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

Month: July 2007

Perez Hilton and the celebutante meltdown

I have no particular love for Perez Hilton (real name Mario Armando Lavandeira) , and clearly he doesn’t mind it that way. (For those with the fortune to have missed out on the PH phenomenon, he’s a celebrity gossip blogger with a penchant for abusing photoshop.) While the New York Times cheerfully documents his misadventures, I can’t help but notice the kinds of language that are being used in the piece. We’re supposed to believe that Perez is really just an edgy, edgy gossip columnist who’s loud and crude. And off course, the article goes to great lengths to explain to us how subversive misogyny, slut-shaming, and photoshopping a celebrity soiling themselves really are.

Mr. Lavandeira brags about his “exclusives” and “sources” but describes his formula simply: He says what many people think but never utter aloud.

Clearly, we have the set up for someone edgy. He’s going to give voice to all those cruel and obnoxious things you were thinking and just knows covet Angelina Jolie’s newest outfit and scorn Kirsten Dunst’s. Oh happy day when miracles take place! I mean, no one else has thought to snark about celebrities before.

In his blog postings, he lavishes exclamation points on the ravishing looks of arbitrarily chosen heroes like Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Lopez and Dita Von Teese, and snarkily picks on so-called villains like Clay Aiken, Kirsten Dunst and Sienna Miller for perceived sins like excessive drinking, promiscuity or denying homosexuality.

Because criticizing celebrities for their alcohol abuse and their perceived sexuality is what defines edgy. There’s something deeply subversive about calling someone a slut. And it’s skating even closer to the line to talk smack about someone’s substance abuse. The perceived misdeeds of celebrities have always been fodder for gossip pages, but let’s not pretend that Perez is some sort of vanguard, sticking it to the man, and calling it like he sees it. (He also has a thing about Victoria Beckham’s refusal to smile and “routinely ridicules” her for this. Yes, celebrities are expected to smile and mug for the camera, but seems to be more of the same when it comes to scolding women about smiling.)

Unsurprisingly, Perez is far from universally popular. He has lawsuits pending against him by both his celebrity targets for libel and paparazzi photographers who claim he’s grabbed their images without paying or giving credit. When he appeared on the view, the show’s hosts were unimpressed with his tendency to mock the children of celebrities. (He called Suri Cruise an alien, among other things.) However, he’s hardly alone in his obsession with celebrity and, I’d argue, is part of the pattern of the obsession with the proverbial bad girl*.

But as Vanessa at Feministing wonders, is this a feminist issue? Is the obsession with the behavior of female celebrities something we should be worried about and calling attention to? I’d argue yes. There’s something particularly hateful and something particularly perplexing about the antics of the Britney, Lindsey, Paris, et al. crowd. What you see is not just garden variety misogyny, but also an element of pearl clutching. Part of the reason these antics go unremarked (or less remarked) with men is because double standards (he’s a player, she’s a slut) and stereotypes (boys will be boys) make their behavior seem slightly more mundane and expected.

When women engage in exactly the same kinds of behaviors, we look for explanations like blaming it on dear old mom rather than saying “Well, people do stupid shit all the time.” For reasons that I’ve not yet fully developed in my head, I think there are a lot of people who will refuse to say such a sentence as it regards women. Women should have known better, they should have dressed differently, they should have done something else! Those are not lines you hear about men. Men are known and expected to be stupid. Women are just reminded of it every time they make a mistake.

*Via Feministing.

obligatory introductions

Hi, everyone! I just wanted to thank Jill for including me in the Summer of Guest Bloggers. I’ve guest-blogged a bit at Feministe before, and am thrilled to be back. The obligatory quick biographical sketch: I just graduated from law school and finished the bar. After I pass the bar (fingers crossed until knuckles hurt), I’m off to work for US Army JAG. (I worked for them last summer doing criminal law and labor and employment law.) I’m getting married in November to a lovely man hereinafter identified as T, flagrantly misuse parentheses, and am addicted to diet coke.

I will probably also post photos of my recently acquired dog, Bronx, even when it isn’t Friday because she is cute as a button and I like choruses of “awww!”

My last post and a call for writers

This will be my last post as a guest-blogger, it’s been a lot of fun to be able to interact with so many of you versus at my place where I only get the occasional troll who likes to make sure I know what he thinks of me. Thanks Jill, I look forward all of the different voices this summer.

I wanted to share an email that I received from a blog friend who is collaborating with author/activist Kevin Powell to create a different dialogue about masculinity, please contact Charles or myself if you are interested in contributing:

Read More…Read More…

Deja Vu All Over Again

Well this sure sounds familiar: A member of the Bush administration blocked a report because it failed to adhere to the administration’s political goals. The topic of the report? Global health. The conclusion? That poverty leads to poor health conditions.

Sounds like a real brain-buster.

