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

Tag: feminists

“Feminist” Rape Apologists

feminist

If I were to write a personal ad for Liz Funk, it would go something like this:
SWF seeks tall, manly-man writer or psudeo-intellectual singer-songwriter who appeals to the ‘tween set. Interests include long walks on the beach, John Mayer, playing dress-up in feminist clothes, slut-shaming, woman-bashing, and rape apologism. And Gary, if you’re out there, call me!

Think I’m exaggerating about “feminist” Liz? Then check out her latest article: “Sacrificing Dignity for Attention.” Where have I heard this before?

I’m not one to play feminist police, but damn if this isn’t one of those moments where I’d love to take away someone’s membership card. So, because Ms. Funk seems to be a little on the slow side when it comes to catching on to basic feminist theory, here’s the 101: Feminists don’t hate women. And that is why you, Liz, are no feminist.

Feminists don’t blame women for being raped or attacked, or attempt to obscure that blame with “concern.” Feminists don’t shame women for having the audacity to leave their homes, or walk outside alone, or have a drink. Good feminist writers also do some basic research before they end their articles with stuff like this:

But even with laws and initiatives and special public precautions in place, Quinn acknowledged that young people “who go out at night remain at risk until they get back home.”

If she had done some very basic research, she would have discovered that home is often more dangerous than being out at a bar. After all, two thirds of sexual assault survivors were attacked by someone they knew — 40% of those attackers were a friend or acquaintance, and 28% an intimate partner. Seven percent were relatives. A woman is raped every 2 1/2 minutes. And 5.3 million women suffer from intimate partner violence every year in the United States alone. About 1300 of those women will die from that violence, and millions will be seriously injured. Twenty percent of nonfatal violence directed at women in 2003 came at the hand of an intimate partner.

But yes, women are at risk until they return home.

Read More…Read More…

Amazed broker realizes, women spend money. Next week, befuddled retailer notices that teenagers go to the mall.

Mr. Walentas has done so well that he has been able to raise his prices twice. He also sees more married women writing the $60,000-to-$100,000 deposit checks. “It’s the women’s checks,” he said. “It’s not like a dual account — Joe and Suzy. It’s Suzy. I’m amazed.”

Suzy gets her own paycheck. Crikey.

“A woman will say, ‘I’m still saving money in the long term.’ ” said JoAnn Schwimmer, an associate real estate broker at DJK Residential. “They’re able to see the bigger picture, while a guy says, ‘I have to get the best deal.’ ” She said that her female clients who bought four years ago have male friends still waiting for prices to drop.

But here I thought that women are supposed to be bad at math.

Of course, as Ilyka points out, the fact that single women are doing it means that it must be stupid. The post itself is an eye-roll, but the comments are where it really gets good. Apparently, single women owning their own homes is a “girl’s fantasy” because “women are terrible with money.” And why not blame the Jew feminists while we’re at it?

You wanna know what happened to women here in the States? Easy…… The jew feminist movement, once again it was just a giant jew scam. Ask yourself, who really won here, the family that just got bumped into the next tax bracket with the wife going to work? No, both spouses incomes are now taxed at a higher rate, on top of the fact that they now have to pay for childcare.

I’m so glad that these men are so much smarter than me. Before I buy a home, I’ll be sure to check in with them, to make sure that my silly little self doesn’t get ripped off by some Jew. Or feminist. Or worse, Jew feminist with a closet full of shoes.

Read all the comments. Really.

What Women Want

Today I’m going to tell men a little secret about women.

Are you listening, men? Come a little closer…a little closer. Shhhhhh, we’ve got to keep our voices down so the feminists don’t hear….

You know that stuff you’ve been reading in the girly magazines that tell you that women like to be romanced with candlelit dinners before you gently (gently!) make love to them by first giving them hours of oral pleasure and then softly (oh so softly!) penetrating them while staring lovingly into their eyes…always making absolutely sure that they reach orgasm first?

Well, it’s all bunk.

Read More…Read More…

Hillary’s Woman Problem

Like many feminists, I’m conflicted about the whole Hillary-for-President thing. I think a lot of us had pinned our hopes on her, and we feel like she failed us. Her support of the Iraq war is one of the biggest issues for me; her support of welfare reform was a sad reminder that for all her talk about women’s rights, she’s willing to sell certain groups of women down the river for political gain; and her recent attempts to be a moderate just make her look spineless. But I’m still clinging to the hope that if she was elected, she’d be good. She’d not only be a female president, but a feminist president. And at the end of the day, she’s a politician — her primary interest is getting re-elected, so she’s never going to be my ideal representative. But compared to a lot of other politicians — and a lot of other Democrats — she’s pretty good. And if she runs for president, she’ll have a lot of people who will be very willing to work very hard for her.

