In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

What A Girl Wants

Now tell me Justin Timberlake is not amazing. And no worries for those who prefer the lady-parts. There’s something for you too:

How did I not discover this sooner?

Wonderful, Glorious Me

I’ve been doing a little poking around through our trackbacks, and it seems that a number of people have found the comments to these posts a bit disheartening, in a god-when-can-we-ever-stop-berating-ourselves kind of way. For example, Maia wrote,

What I think is so important in what Jill wrote is that for many women feminism does not solve our relationship between food and our bodies, it just helps name the problems. It’s also a lot easier to talk about food and body politics in the abstract, which can leave everyone feeling that they’re a bad feminist for not figuring out this stuff by themselves.

A lot of women on this heartbreaking, rage-inducing, thread that piny started, talked about the conflict between feminism and their feelings about their body. Or going further, that feminist analysis just adds a level of guilt to what they’re doing, that they should be strong enough and smart enough not to let this society get to us.

Which is bullshit, we do the best that we can, but none of us are strong enough and smart enough to deal with all of this on our own. (I say “all of this” deliberately, because I think body and food issues are about society’s image of women, but they’re also about so much more. They’re about control and losing control. They’re a way of conforming with what women should be, and a way of resisting.)

If we’re going to do anything that allows us to take up space, we’re going to have to do it together.

So. Let me try to open up the floor to give us a chance to do something together.

We’re conditioned, particularly as women, to be self-deprecating, to not take up space, to not revel in our bodies and ourselves. We can get 150 comments in a thread about when we realized that we were aware our bodies weren’t up to snuff; let’s see how many we can generate praising ourselves.

Your mission: list at least five things you love about your body and yourself. Five is the floor; you can always do more. And no self-deprecation! No offsetting a compliment with a dig.

I’ll start:

1. I’ve got great skin.

2. I’ve got beautiful blue eyes.

3. I can lift an 85-pound barbell just using my ass.

4. I can bench-press 50 pounds of plates on a 45-pound bar, and I’m nowhere near my natural limits on that.

5. I’m smart as hell.

Okay, your turn. Tell us how wonderful you are.

UPDATE: Hugo got the idea that this is a women-only thread. Nope. Men welcome. And he’s got some thoughts about male body anxiety and the forms it takes.

No racism here, no sir!

Jane Galt links to my post on food stamps and mentions that when she was in the grocery store recently, she asked a cashier what the acronym “EBT,” something on the supermarket checkout machines, stood for. Jane is white. The cashier was black. The cashier stared at her and said, “That’s for food stamps.” Jane felt dumb, as many of us probably would, and could feel her privilege staring her in the face. She walked out feeling like the cashier was thinking that she was a stupid, rich white suburban idiot.

Jane’s commenters did not like this story. I’m not going to address their arguments because, well, they don’t really have any beyond “you thought that she thought that you were a white idiot? Well what if she was an uppity black?! REVERSE RACISM!,” which is just silly, considering that the cashier didn’t actually say anything to Jane other than giving her the answer to her question, even if it was delivered in an incredulous way. And yet the cashier was the one who, according to commenters, lacked graciousness and was rude.

In other news, according to Jane’s commenters, I’m “angry.”* Fair enough. Not having enough to eat, or only having access to low-cost low-nutrition foods because of where we happen to live or because of the families we were born in to, makes me angry. Sharing my country with people who apparently feel absolutely no responsibility or empathy for their fellow human beings makes me angry. Seeing undeniable racial lines when it comes to class, economics, and access to the basics like healthy food and a good education, living in a country with a deeply racist history that continues to thrive even if it’s easy for the economic elite to ignore, and then reading white people complain about “double standards” and “racist stereotypes against white people” as if the situations were anywhere near analogous makes me angry. Yes, I am angry. In the paraphrased immortal words of someone I can’t remember, if you aren’t angry, you’re not paying attention.

But it’s not Jane’s post that’s of primary interest to me (not to say that Jane’s post isn’t interesting — it is — and Jane is definitely an intelligent woman whose thoughts are worth reading, even if we don’t see eye to eye on everything). It’s this post from TJICistan that caught my eye. TJIC also links back to my food stamps/obesity post, quoting this paragraph:

What’s making you fat now? Food stamps.

The argument goes something like this: Low-income people are more likely to be overweight than wealthier Americans. Low-income people are often on food stamps. Therefore, we should re-vamp the foodstamp program because clearly federal food relief leads to obesity. Also, poor people today (read: uppity Negroes) feel entitled to things like food, unlike the humble poor of yesteryear (read: white people, as evidenced by the examples used by the conservative authors – the characters in “Cinderella Man” and “Angela’s Ashes”), who knew enough to be humiliated by their economic situation…

He responds:

The amusing thing is that when the poster goes way overboard trying to exaggerate the Republican stance on things, she gets about halfway to my position.

Except for the word “uppity” – that’s not really my kind of phrase.

He’ll just stick with “Negroes,” thank you very much.

