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

Month: March 2008

Feministe in the Media

Two awesome articles that mention Feministe are out this month, one by guest-blogger Jaclyn Friedman in Bitch and one in the Utne Reader. Buy the mags and check ’em out — both articles are really good.

But I think the coolest thing about the coverage was, as the lovely Bitch-reading Ezra* pointed out to me, the fact that the Bitch article referenced Feministe with no description. The lead was simply about Jaclyn “guest-blogging at Feministe” — no need to add “a feminist weblog” or anything else. Kinda cool that the editors assume Bitch readers know who we are.

_________________________________
*Yeah, he scored total points this weekend when he mentioned the Feministe Bitch shout-out, and then offered to let me read his copy of the magazine, which he was carrying around in his bag — then added, “But you can’t have it, because I’m not done reading it yet.”

Dear New York Times,

Articles about eating disorders and alcoholism are about health. Therefore, they should probably be filed in your “Health” section — not in Fashion & Style. According to your own article:

Dr. Bunnell, the past president of the National Eating Disorders Association, said the obsession with being skinny and the social acceptance of drinking and using drugs — along with the sense, lately, that among celebrities, checking into rehab is almost a given, if not downright chic — are partly to blame.

“Both disorders are behaviors that are glorified and reinforced,” Dr. Bunnell said. “Binge drinking is almost cool and hip, and losing weight and being thin is a cultural imperative for young women in America. Mixing both is not surprising, and it has reached a tipping point in terms of public awareness.”

When you put important health pieces in Fashion & Style just because they’re about girly-diseases, you are part of the problem.

Yrs,
Jill

Come on, ladies! Don’t be so humorless. Can’t you take a joke?

So says John Pomfret of the WaPo, who’s receiving a spanking over the latest dribblings from Charlotte Allen. Even Ed Morrissey, writing at Hot Air — neither of which are known for their pro-feminist stance — didn’t miss the abject woman-hating in the piece:

Bobby Riggs during his intentionally provocative promotion of his tennis match with Billy Jean King couldn’t have written this with a straight face. Allen blithely consigns the entire gender into second-class status and advises women to give up their dreams of wealth and power, and instead stick to chick flicks, chick lit, and classic chick roles as mothers and homemakers. That, she promises, will make everyone happier.

What a load of absolute nonsense. Women succeed every day in every arena. If Allen feels a little dim, that may have more to do with her own talents that those of her fellow females. It almost sounds like an excuse. I couldn’t help failing, kind sir; I’m only a woman!

Pomfret is now furiously backpedaling. It was a joke, ladies! Can’t you take a joke?

“If it insulted people, that was not the intent,” Outlook editor John Pomfret told me this morning, calling the piece “tongue-in-cheek.”

Pomfret said that Allen pitched the idea to him as a riff on women fainting at Obama rallies, and similarities with the Beatles…

“She wanted to make fun of this issue,” Pomfret said. “A lot of people have taken it very seriously.”

Hey, remember what I said earlier about this kind of acceptance of blatant misogyny in our nation’s mainstream media having nothing at all to do with the dearth of women on the op-ed pages, except as instruments with which to tear down women as a whole? That goes double for the failure of the WaPo to attract and retain female readers, I’m sure. Wholly unconnected!

In the meantime, keep checking in with Eschaton, where Atrios is dropping gems like this today:

Next Week In John Pomfret’s Washington Post Outlook Section

When she says no, she really means yes.

ETA: Some of Allen’s greatest hits here.

The mainstream media hates women

How else to explain a weekend in which the Washington Post gives space on its op-ed page to Charlotte Allen to complain about how stupid women are; the LA Times does the same for “humorist” Joel Stein (with a soupcon of anxiety about his dick falling off because women can vote, to be added to his anxiety about his dick falling off due to women’s Halloween costumes); Bill Maher sat around on HBO with Christopher Hitchens and Harry Shearer (oh, you disappoint me, Harry) complaining about what need buckets women are; and the New York Times still employs Maureen Dowd.

