August 2007 – Page 14

Wherein I contribute to the problem I lament

Said problem being the unrelenting publicity surrounding the Duggar family.

17 children! And counting! More than 10 collective years of pregnancy! (Abuse of exclamation points concludes.)

It’s stories like this one and posters like this that make me feel like a bad feminist blogger. (I also have this problem when talking to an acquaintance who is obsessed with becoming a stay at home mom.)

I want so desperately not to be judgmental and really to encourage reflection and introspection about one’s choices…and I fail. Try as I might, I cannot avoid thinking that Michelle Duggar is out of her mind and wishing, hope against hope, that we could, collectively, look away from the scene. I want to think critically about the situation and why anyone, under any circumstances, would think that featuring the power of their uterus on national television was a good idea or that their entire purpose was to keep having babies. And all I wind up doing is snickering.

This isn’t a comment on choice feminism, but rather a comment on my own unwillingness and inability to look at individuals making (mostly) private choices that I fundamentally disagree without jumping up and down and explaining exactly how I feel about said choices, why they’re wrong, and I know better. (And, as we all know, how I am possessed of superior knowledge and insight which enables me to tell others exactly how to comport their lives.) Rather, this is my own admission of self-righteousness judgmentalism.

Certainly, I have no desire to legislate on any of these issues, but I think that I (and if I may be so bold, most of us) fall into the trap of belittling others rather than critiquing choices within the dominant paradigm. It’s so much easier to snicker at Michelle Duggar (Vagina. Clown Car! *snerk*) than it is to try and understand why she’s planning to have more kids.

How do we work to keep the focus on the patriarchy, the systemic factors at work, and not on the couple who named one of their 17 children Jinger*?

*Is this a misspelling of Jigger, Jingle, a variation on Jingoism or something else entirely?

I still haven’t found what I’m looking for

I was poking around Slate.com earlier and noticed a curious “line of the day”

See it right there in the middle there? “The top searches that begin with ‘my girlfriend is’: a bitch, pregnant, crazy, hot, fat, depressed, getting fat.” What’s the article about you might ask? The Google toolbar and Google Suggest, Google’s feature where you begin typing in your search and it gives you completion suggestions.

So we have an article which is about understanding what people are looking for and we illustrate it with a healthy dose of misogyny. Now, in fairness, the “my boyfriend is” searches aren’t all that flattering (an asshole, an alcoholic, depressed, mean, married, hot.) Neither are the ones about “my mom is”, although by far the creepiest to me is “my mom is hot”. But neither of these are the quote of the day. Instead of highlighting the novel or weird search terms, Slate opts for calling attention to the stuff that makes my skin crawl.

There’s nothing inherently vile about the search terms. They’re perfectly civil (mostly) on their face, but the implications are nauseating. “My girlfriend is getting fat” leads to pages which encourage you, either in the alternative or in combination, to belittle your significant other, try and control her food intake, take her hiking and to other activities, or to buy her clothes a size too small as a hint. “My girlfriend is a bitch” leads you to charming testimonials from men who are eager to agree.

A lot of the time, misogyny is frighteningly mundane and unremarked upon. At the same time, calling attention to it here feel weird somehow; that Slate is letting its male readers know that yes, other men are just like you. I’m not necessarily convinced of this interpretation, but the quote in question doesn’t come until the 12th paragraph in and on the second page. If you’re like me and *hate* Slate’s decision to go to multi-page posts, you’d miss it if you couldn’t be bothered to click through. Is it new that men will call their girlfriends bitches? Or think they’re crazy? The author isn’t even pointing out any implications the fact that these are the top suggestions, which leads me to feel more like a validation that I think is necessary. [Front-paging the quote, that is, not including the example.]

Google suggest also tells you more about the depressing state of -isms and -phobias than you’d probably care to know. In the interests of science, I also played around with it for a few minutes. Begin a search for “Mexicans are…” and the top three responses are stupid, dirty, and dumb. “Gays are” suggests evil, bad, and disgusting. “Women are” gives you evil, from Venus, and (not third, but still my favorite) like tea bags*. And there is a reason that there are no longer any suggestions at all for “blacks are”. Tells you great things about your average Google user, huh?

