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

Red Scrunchie Blues

You know what I can’t stand about Dick Cheney? It’s not the shameless corruption. I’m not all that annoyed by the whole war in Iraq thing, either. I’m pretty sanguine about his treatment of his daughter and her partner. In fact, the domestic and foreign policies he supports as vice president to the preznit are just fine with me in general. Tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy? Fetus fetishization? Surges? Bring ’em on!

Read More…Read More…

Help Us Help Ourselves: Traveling on a Shoestring

REMINDER: Send in your HUHO submissions to feministe@gmail.com by TOMORROW for the March 1st round-up. Now, my contribution:

I’ve been trying to think of something to contribute to Lauren’s brilliant project, and have been having a hell of a time. It’s been a little distressing to realize that I don’t really know how to do much of anything. I don’t know how to cook anything except for easy pasta and my (only) specialty, steak au poivre, but I stole that recipe from the Barefoot Contessa (and even my favorite pasta recipe came from that simple cooking guy from the NYTimes). I can’t build anything that doesn’t come with very simple instructions, or even change a tire. I’m not a good bargain-hunter, I suck at saving money, and I don’t grow my own vegetables. I would probably die if stranded on a desert island. I can’t knit my own scarves or make my own clothes or even hem my own pants. I don’t know HTML, or how to create a website, or how to do anything other than hit “publish” on the blog or “send” in my email account. I can do my own make-up and I know how to buy a well-fitting bra, but given the past accusations/assumptions that I’m the Barbie Feminist, I’ll steer clear of those. Essentially, I discovered, I’m useless.

But after an extremely helpful conversation with the project creator herself, I have an idea (or rather, she gave me an idea): How to travel on the cheap. I’ve been a few places over the past couple years, and have managed to do it all while being perpetually broke. So I do have tips. Many tips. And they are below the fold.

Read More…Read More…

Angry feminist writers make me happy

Heather Mallick is my new favorite person. In her latest column, she goes after Harper’s editor Roger Hodge, and criticizes the sexism of the magazine industry:

Last year, an American website, www.WomenTK.com, began tracking the ratio of male to female writers in Harper’s, The Atlantic, The NYT Magazine, The New Yorker and Vanity Fair. Arguably, the ratio should be more or less one to one because that’s what life is like. As it turned out:

* Vanity Fair 2.7:1.
* The New Yorker 4.1:1.
* The Atlantic 3.6:1.
* Harper’s 6.9:1 (118 male bylines, only 17 female). Fully six of its 12 issues from September ’05 to August ’06 had one or no female writers.

The numbers, as Ruth Davis Konigsberg of WomenTK writes, prove Ursula K. Le Guin’s remark that “when women speak more than 30 per cent of the time, men perceive them as dominating the conversation.”

Blogger Dennis Loy Johnson of MobyLives.com wrote scathingly in 2002 (so no change there then) of the catastrophically single-sex New Yorker. He then reported that women and men had reacted in different ways. Women wrote to thank him for noticing what they had seen for years. Men became angry and defensive. “Hey, The Atlantic is just as bad!” they’d say. There were other excuses. Shouldn’t it come down to the best writing, male editors would ask. Yes, wrote Johnson, but why should 80% of the best writing be male?

Weirdly, five years later, Hodge says the same thing. When I emailed him this week to ask him how the March issue of Harper’s came to be all-male, he said a number of things in response to my “intemperate” letter. (What nonsense. My letter positively seethed and rightly so.) “In fairness,” he wrote, “you have to admit that the days when Harper’s would go months without a female contributor have been over for a long time.” Hodge is utterly wrong, as the figures show.

He then described how he edits. “I had plenty of pieces by women on hand, in various states in the editorial process, but most of them didn’t quite fit together thematically. I did have one originally scheduled for the March issue but we had to hold it for one reason or another, completely unrelated to the fact that she can give birth.”

Right. Read the whole thing.