And I’m sure the fact that these opinions are aired in mainstream outlets has nothing at all to do with the dearth of women on op-ed pages. Well, except for those engaged in the ignoble pursuit of tearing down other women.

Example #1 of why you shouldn’t make sweeping generalizations based on your own personal experience

woman-hater
Does Charlotte get her honorary membership card now?

Shorter Charlotte Allen: I am a paste-eating moron, and so therefore all other women are as shockingly stupid as I am.

Char, we get it: You’re a little stupid. I’m sorry for that, I really am. But you’re at least smart enough to figure out that publicly bashing women is a highly profitable career path — so don’t be so hard on yourself.

Read More…Read More…

Your First Amendment Right to Anonymous Free Speech

For any of you who are still following the AutoAdmit case (background posts all linked here), one of the anonymous commenters, who uses the handle AK47, has filed a motion to quash discovery of his IP address and other information that would reveal his identity. The subpoena, apparently, violates AK47’s “First Amendment right to speak anonymously.”

Before we start, I should make it clear that I am not a party to this lawsuit, and so far haven’t been involved in it at all. But since my name came up repeatedly on the AutoAdmit boards, and since I have a whole lot of empathy for the Jane Does who filed the suit, I’m writing about it.

AK47 (known in the suit as John Doe 21) was a regular commenter on AutoAdmit, and was fairly well-known for his constant use of the n-word and other racial slurs. At issue in this case is his comment that “Women named Jill and [Doe II] should be raped.” In his motion he disingenuously argues that since Jill and Doe II’s first name are extremely common, his comment is “silly,” and the Does have no case.

But certainly context matters. Doe I, Doe II and myself were discussed on AutoAdmit so often that our first names were all commenters need to use to identify us. Writing “Women named Jill and [Doe II] should be raped” may not be a big deal on a random message board, but in a place where our pictures had been posted and much of our personal information given out, it’s a different story. Anyone who read that board with any regularity knew exactly who AK47 was talking about. He knew exactly who he was talking about, and to suggest that there’s no claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because he only used our first names is pretty pathetic. He also claims that his statement amounts to nothing more than “an unsavory, if silly, suggestion or opinion.” Apparently, if a statement is nothing more than a suggestion or opinion, it’s totally protected speech — even if it’s a suggestion to rape someone. So, to use a common example, if I walk into a crowded theater an scream “I think there’s a fire, I suggest everyone run!” when there is none, can I defend myself by arguing that “It was just, like, my opinion, man”? Can I use that same response if I pick a random student at my law school and post on Feministe that they had a lesbian affair with the NYU dean, that they have huge fake tits, that they have an STD, that they deserve to be raped, and that hey by the way here’s their full name, email address and phone number? But it’s just my opinion, man! Quit attacking my free speech rights.

Read More…Read More…

So will re-claiming my status as a college freshman get me out of these law school loans?

virginity

I know the “second virginity” craze is nothing new, but the whole thing strikes me as ridiculous and sad enough to merit comment.

Virginity fetishism is at heart about the idea that women are objects, and that those objects become less valuable when they’ve been “used” by someone else. A shiny new hymen on your wedding day is, apparently, the Bentley of the Religious Right — a fairly rare acquisition and therefore a major status symbol. The fact that it’s attached to an actual person is less of an issue. Just look at how religious groups discuss reclaiming “lost” virginity:

“Have you already unwrapped the priceless gift of virginity and given it away?” asks the Web site for the Pregnancy Resource Center of Northeast Ohio, where Watts began working part-time after she reclaimed her virginity. “Do you now feel like ‘second-hand goods’ and no longer worthy to be cherished? Do you ever wish you could re-wrap it and give it only to your future husband or wife? Guess what…? You can decide today to commit to abstinence, wrapping a brand-new gift of virginity to present to your husband or wife on your wedding night.”

Because a husband or wife who thinks you should be a virgin until marriage is the last person who’s going to think you’re second-hand goods, right?

Read More…Read More…