*This is a reference to Eleanor Roosevelt’s famous remark that a woman is like a tea bag; you never know how strong she is until she gets into hot water. (I’d not heard this line before and sat here thinking “Women steep and produce yummy liquid goodness? Who knew?”)

YK Thoughts

Just finished the panel at Yearly Kos. It was… ok. Glenn was awesome, as expected. There are a few things I wish I would have said that I didn’t get out. Jenn Pozner from WIMN’s Voices asked about female bloggers being marginalized by the mainstream media, and I made the mistake of simply saying that the blogosphere tends to reflect traditional power structures, with men and white people and upper-middle-class people on top. I think that’s true. But what I neglected to do was point out all of the incredible, powerful female bloggers who are out there and who do have thriving readerships — and I neglected to point out that their voices are being ignored by traditional media, even while they’re thriving in the blogosphere.

So that’s the big regret, and it was pointed out to me after the panel — one person even told me that I aided in disempowering women with my answer. Ouch. So there’s that. Now it’s the feminist blogging panel. More thoughts later.

Friday Random Ten – The ’24’ Edition

Happy birthday to me.

I’m spending it at Yearly Kos. If you’re around, I’ll be speaking on a panel at 1pm, and you should come.

1. Modest Mouse – Talking Shit About a Pretty Sunset
2. Tom Waits – Hang Down Your Head
3. Death Cab for Cutie – Company Calls
4. Yo La Tengo – Deeper Into Movies
5. Lyle Lovett – My Baby Don’t Tolerate
6. Maxwell – For Lovers Only
7. John Coltrane – They Say It’s Wonderful
8. Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds – Girl at the Bottom of My Glass
9. The Kinks – Starstruck
10. Bright Eyes – It’s Cool, We Can Still Be Friends

And a Friday Birthday Meme:

If you could go back and talk to your 24-year-old self, what would you tell her/him? And if you’re even more of a baby than I am, what would you want your future 24-year-old self to keep in sight and remember?

And, because I’m asking all of you for your deep life advice, I will reciprocate with the Ask Me Anything game — ask whatever you want, and I’ll answer by Sunday evening. It’ll also give me something to do at the airport.

Chi-Town Yearly Kos Meet-Up

There have been some calls for a Feministe meet-up at Yearly Kos, so I just wanted to let you all know that I’m working on planning something and will post details as soon as I know them. It’ll probably be tomorrow night, but I’ll post something soon. Looking forward to meeting some of you!

Chris Dodd nails Bill O’Reilly in the latter’s Daily Kos jihad

With Yearly Kos going on in Chicago right now, Bill O’Reilly is *obsessed* with Kos, ranting and raving about how it’s a far left website that spews hate and all sorts of horrors hereto unknown on the internet. Someone needs to turn off his Google filter in a big way if he thinks Kos is “the worst stuff on the internet” and that “there isn’t any worse.” (He’s particularly incensed about a photoshopped image that makes it look like Joe Lieberman is going to be giving a blowjob to Bush. There isn’t even any nudity, just them standing on steps so that the height differential puts Lieberman’s mouth near Bush’s crotch.) Maybe we should start a campaign to send him to the Real Doll sites?

Dodd, however, is completely ready for him.*

Of course, O’Reilly can’t even make is through the five minutes without blatantly lying about his own positions. He insists that there are no vile comments on his own posts and denies ever saying anything about it being kosher for Al Qaeda to blow up San Francisco. So “[I]f Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. … You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.” was just some sort of misunderstanding? Duly noted.

Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O’Reilly has more if you’re in need of additional laughter.

*Working on the embed. Stand by for technical assistance.

Via the incomparable Pam.

BBC dives into the radfem/transphobia debate?

The BBC has seen fit to give voice to Julie Bindel, “a radical feminist and journalist, who [is] trying to persuade medics and trans people that sex change surgery is unnecessary mutilation.”

I’m not at all clear from the article whether or not Bindel identifies as a radfem or if radical is just the adjective chosen by the writer, although I do suspect that the author is unaware that radical feminist is a term of art (instead of just an epithet like devout Catholic.) What I am clear on is that Bindel is using the guise of feminism in whatever form to advance views that are blatantly transphobic.