The draft report itself, in language linking public health problems with violence and other social ills, says “we cannot overstate . . . that problems in remote parts of the globe can no longer be ignored. Diseases that Americans once read about as affecting people in regions . . . most of us would never visit are now capable of reaching us directly. The hunger, disease, and death resulting from poor food and nutrition create social and political instability . . . and that instability may spread to other nations as people migrate to survive.”

In 65 pages, the report charts trends in infectious and chronic disease; reviews efforts to curb AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; calls for the careful monitoring of public health to safeguard against bioterrorism; and explains the importance of proper nutrition, childhood immunizations and clean air and water, among other topics. Its underlying message is that disease and suffering do not respect political boundaries in an era of globalization and mass population movements.

I guess that’s hard to grasp when your interests are vested in exploiting developing nations, war-mongering, and upholding the Christian ideals of cutting off actual health care in favor of admonishing sinners.

It’s a health clinic not a meth lab

How is this even tolerable in our society? In Aurora Illinois a new Planned Parenthood clinic almost completed construction before coming to the attention of those who would like to sabotage it:

Growth in the counties Aurora straddles — DuPage, Will, Kendall and Kane — has created an intense need for more comprehensive and affordable women’s health care. And while the majority of patients come to Planned Parenthood for birth control, testing for gynecological cancers or screening for sexually transmitted diseases, it is the abortions that have made this a stealth venture almost 35 years after Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide.

Correct me if I am wrong, but birth control is legal is it not? Clandestine abortions may have ended with Roe V. Wade but circumstances such as this serve as a reminder how time has not made discretion any less of a necessity.

Would this be acceptable if places of worship were treated with the same interference? Would contractors be willing to cancel their contracts with organizations building a cultural center that hate groups targeted? What about a HIV clinic? How about a group home for individuals with disabilities? It is a civil rights issue when the ability to exercise your constitutional right is inhibited by religious zealots who oppose reproductive freedom. I would rather hear our political leaders support less “safe, legal, and rare” and focus more on “legal and accessible”, we deserve it.

Very Serious Questions

Glenn Greenwald has ’em. He makes some interesting observations about who journalists brand “serious” and credible — and, although he doesn’t say this explicitly (perhaps because it doesn’t need to be said), the definition of “moderate” has moved sufficiently rightward, to the point where people like Joe Lieberman are considered middle-of-the-road progressives — even when they meet with religious extremists like Evangelical minister John Hagee. This is the minister who took part in this exchange:

Terry Gross: I just want to ask you one question, based on one of your sermons, and this is not about Israel — you said after Hurricane Katrina, that it was an act of God, and you said when you violate God’s will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah re-born.

Do you still believe that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that is becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?

Hagee: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.

The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.

So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

This is a person who has a fair amount of access to the White House.

Rev. Hagee also runs the group Christians United for Israel. Sen. Lieberman spoke at one of their events, and had this to say:

Read More…Read More…

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Good for these Evangelical leaders:

In recent years, conservative evangelicals who claim a Biblical mandate to protect Israel have built a bulwark of support for the Jewish nation — sending donations, denouncing its critics and urging it not to evacuate settlements or forfeit territory.

Now more than 30 evangelical leaders are stepping forward to say these efforts have given the wrong impression about the stance of many, if not most, American evangelicals.

On Friday, these leaders sent a letter to President Bush saying that both Israelis and Palestinians have “legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine,” and that they support the creation of a Palestinian state “that includes the vast majority of the West Bank.”

They say that being a friend to Jews and to Israel “does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted.” The letter adds, “Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other.”

The letter is signed by 34 evangelical leaders, many of whom lead denominations, Christian charities, ministry organizations, seminaries and universities.

Of course, there are still some Evangelical leaders who argue that Israel should have unfettered power and control over almost any area it pleases because God said so.

“God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a covenant in the Book of Genesis for the land of Israel that is eternal and unbreakable, and that covenant is still intact,” he said. “The Palestinian people have never owned the land of Israel, never existed as an autonomous society. There is no Palestinian language. There is no Palestinian currency. And to say that Palestinians have a right to that land historically is an historical fraud.”

Sure, if you believe that “history” means “what is politically expedient for me to say God said.” And his requirements for autonomy are… interesting. Does he mean that because there is no language called “Palestinian” that Palestinians don’t have rights to the land they live on? Surely he knows that Palestinians do, in fact, verbally converse and do speak a common language… right? Sadly, I’m not so sure.

While right-wing Evangelical leaders might ramble on about Israel’s right to every piece of land the Bible ever mentioned and cheer-lead a situation that has left Palestinians living as refugees for decades, keep in mind they aren’t doing it out of pure Christian altruism and love for Jews. No, they have their own reasons for supporting Israel’s dominance:

Mr. Hagee and others are dispensationalists, Mr. Weber said, who interpret the Bible as predicting that in order for Christ to return, the Jews must gather in Israel, the third temple must be built in Jerusalem and the Battle of Armageddon must be fought.

Which is a fantastic basis on which to make international policy, no?