(And for the record, I wasn’t trying to illustrate the “Republican” perspective so much as the argument of the authors of the Hoover article. But that’s beside the point.)

Earlier in his post he writes:

Yeah, dumb, privileged middle class white Jane Galt stayed in school, graduated, didn’t get pregant, didn’t yell at her bosses for “dissin’ her”, and thus, quickly ended up in the middle class…where she generates sufficient wealth to allow her to pay for her groceries herself, as opposed to making bad choices, generating minimal value, and being a net drain on the productivity of others.

How much do you want to bet that he’ll throw a hissy fit when I say he’s racist? Double points if he comes back and tells me that no, I’m the racist, because he’s colorblind and just expects those lazy black folks to pull their own weight the same way that hard-working white people do.

*I know we’ve been over this before, but I’m always entertained when female bloggers are accused of being “angry,” as if it’s horribly unbecoming, while the boy bloggers are just as angry, but coming from them it’s “passion” or “righteousness” or simply “exactly what you’d expect from a politically opinionated person.” What’s the deal? Is it because the furrowed brow doesn’t go so well with the titties?

Let Me Explain Something About Connecticut Politics

Pam is surprised, disgusted even, that Holy Joe Lieberman has backed off criticism of the Bush Administration for its handling of Katrina and its aftermath.

I’m not. Surprised, that is (disgusted is another matter).

One thing: despite having lost some HQs, Hartford is still the center of the insurance industry. As I know from when my father lost his job at Travelers during one of the first waves of insurance-company layoffs in the late 80s, as goes the insurance industry, so goes Hartford. And since Connecticut’s a small state and the defense industry has pretty well dried up (it was dying even when I was there 15 years ago), the insurance industry is more or less it.

Actually, the surprise is that he remembered that he has constituents at all.

Death Is Not An Option

I believe it was the late, lamented Spy that used to run a feature called ‘Death Is Not An Option.” The idea being that you had to choose between two equally bad options for sex — and death was not an option. So, George Bush and Pol Pot? Tom DeLay and a cockroach? Leslee Unruh and Caitlin Flanagan? You get the idea.

Ladies and germs, I present to you, Death Is Not An Option — the Adam Corolla and Donald Trump edition!

Thanks ( I think) to Shakes.

Friday Random Ten – the Capitalism Rulez* Edition

shirt
Doggy shirts and more at the Feministe Store. So hot.

Lots of new stuff added today, including new Feministe logos and cool retro ladies. Check it out.

1. Radiohead – Just
2. John Coltrane – In a Sentimental Mood
3. The Smiths – Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now
4. Lena Horne – Stormy Weather
5. Velvet Underground – White Light White Heat
6. Frank Sinatra – That’s Life
7. Wu-Tang Clan – Can It All Be So Simple
8. Salt n Pepa – What a Man
9. Joni Mitchell – You Turn Me On I’m a Radio
10. Modest Mouse – Polar Opposites

*I kid, I kid. You all know I’m a dirty commie.

Posted in Uncategorized

Adoration

(Some minor spoilers)

So Maia saw Children of Men, and provides a detailed review over at Alas.

I saw it, too, and I think I disliked it for the same reason she liked it.

(Don’t get me wrong: it was a really good action movie, suspenseful and driven and tightly-plotted. And funny in the way that Hollywood action movies usually don’t manage. I am always happy to see Clive Owen. Like Maia says, it wasn’t afraid to depict the kind of murderous brutality that you really would expect to see in a dystopian society full of furious, paranoid, despairing people.)

Maia says:

What made this sequence so powerful was not that it showed us a distopian future, but that it showed us our distopian present. The images of refugees who are selected as dangerous at the entrance to the campis deliberately evocative of photos we’ve all seen from Abu Grahib. The camp they then enter is Gaza with British signage. The most potent political comment, in this amazingly political film, was the message refugees heard as they entered the hell-hole of a refugee camp: “Do not support terrorism, we are here to help you.”

I don’t know if I agree with this. The thesis of the movie–and I understand that we aren’t meant to take it so literally–is that this is what happens when people lose hope. Why have they lost hope? Well, there are no children; there have been no births for nearly two decades. If there were children, everyone would be less inclined to horrific behavior towards other human beings, because we would have some hope for the future that would give us reason to love each other. In other words, if only women weren’t all infertile (of course, sterility is always the woman’s fault, even in the future), society wouldn’t look like this.

Thing is, there are children everywhere; we live in the Arcadia that these people have been expelled from. There are children in refugee camps, and starving countries, and war zones, and bombed-out cities. Children die of dystentery and other preventable diseases. They die of malnutrition. They die of violence. They die in pain. Many of those who don’t die suffer horribly and grow up to watch their own children suffer. The climax of the movie was a scene where Kee, the young mother, takes her child down from a refugee-camp tenement through a crowd of awed refugees and into a crowd of awed soldiers. The sound of the baby’s cries are miraculous to all who hear them. For a few moments, the soldiers stop shooting, terrified that they might hurt the baby. No one wants anything more than to keep that little child safe and to look on in wonder at her and at Kee.