Thanks to Katy for sending this on.

Some Links

Because Lauren finds the coolest stuff:

How many condoms can you put on a dildo? The answer may surprise you.

Can you nail Jell-o to the wall? Why, yes. Yes you can.

From WIMN Online (also via Lauren): How is it, in all the media hype surrounding Anna Nicole Smith’s death, that so little attention has been paid to the diet drug for which she was a spokesperson?

Some environmental links:

From Lawyers, Guns and Money: Fishermen in Alaska suddenly dealing with warm-water bacteria.

Honeybees are mysteriously dying out, threatening crop production in 24 states.

News of women’s bodies:

Ema has a first-person account of a Senegalese woman who was forced to undergo FGM. It should go without saying that male circumcision is off-topic, but there’s always somebody.

From the Chicago Tribune: Sex researchers realize they don’t actually know a whole lot about female desire and arousal.

And that is all I have time for this morning.

In Conservative Religious Victories This Week…

sign

Godbag kills a woman because he doesn’t think ladies should be involved in politics. Nothing new to see here.

The guy who shot Pakistani human rights advocate Zilla Huma Usman has been implicated in six previous murder cases, but was never convicted because of lack of evidence. If only he were female, he could have been imprisoned, beaten or killed at little more than the word of an upstanding man.

Instead, he was acquitted of killing four sex workers before shooting Usman.

In other godbag-related news, an Alabama man received probation for driving his car into an abortion clinic.

While some wingnuts will go into hysterics over the threat that Islam poses to “Western values” while simultaneously supporting religiously-motivated sexist, homophobic, regressive legislation, at least bed-wetter Dinesh D’Souza is consistent — he can admit that American conservatives and the Taliban have quite a bit in common, and should work together to subjugate women, gays, and other less-than-ideal groups in the name of religion. He blames secularism for pissing off Muslim extremists, and for turning moderate Muslims toward extremism.

For many Western liberals—and even some conservatives—the war on terror is a clash of opposed fundamentalisms: Christian fundamentalism vs. Islamic fundamentalism. So, in this view, Christian and Muslim religious fanatics are once again fighting each other, as they have done in the past.

From this perspective, the best solution is for America to stand up for the principles of secularism and oppose both Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. But in reality secularism is not the solution. Secularism is the problem. It is the West’s agenda of secularism that is alienating traditional Muslims and pushing them toward the radical camp.

Right. Iraqi citizens who have had their country invaded, their homes destroyed, their children slaughtered and their entire lives upended are actually mad because I wear pants and don’t go to church regularly.

Try American dominance, forceful invasions, financial backing of corrupt regimes, bombing the hell out of majority-Muslim countries for decades, interest in oil over human lives, torture, cultural hegemony, and a creeping capitalist economy that puts a McDonald’s in every city and a Pizza Hut next to the pyramids.*

It pisses people off when you kill their children, destroy their countries, force them to evacuate and put them in refugee camps. It pisses people off when you strong-arm other nations to get your way (and to get your oil). It pisses people off when you start preemptive wars across the region in which they live. It pisses people off when you routinely malign their culture, their religion and their way of life as backwards, evil and at odds with modernity. It pisses people off when you wage a religious war against them.

But, yeah, blame the fact that we supposedly don’t rely on religion to justify bigoted legislation and state-sponsored segregation.** Secularism: That’s really the last straw.

Top two stories via Feministing.

*Yes, there is a Pizza Hut next to the pyramids in Egypt. And a KFC.
**Are we talking about the same country here? Last I checked, the U.S. was one of the most religious nations in the world. If secularism was the problem, you’d think Islamic extremists would go after the Swedes or the Danes.

University of Chicago refuses to divest from Darfur

Dozens of other universities have pulled their investments out of Sudan because of the ongoing genocide there. But not the University of Chicago:

U of C President Robert J. Zimmer (not to be confused with the far-cooler Robert Zimmerman) is standing firm, stating that divestment from Darfur is “a political issue that do[es] not have a direct bearing on the university.”