Bindel expounds upon her views in an an op-ed in the Guardian, where she explains that the acceptance of transsexuality “arises from the strong stereotyping of girls and boys into strict gender roles.” She whines about how people were upset when she referred to transwomen as “men in dresses” and claimed that a world inhabited by transsexuals “would look like the set of Grease.” The nerve of those letter writers! Having the audacity to claim that she was being bigoted and intolerant when all she wanted to do was make mock of a group of people on the basis of their identity!

Bindel also frets that had she been sent to see a psychologist who endorsed the idea of sex reassignment as a child, she (as a lesbian) could now be writing as a transman. I have no idea where Bindel gets the idea that sex reassignment is somehow like having your tonsils out. It’s not something that your physician proposes to you, you respond that you’ll trust their judgment, and then sign on the line. There are many readers here far more qualified than I am to explain what their doctors required before performing surgery, but the typical requirements include living at least a year full-time in one’s new gender role, taking hormones for extended periods of time, and extensive psychological counseling. There is no possible way, whatsoever, that Bindel would have been forced into becoming a transman merely by saying she wasn’t attracted to men.

I’m also really irked that the BBC has attempted to ascribe Bindel’s bigotry to either feminism as a whole or radical feminism in particular.

Radical feminists have ideological reasons for opposing sex change surgery.

To them, the claim that someone can be “born into the wrong sex” is a deeply threatening concept.

Many feminists believe that the behaviours and feelings which are considered typically masculine or typically feminine are purely socially conditioned.

There are so many things wrong with these sentences, my head hurts. 1) “Radical feminists” (however defined) are not some sort of monolith. 2) Threatening to what, exactly? 3) The idea that gendered behaviors are conditioned and not innate is not the exclusive province of feminists. In fact, there’s a huge field called sociology which makes the same argument.

Then there’s Bindel’s take on the sine qua non of feminism: She seems to think that because “Feminists want to rid the world of gender rules and regulations…how [can it be] possible to support a theory which has at its centre the notion that there is something essential and biological about the way boys and girls behave?”

How, exactly, are these views incompatible? I don’t dispute, for example, that people who are born sexed male have, on average, more testosterone than those born sexed female. I do dispute that testosterone levels should have any kind of moral meaning or result in a judgment of superiority or inferiority. There is something innate and biological about the ways that *humans* behave. The gender roles are something that we’ve created.

NOTE: This post is not to be construed as radfem bash-fest or anything of the sort.

Via Vanessa at Feministing.

Complicating the Gay Marriage Debate

There are supposed to be two sides to this marriage debate. Either you’re a member of the Religious Right and are opposed or you’re a good liberal and are in favor. Right? Not so much. I’ve seen a huge range of opinions on this issue from queers who don’t identify with either of these mainstream opinions. I wish that more of these voices were represented in legislative actions and in media representations. And from a personal perspective, I’m kind of done with having people assume I’m gung-ho about gay marriage just because I’m queer.

Gay marriage advocates are fighting for the same rights that straight people already have. I’d like to question why straight marriage is the model from which to build gay marriage. Is it convenience? Strategy? (i.e. what is winnable?). Why aren’t we fighting for more, why aren’t we representing nontraditional family structures instead of just traditional nuclear family structures? (and no, I’m not talking polyamory right now). What good is the right to share health insurance with your partner when millions of Americans don’t have health insurance to begin with? Furthermore, why should the government get to police who shares our benefits, who can inherit from us, and who can adopt our children? Considering that only 25% of families in this country follow the traditional nuclear model, wouldn’t we be better off instead seeing what might be best for everyone? How do (or will) co-parenting families, cohabiting adults in non-romantic relationships, single parents living with a sibling, and elderly parents living with their child and their child’s partner (among countless other permutations of family) benefit from a marriage that only provides rights to two romantically involved adults? Furthermore, it seems ironic that in a time when it seems like every straight person is avoiding marriage like the plague, gay people are fighting hard.

Academic John D’Emilio puts these changes into historical context brilliantly in his November/December 2006 article in the Gay and Lesbian Review, The Marriage Movement is Setting Us Back. D’Emilio argues that gay marriage actually goes against history. He explains:

Since the early 1960’s, the lives of many, many heterosexuals have become much more like the imagined lives of homosexuals . Being heterosexual no longer means settling as a young adult into a lifelong coupled relationship sanctioned by the state and characterized by the presence of children and sharply gendered spousal roles. Instead, there may be a number of intimate relationships over the course of a lifetime. A marriage certificate may or may not accompany these relationships. Males and females alike expect to earn their way. Children figure less importantly in the lifespan of adults, and some heterosexuals, for the first time in history, choose not to have children at all.

…

These new “lifestyles” (a word woefully inadequate for grasping the deep structural foundations that sustain these changes) have appeared wherever capitalism has long historical roots. The decline in reproductive rates and the de-centering of marriage follow the spread of capitalism as surely as night follows day. They surface even in the face of religious traditions and national histories that have emphasized marriage, high fertility, and strong kinship ties.

The gay marriage movement has also been accused of racism and classism and of taking up so much of the mainstream LGBT movement’s time and energy that it has little left for any other issues (trans rights in NY state, for example).

Is gay marriage the way to go? Can’t we embrace the fact that the nuclear family structure is no longer useful for so many people in this country and legislate to be able to support and be supported by who(m)ever we want and choose? To be clear – I support anyone who wants to celebrate their relationship privately or with their community. In the post, I am addressing gay marriage in a legal sense, the problems I have with the government policing our relationships and the rights that those relationships bring us.

I don’t want to leave out last summer’s Beyond Same-Sex Marriage (BSSM) statement, the most widely-read document that I know of that questions the legitimacy of the gay marriage movement and its “you’re either with us or against us” mentality. The BSSM executive summary is certainly worth a read. Its signatories advocate for:

Legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status.

Access for all, regardless of marital or citizenship status, to vital government support programs including but not limited to health care, housing, Social Security and pension plans, disaster recovery assistance, unemployment insurance and welfare assistance.

Separation of church and state in all matters, including regulation and recognition of relationships, households and families.

Freedom from state regulation of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities and expression.

Realistically, this will never pass as legislation, though I don’t think that was the intent of the writers. I believe they wanted to spark a conversation, to bring the gray areas of the marriage discussion to the fore. Since last summer, not much follow-up has been done, save for a few events here in New York (one of which I attended and kept some notes on). Queers, marriage skeptics, if you’re out there, does BSSM speak to you? Is there anything useful (media or legislatively speaking) we can do with it? For all of you — what are your thoughts on gay marriage beyond the “I believe in equality for all people” lines and in light of these issues? Is gay marriage really the path to equality?

cross-posted to saltyfemme (where I also link to some of my previous writing on this topic)

Connected and Vunerable

I know Im not alone; Im not the only one thinking these things. Recently I read This Bridge Called My Back and I was so grateful to the women who exposed their frustrations, insecurities, and anger. Their words provided company in lonely places in my brain. I was so grateful that they were having thoughts and feelings then, that they are pertinent to me now. Over 21 years aren’t separating us at all.

Merle Woo’s “Letter to Ma” written in January of 1980 especially influenced me to make writing personal. It exposes Merle’s relationship to her mother:

I believe there are chasms between us. When you say, ‘I support you, honey, in everything you do…I know you mean except my speaking out and writing of my anger at all those things that have caused those chasms (140). I desperately want you to understand me and my work, Ma, to know what I am doing! When you distort what I say, like thinking I am against all ‘caucasians’ or that I am ashamed of Dad, then I feel more frustration and want to slash out, not at you, but those external forces which keep us apart. What deepens the chasms between us are out different reactions to those forces (141).

I found comfort in those pages- connecting with the intimacy the author. There are more layers and perspectives, though, than the ‘safe’ pages of This Bridge, and dwelling in the theories of it.

Vanessa eats babies.

Can you see Vanessa’s mouth watering?

Dawn Eden has gone after Vanessa in a post titled, “Feminism means never having to say you’re sorry … for leaving your kids to die.” And apparently Feministe is an “abortion-advocacy” blog. Oh that Dawn. What a card! Why in the world would any news source — even the least-reputable one in New York City — have fired her?

I’m not linking to Dawn’s post because, really, why drive up her traffic? She posts purposely inflammatory, infantile accusations (usually with bad puns in the title, but that’s another issue) — it’s kind of like watching a small child jump up and down and scream, “LOOK AT ME!!” So, no thanks. But you should read Vanessa’s response. She links to the lovely Ms. Eden, so you can get the content there.