaker’s possessiveness of the person in some way over that person’s individuality and ownership over their own persons. Or perhaps it’s more to depersonalize the individual of whom is spoken.
Such possessive language has always felt remarkably uncomfortable falling from my own tongue. I tend to avoid it to the point of allowing acquaintances unfamiliar with my relationship status to infer on their own my relationship with whomever it is I am speaking about, or force them to ask for clarification. I don’t define myself by my relationships in that way, and would rather not be judged a part of some mythical hierarchy based on my luck in the romantic relationship world.
This article briefly captures a few of the reasons I find myself ambivalent about my impending legal knot-tying: it’s not that I fear committing my life publicly to the co-conspirator, but that I am uncomfortable with all the assumptions and judgments society will next pass on me based solely on the “married” box having an X inside. A married woman is presumed to have certain priorities that have nothing to do with who she is outside of being married and regardless of being a woman. I will become, first and foremost, a married woman, a Mrs. (actually, I will continue to shun that salutation), and presumed to be interested in supporting my husband’s wants and needs before my own. Let’s face it, even in 2010 wives’ wants and desires are presumed to be greatly superseded by those of their husbands. I will also be assumed to want to get right down to baby-making and family-raising, that those will be my only priorities, all the rest life has to offer be damned. After all, whatever else would be the point of becoming a smug-married?
Despite the ambivalence, why would I exercise a privilege denied to millions of people based on purely discriminatory reasons? I assume it will make things easier for us to navigate having children and owning things, as well as protect our rights and means should something happen to either of us, if we were a unified legal entity, but besides custody of our own children and ability to get onto each others’ insurance plans, and, of course, making break-ups much more costly, why is marriage necessary?
I propose a new kind of personal union, one that retains the positive connotations of the term ‘marriage,’ as well as the legal, public commitment, but that sheds the negative baggage the term drags with it. Though, what to call it…
Books, gender, technology, politics, cats, life. Remember this:
