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

Pre-Post Poll: Thoughts On Marxist Feminism?

At the community center where I live and work (yeah, long story), I have a lot of freedom to dream up ways of using the space. Starting new programs, things like that. And so, early this year, when a friend of mine asked if she could host a Marxist Feminist study group here, I was psyched about the idea.

We’d been meeting for a couple months before my co-workers (all of whom are liberal; a couple of whom are nuns) finally, collectively, were like,

“So Katie. What is…….Marxist Feminism?”

Good question!

What do you think, fabulous readers? What are your understandings, associations, and experiences of it? I’m curious to hear from you before getting into my own present thoughts.

Thanks for sharing, and please do keep in mind our dhamma comment guidelines!

I get around

There has been a lot of pop music on Feministe lately – Sarah posted about Robyn recently, and s.e smith posted about Janelle Morae (both artists of which I Approve). So, in honour of Pride this weekend, I thought I’d post about my favourite band of literally ever. Dragonette are a Canadian electropop band that consist of singer Martina, bassist and producer Dan, guitarist Chris and drummer Joel. Their two albums Galore and Fixin to Thrill have constituted some of the catchiest, dirtiest, and occasionally queerest pop around over the last two years, yet sadly both have been underwhelming in terms of sales. It is therefore necessary for all of you who might be interested in such things to listen and/or watch the alarmingly sexy video for their first single “I Get Around.”

Read More…Read More…

Team Weigel.

Washington Post journalist Dave Weigel resigned today, after Fishbowl DC and Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller published a series of comments that they deemed unprofessional, partisan and inappropriate, all of which Weigel made on a private listserve.

Now, we all know that supposedly “private” lists often aren’t. So what did Weigel say that was so terrible? [Warning: Racist, sexist, homophobic and ableist language ahead!] Was it something like, “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” or “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” or “They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?” or “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back”?

No, those were all Rush Limbaugh, who Weigel criticized on the list.

Did he refer to gays as “the pederast proletariat”? After a Catholic priest criticized anti-Semitism did he respond with “If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O’Connor of New York seeks to soothe the always irate Elie Wiesel by reassuring him ‘there are many Catholics who are anti-Semitic’…he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith”? Did he say that women are not equipped by nature to succeed in the competitive world of Western capitalism? Did he demonize illegal immigrants?

No, that was Pat Buchanan, who Weigel also criticized on the list.

So what did Dave Weigel do on this private listserve that was so terrible? He made an (admittedly tasteless) joke about Rush Limbaugh’s heart failing. He wrote, about covering the Tea Party, “Honestly, it’s been tough to find fresh angles sometimes–how many times can I report that these [tea party] activists are joyfully signing up with the agenda of discredited right-winger X and discredited right-wing group Y?” He said that the motives behind some Tea Partiers and conservatives were racist and premised on maintaining white privilege. He pointed out that “There’s also the fact that neither the pundits, nor possibly the Republicans, will be punished for their crazy outbursts of racism. Newt Gingrich is an amoral blowhard who resigned in disgrace, and Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semite who was drummed out of the movement by William F. Buckley. Both are now polluting my inbox and TV with their bellowing and minority-bashing. They’re never going to go away or be deprived of their soapboxes.” He said about conservative blow-hard Matt Drudge that “It’s really a disgrace that an amoral shut-in like Drudge maintains the influence he does on the news cycle while gay-baiting, lying, and flubbing facts to this degree.” He pointed out that the mainstream media suffers from “this need to give equal/extra time to ‘real American’ views, no matter how fucking moronic, which just so happen to be the views of the conglomerates that run the media and/or buy up ads.” He said Glenn Beck was racist. He was satisfied and laughing when a right-wing operative who made a career of harassment, intimidation and law-breaking was finally caught breaking into Senator Mary Landrieu’s office. He used the term “ratfuck.”

Someone fetch Republicans the smelling salts.

Now, look. I’m not going to defend all of the language used. I’m not going to defend the sentiments behind all of it — words like “moron” are problematic for reasons we’ve discussed multiple times on this blog, and I’m also not a big fan of hoping that someone dies, no matter how terrible they are. The listserve was specifically created for off-the-record conversations among journalists, and while it’s particularly shitty and unethical that someone leaked these emails, it’s also the reality that things you write online are rarely entirely private. I also understand that Weigel was covering conservatives, and so the argument is that he clearly holds some animus towards them and therefore should be relieved of his duties.

But, all of that said: Why is this a scandal or an issue, exactly? Sure, a lot of what Weigel said isn’t nice. At least some of it is stuff that, had it been left in a comment at Feministe, we would have called out for the language/hoping-people-die stuff. But that’s not what most people are taking issue with here. Rather, the problem seems to be that Weigel had the nerve to use the word “racist” to describe someone who tells a caller he assumes to be black to “take the bone out of your nose and call me back.” The problem seems to be that he had the nerve to use the word “racist” to describe someone like Glenn Beck, who relies on racist dog-whistles to frighten his audience into thinking that President Obama is a “thug” who hates “white culture.” The problem seems to be that he pointed out the fact that the media hones in on right-wing extremists and gives them airtime, because advertisers have an interest in certain positions and so they pony up for O’Reilly and Beck.