As the author of the Nation article states, by investing in Sudan, the University of Chicago already is taking a political stand. And it’s disgusting that they would continue to feed money into a country which is sponsoring genocide. They should be ashamed.

Sorority upholds the sisterhood of the white, the pretty and the thin

Sorority
The new Delta Zeta house is so diverse they even have brunettes.

Worried that a negative stereotype of the sorority was contributing to a decline in membership that had left its Greek-columned house here half empty, Delta Zeta’s national officers interviewed 35 DePauw members in November, quizzing them about their dedication to recruitment. They judged 23 of the women insufficiently committed and later told them to vacate the sorority house.

The 23 members included every woman who was overweight. They also included the only black, Korean and Vietnamese members. The dozen students allowed to stay were slender and popular with fraternity men — conventionally pretty women the sorority hoped could attract new recruits. Six of the 12 were so infuriated they quit.

But I’m sure that’s totally a coincidence. The skinny blond white girls are just better sisters.

Read More…Read More…

Pole Dancing Parties, the New Tupperware Parties

The NY Times has one of those Sunday Styles “trend” pieces that not only probably doesn’t describe an actual trend, but is rather too late for any sort of “trend” anyhow: Pole Dancing Parties Catch On in Book Club Country.

When your mom has moved on from the Pampered Chef to pole dancing parties, pole dancing is over. Sort of like the key party in The Ice Storm.

Pole dancing, once exclusively the province of exotic dancers, has flared up as a much-hyped Hollywood exercise craze, and has seeped into the collective unconscious through shows like “The Sopranos” and “Desperate Housewives.” A variant called motorized pole dancing, which occurs in stretch limos, has raised eyebrows as far away as Britain, where some female university students pole-danced as a fund-raiser for testicular cancer. And mini-poles have even been spotted as dance props at over-the-top bat mitzvah parties in suburban precincts.

Now the pole — think ballet barre turned vertical — is the new star at racier versions of Tupperware parties in well-heeled (if high-heeled) areas like this one in the northwest hills of Morris County, about 33 miles from Manhattan. Billed as “femme empowerment,” such at-home pole dancing lessons are taking place in the realm of book clubs, with mothers — and grandmothers — learning slinky moves for girls’ nights in, bachelorette send-offs, even the occasional 60th birthday celebration.

Yay. Stripper poles for 13-year-olds. Train ’em young for their proper role in society.

Look, stripperobics have been a big thing for many years, in fact for the entire 21st century. It’s part of that whole Girls Gone Wild, girls-kissing-girls-in-front-of-boys performative sexuality that’s been so prevalent in recent years. Though the ultimate beneficiary is the audience (a man or men), and the actual pleasure for the performer isn’t taken into account, the experience is sold as empowerment for the woman. In this case, literally:

“I want the women to feel strong within themselves,” explained Ms. Cottam, 29, who teaches pole dancing at a local gym as well as at home parties. Noting that some middle-aged suburban women lose themselves and their sense of sexuality as they are consumed by the responsibilities of motherhood, she added: “When you come to my class you are beautiful, you are. I want to show them that strength inside, and unleash that sexual kitten.” . . .

This intimate Friday-night soiree, where spinach dip and crudités were served and Ms. Cottam sent guests home with homemade banana muffins for their families, was for no particular occasion. She did not charge for the lesson, but had poles — spring-loaded and adjustable from 8 to 10 feet — for sale ($450), as well as a variety of feathered or rhinestone platform shoes ($19.99 and up).

Though Ms. Cottam operates independently, more than 350 pole-dance instructors in 34 states and Canada have signed up since August 2006 with an international company, EPM EmpowerNet, to run their own businesses in the model of Tupperware or Avon sales. The company provides DVDs that teach the instructors dance moves, pole safety and party etiquette, and sells them the equipment; they keep the fees they charge each participant — $25 to $30 in this area — plus any margin on the poles.