I don’t call that dystopian so much as utopian.

Something tells me Pharmacists for Life won’t have a problem with this

Viagra may soon be available over the counter:

Pfizer Inc. said yesterday that it was considering an over-the-counter form of its Viagra anti-impotence drug, which is competing with the longer-acting Cialis by Eli Lilly.

It was the first time Pfizer disclosed interest in an over-the-counter form of Viagra, a company spokeswoman said.

Over-the-counter drugs typically sell for less than prescription medicines and often come in limited-dosage strengths. Before approving an over-the-counter product, regulators consider whether patients can safely treat themselves without benefit of a doctor’s advice.

Surely, there will be a great hue and cry over this from Christian groups outraged that a drug that promotes promiscuity will be available to anyone who asks? Surely, OTC approval will be slowed by moralists in the FDA who want more time to study the issue, out of concern that teenagers might be taking it and getting the idea that having sex is okay? Surely, even if the application is approved after years of footdragging by the FDA and only because certain members of Congress play hardball with nominations — surely, it will be available only to men over 18? Surely, even if it is approved for use by men over 18, they will have to prove to the satisfaction of the pharmacist that they are married because in the pharmacist’s personal belief system, sex outside marriage is sinful and the pharmacist cannot participate in another’s sin? Surely, there will be endless handwringing and breastbeating about the loose morals of boys today?

Surely you jest.

(via)

“Hey, sorry I killed your husband. I really meant to just wound and incapacitate him.”

A non-apology from James Kopp, murderer of Dr. Barnett Slepian:

An anti-abortion extremist defending himself against charges of killing a doctor apologized to the man’s widow and declined to cross-examine her Tuesday after she described how her husband fell against her after he was shot in their kitchen.

The apology came on the first day of James Kopp’s trial on federal charges that he violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances act by killing Dr. Barnett Slepian, who provided abortions.

He is already serving 25 years to life on a state conviction of second-degree murder, but a federal conviction would carry a maximum sentence of life without parole.

“Mrs. Slepian, I just wanted to say I’m sorry. I respect you and your family,” Kopp, 52, said quietly.

Lynne Slepian, who had just recounted the Oct. 23, 1998, shooting for the jury, looked at Kopp but did not react.

“I respect your family so much I shot your husband in front of you and your four kids on the day of their Grandpa’s funeral.”

Somehow, that’s not much of a comfort, I’m sure.

Incidentally, his conviction in state court was for second-degree murder. If I remember my criminal-law bar review right, first-degree murder in New York is (or was, at the time) only charged when the victim was a police officer or or similar. Second-degree murder requires premeditation. But Kopp begs to differ:

Earlier Tuesday, Kopp used his opening statement to tell jurors that Slepian’s death was “a full-bore, 100 percent tragedy” but was not murder because it was not malicious or premeditated.

Kopp has acknowledged planning the shooting for a year and then firing a high-powered military rifle with telescopic sights from the woods behind the Slepian home, but he has said he meant only to wound the doctor to prevent him from performing abortions.

“Shoot them in the head, blow up a car, riddle their body with bullets like they do in the movies. That’s how you kill someone” with premeditation, Kopp said.

He urged jurors to look for evidence of premeditation or malice toward Slepian. “If you don’t see it, that’s me proving my case,” he said.

Whereas PLANNING to kill someone for a YEAR is just a happy accident.

Oh, he’ll be convicted. I’m just wondering why he’s got no attorney. If he’s ineligible for a federal public defender for some reason, aren’t there anti-abortion groups willing to fund his defense?

(Via)

The Om Conspiracy

From Liberal Debutante, a reminder that wingnuts exist the world over: some (surprise! Christian) parents in British Columbia are freaking at the efforts of some schools to fight childhood obestity there with yoga. Because? Well. Um.

A school program to fight childhood obesity that includes yoga is drawing complaints from some Christian parents in the Quesnel area in B.C.’s Cariboo region.

They say yoga is a religion, and shouldn’t be taught in public schools.

Chelsea Brears, who has two children in the school system, said her son was asked to do different poses and “to put his hands together.”

Brears, a Christian, said she doesn’t want her children exposed to another religion during class time.

“It’s not fair to take prayer out, and yet they’re allowing yoga, which is religion, in our schools.”

Oh, no! He might get Vishnu Cooties if he puts his hands together in some way not approved by the Christian God!

I’ve done yoga, folks. It’s not “religion.” It’s a practice used by religious people as a means of focusing their minds to worship, and in that way probably no different than praying on a rosary; however, it’s also damned good exercise, and in that way it’s not like praying on a rosary.

And it’s especially appropriate for an anti-obesity campaign because it’s challenging but gentle and non-competitive.

Local rancher Audrey Cummings doesn’t believe Christian children should be doing yoga at all.

“There’s God and there’s the devil, and the devil’s not a gentleman. If you give him any kind of an opening, he will take that.”

Should I be this comforted that we’re not the only Western country with religious freaks?

Well, at least they’re not serving tofu in the cafeteria. We all know that makes you a faggot.