What Weigel was doing over that private list was criticizing mainstream media and their presentation of politics. He wasn’t forming some nefarious plot to use his Washington Post column to sneak in a liberal agenda. He wasn’t launching racist attacks on his opponents. Instead, he was calling the right out on their racism, sexism and anti-Semitism. He was calling the mainstream media out on their over-reliance on extreme views to fit the narratives that sell ads. He was questioning the loudest voices, and challenging, even in a private forum, powerful organizations.

He had opinions. Newspaper columnists who write about politics tend to have those.

I mean, Tucker Carlson was one of the people who published Weigel’s emails. TUCKER CARLSON. Not exactly an emblem of journalistic ethics, talent, fairness or objectivity. A dick who is hurting America, if you will. That’s the guy who is pulling the Journalistic Integrity card here? And we’re taking it seriously?

I don’t know Dave Weigel personally. I was not on JournoList. I follow Dave on Twitter, and that’s about the extent of my knowledge of him as a person. But I read his writing — and while I’m a lot more left-leaning than he is (despite all of this coverage, he comes across as a moderate, socially liberal libertarian), I’ve always found him to be fair, to engage in debate in good faith, and to lack the kind of dogmatism that often accompanies the work that political writers do. I don’t always agree with him, but he seems like one of the good ones. He seems like he takes his journalistic obligations seriously. He seems like he treats his ideological opponents fairly (a view that is bolstered, I think, by the numbers of right-of-center writers coming to his defense today). It strikes me as fundamentally unfair that the JournoList comments, which are hardly beyond the pale, led to his resignation. It strikes me as frighteningly poisonous to an open and engaged press to shut out Dave Weigel for (privately even!) calling out racism from white people, while people like Glenn Beck can run around disseminating enormous amounts of misinformation, calling Hillary Clinton a “stereotypical bitch,” promoting racist and anti-Semitic literature and and calling the President a racist mostly because the President is black.

Journalists have opinions. They will have opinions about their beats. Is it a problem to have a super-dogmatic partisan covering certain topics? Sure. But Weigel is a left-ish libertarian. His comments were about specific (and specifically horrific) right-wing commentators, and particularly problematic media practices. For once in my life I actually agree with Ross Douthat, who writes:

The more important point is that no journalistic standard was violated by firing off intemperate e-mails to what’s supposed to be a private e-mail list. Maybe Weigel should have known better than to trust the people on JournoList, and I can certainly understand why once the e-mails were leaked, his ability to cover the conservative movement would be compromised, and a parting of the ways with The Post might seem necessary. But if hitting “send” on pungent e-mails that you assume will be kept private is a breach of journalistic ethics, then there isn’t an ethical journalist in the English-speaking world.

Dave Weigel is a very talented journalist. I have no doubt that he’ll go on to do great things, and that this will hardly be a career-ender. But it’s shameful of the Washington Post, and it’s a shameful commentary on the state of American media.

Good luck, Dave. Don’t let the ratfuckers get you down.

Got a hot date in Oakland tonight…Much of it will be silent

The East Bay Meditation Center from East Bay Meditation Center on Vimeo.

(Description and transcript, to the best of my beginner’s ability, below the fold — additions and/or amendments appreciated!)

Friends, I’d like you to meet the East Bay Meditation Center, one of the dopest sanghas (dhammic spiritual communities) I have ever had the good fortune to encounter. For the month of June I’m the open/close volunteer for the Thursday night People of Color sit (terminology that, as Chally and others have pointed out, may be useful in this context but not in all! :). So tonight I’ll be setting up the chairs and cushions, the tea (so many kinds of tea — yummm), the sound system, arranging the chairs and cushions, lighting some candles…and then breaking everything down at the end of the night. I’m technically the bottom-liner but there are always other sweetheart regulars who are eager to help out, make the work go faster.

The video pretty much speaks for its own rad self, but basically this tremendously awesome spiritual organization is rooted in values of diversity and justice.* They have been so inspirational for me, not only by offering a space for me to maintain and strengthen my meditation practice, but in presenting that practice in a language I understand and care about. Back in March, I got an email from the listserv advertising a “Beyond Buddhist Patriarchy” 1-day workshop:

Alternating periods of silent meditation with facilitated discussion, we’ll explore what forms of spiritual practice, and both lay and monastic community structures, may arise as we collectively go beyond internal and external patriarchal structures.

Can I tell you how happy it made me to hear that in a spiritual context? Really happy.

I know that not everybody agrees on the utility of POC-only or LGBTQQI-only spaces (of note: only 2 out of 7 days a week at EBMC are caucused in this way), but I for one am a big fan. I am also a big fan of dana (“DAH-nah,” generosity) -based micro-economies, both on a spiritual level (cultivating generosity: helpful) and on a political level (more aligned with the socialist framework, “to each according to need; from each according to ability”).

Also important and encouraging is the attitude of EBMC sponsors who come from more privileged sanghas. Instead of focusing exclusively on ‘integrating’ or ‘diversifying’ their own populations, groups like Spirit Rock that are largely white, older, and wealthy are also offering some material and financial solidarity to self-led communities like EBMC. Key! So key.

If you’ve got a dollar to spare and would like to support our work, it would be especially appreciated now, as we’re trying to afford a bigger space so we can have childcare! Hell yes. And if you live in the Bay Area and have never been, come check it out!

Read More…Read More…

How can you have sex when you don’t even know what sex is?

Working at Planned Parenthood, I tend to get a lot of questions about sex and sexual health. I’ve met people at parties and had them tell me about their crabs. I’ve had folks I just met at a bar, only half-jokingly, ask about a rash they had in their nether-regions. And I’ve become the resident expert at family dinners about all things sexual (or political, but that’s another matter).

On the one hand it’s ridiculous — I am not a doctor and can’t give medical advice. But on the other hand it makes perfect sense — so many of us have gaps in our education and need some answers, preferably from someone more reliable than Web MD.

This next story relates to that — and how we can be so out of touch with our bodies, or just uneducated about our bodies, that we don’t even know what’s happening.

    The first one is short: Until I was about twelve, I didn’t understand how a tampon could work. I figured you’d have to swallow it to get it inside yourself. (You can tell I wasn’t very in touch with my body as a kid.)

    The second one is a little longer and significantly more embarrassing: When I was thirteen, I lost my virginity. Except I didn’t. I was pretty sheltered, and had no idea about the workings of my body (see above), and my boyfriend told me we’d had sex, and I believed him. It wasn’t until about three years later that I talked it through with someone and realized that there had been no penetration at all, that I guess he just got off like between my butt and the bed (it was missionary). Clearly he was just as clueless as me. 

PS – As I mentioned in my first post — Planned Parenthood of New York City has some great guides on how to talk to your kids about sex, and is currently running a campaign to make sure all kids in NYC are taught accurate, age-appropriate sex education.

Posted in Sex

Queer Virginity

Not a story per se, but Miriam over at Feministing has a great post about being queer and the concept of virginity.

Posted in Sex

SYTYCD Season 7 Top 10

Spoilers below!

Seriously, y’all, is there even a competition going on this year, because I’m too busy watching the all-stars!! What is UP with that?! I actually had to rewatch some of the dances to pay attention to the contestants. Anyways, jump on over to read about this week’s competition night.

Read More…Read More…

On Referring to People Who Aren’t White

Before I started reading feminist blogs, I’d never heard the term “person of colour” as it’s not widely used here in Australia. Since then, I’ve heard it perhaps four times (my head always jerks up in surprise!) out of femosphere contexts as far as I can recall. The concept itself, I should note, was not new to me, it’s just one I would have signified with “non-white” or similar rather than person of colour.

Today, I’m not going to talk about what I’d like to talk about, which would be what that kind of experience means, about how dialogue around race goes when people from lots of different contexts funnel into one big space like the Internet. I’m going to lay some groundwork in the form of a brief and rough guide to referring to people who aren’t white while taking cultural difference into account.

Person of colour, while a great term a lot of people like to use, isn’t universally the best choice when referring to people who aren’t white.

Read More…Read More…

Don’t Resist: Resist!

There are no new ideas. There are only new ways of making them felt.

~Audre Lorde

Hey y’all, thank you so much for all the incredibly thoughtful comments on my first two posts. (For those just now hopping on board, they are here and here — the first one, which has my comment guidelines, might be especially helpful to read.)

Today I thought I’d share a post from my own blog (Kloncke! rhymes with honk, wonk, and badonkadonk) that speaks to similar themes (harm v. suffering; being open to situations v. putting yourself in danger) and might help illustrate some of the principles. In general I tend to write more about how dhamma might be useful for feminism (mainly because that’s what I’m working through for myself these days), but this one is a bit more about how a feminist lens can help make dhammic teachings more relevant. (And we’re not talking Add-Women-And-Stir.)

I promise I’m not always so serious! 🙂 In fact, the vast majority of the work on my own blog has quite a different vibe, based on my own theories of mindful blogging as spiritual praxis. More on that later. For now, goodnight — looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this one!

—————
—————

I’ll be the first to admit it, folks: non-resistance, one of the core elements of Buddhist or dhammic praxis, seems like a sham. On its face, non-resistance sounds like one or a combination of (a) weakness: a sort of rationalized fear of fighting back; (b) delusion: playing Mary Sunshine and pretending that there’s nothing to resist; or (c) apathy: leaving it to fate or karma or whatever to sort everything out.

Read More…Read More…