Not quite as expensive as Laser Vaginal Rejuvenation, which will run you $20K. But it’s an example of yet another business using women’s insecurities to separate them from their money.

I was a bit disappointed to see this, though:

Rachel Shteir, author of the 2004 book “Striptease: The Untold History of the Girlie Show,” says pole dancing can provide “a welcome release” for suburban stay-at-home mothers.

“Their entire world is reduced to caretaking, and this is sort of the opposite of that,” she said. “It taps into this kind of exhibitionism, or show-womanship, among younger women who did not grow up with the gender politics of the sexual revolution.”

Disappointing because I read her book, and loved it. And one of the things she pointed out in the book was that, whenever there were morals police trying to shut down burlesque theaters and strip shows for the sake of the morals of the performers, they never bothered to survey the performers — who enjoyed what they did, but also knew that they could make far more money with less wear and tear on their bodies than working in a sweatshop. Which is not really a choice that suburban stay-at-home moms in “well-appointed” homes really have to make.

Still, she has a point about the subsuming of one’s identity and sexuality into the “Mom” role. And also about latent exhibitionism, which can be personally thrilling, especially if nobody thinks you’re that way. But I’d rather see these women having sex toy parties, where the end product is designed for their own pleasure and sold as such without having to dress it up in empowerment and aerobic benefits.

More Proof of the Housework Gap

Another story that makes me glad I live alone.

Tracy Clark-Flory at Broadsheet writes about a BBC report of a study showing that single women who live alone clean less than women who live with a male partner — and that men who live with a female partner clean less than they did when they lived alone.

The findings come from analysis by labour economist Helene Couprie of Toulouse University.

Her research, based on data from the British Household Panel Survey looked at working women – single or living with a partner, both with and without children.

And by examining information on more than 2,000 people, she concluded that on average, an employed woman does 15 hours a week of housework when she lives with her employed partner, up from 10 hours when single.

Meanwhile the men, who do seven hours while living alone, do only five when they co-habit.

Am I surprised? Not really (except for that 10 hours bit, which I definitely don’t do now). Though things have undoubtedly improved somewhat from past generations, when men weren’t expected to do much at all once they cohabited with a woman. And part of it, apparently, is what we see when we’re growing up. If Dad pitches in, we see that as normal. If Mom does everything herself, we see that as normal:

The findings are partly, Ms Couprie suggests, due to influences that people have grown up with – where traditionally women have taken on the lion’s share of domestic tasks.

She says that as long as children see their parents stick to certain tasks, such trends become hard to change.

Ultimately, she adds, “it is the work of social evolution”.

And that kind of tells you what needs to change now in order for equity later. Of course, how to accomplish that is always the big question.

Clark-Flory raises an interesting point, though:

The disparity between single and cohabitating women’s cleaning habits could be explained by any number of things. Women might feel more pressure to play domestic diva when they’re living with their significant other. But, I’d also love to see an analysis of single women who live alone versus single women who live with a (platonic) roommate. Having a witness of any kind to your slothfulness can be an incredibly motivating factor; it could be that women are just more prone to that pressure.

I spent pretty much all day Sunday cleaning my rather filthy apartment (I could knit several new pets from the hair I swept up, for one thing. I know where it’s coming from, but how is there so damn much of it?).

Why was I cleaning? My neighbors are coming over tomorrow to look at the apartment and (pleasepleaseplease) sign a contract to buy it. And I just couldn’t deal with them seeing dirty dishes and pet hair and an unmade bed and piles of clutter and the mountains of mail I haven’t sorted through for about three years. Granted, it’s always a good idea to clean before someone who’s interested in buying your apartment comes over; but I won’t even let the Chinese food deliveryman see the mess.

I was much neater, at least in common areas, when I had a roommate, and also when I was dating a lot.