But I still think she has to earn our votes. And I remain very undecided. This week, two other feminists have taken on the Hillary question, and come to opposite conclusions. See Siren Magazine’s Allison Hantschel, who writes that she won’t vote for Hillary just because she’s a woman, and Salon’s Rebecca Traister, who argues that Hillary is us. Thoughts?

Speaking of Gloria Steinem and Satire

…And porn…

Pandagon has apparently received some praise from an unsavory source:

Playboy says this about Pandagon (tee-hee):
“The don’t-give-a-fuck spirit of blogging is alive and well at Pandagon, where three fierce, funny, pro-sex feminists disguise their almost frightening intellect with thick layers of attitude. Their favorite targets are blowhard moralists.”

Amanda has reacted to said praise with her customary flippancy, and certain bloggers have reacted to her flippancy rather harshly. I am actually a little gratified, since one of them managed to make my point for me. I give you AradhanaDevindra, whom no one will ever accuse of being a music snob. This is what she has to say about the chortling response to Playboy:

You know what Amanda, by baiting playboy pornstubators on – you’re basically ‘writing for free’ for playboy.

But that’s pretty much what your run of the mill site has been all along. You’ve been writing for self-congratulatory egomaniacs who can feel okay to jack off to porn.

So, since playboy loves you soooooo much, would you actually write an article for them given the opportunity?

Do give me the privilege of hearing an answer to that one.

In other words, Amanda is to blame for Playboy’s attempt to attach itself, remora-like, to the cool feminist kids.

More from AradhanaDevindra, about the details of Amanda’s riff on the honor:

It’s not irony or sarcasm that Amanda responds to playboy pornstubators, she actually baits them on, EXPECTING and HOPING for traffic from playboy.

QUOTE: And in honor the fact that Pandagon managed to get on Playboy’s top ten blogs list, but especially in honor of the interesting discussion last night, an appropriate video on the list “This Is Hardcore” by Pulp. For visitors from Playboy, I highly recommend this video. ’s hot.*

Oh, yeah, she clarifies what she means by hot, which could be read as a ‘gay joke’, as we all know playboy purchasers are mostly straight men:

QUOTE Amanda: *If you dig skinny, sarcastic English singers who write angry lyrics about how they’re not impressed with their abundant opportunities for pornographic fantasy style sex that’s got no possibilities of anything real behind it.

This is the thing, if I, or any other stripe of feminist knew that something like playboy – an ‘institution’ unto itself, was linking to me I would fucking protest it asap. I would have an anti-plaboy banner up asap, instead of ENCOURAGE readership. I would dedicate an entire post to the shitty history of playboy – it’s not that hard to find anti-playboy material you know.

Right. And “Common People” is an ode to Paris Hilton. And “Anorexic Beauty” is a mash note to Kate Moss. Anti-playboy material? You mean, like “This is Hardcore?” Here are the lyrics, which Amanda was thoughtful enough to post. She shouldn’t have had to, mind, since you really shouldn’t presume to interpret a reference to lyrics you can’t be arsed to look up and read, but it apparently didn’t make any difference.

Now. Whose fault is it that AradhanaDevindra can’t understand “This is Hardcore?” Whose fault is it that she is capable of missing bitter sarcasm in a Pulp song? Whose fault is it that the really pretty obvious meaning of the song* went flying over her head? Is it Amanda’s fault for linking the song? Or does the responsibility for AradhanaDevindra’s self-serving and irresponsible reading rest solely with AradhanaDevindra?

I’m asking seriously, because I can’t see anyone else smiling in here. Just how stupid must we presume our audience to be? Pandagon is asking for it if a magazine run by a delusional sexist who has spent half a century dismissing feminist criticisms is able to dismiss the feminist critique that saturates the blog? Their ability to understand feminism or perceive it has some bearing on Pandagon’s right to say that it is feminist? If a bunch of anti-feminist men reduce Pandagon to tits and ass, that’s the sum of its contribution to feminism? Pandagon has no right to respond with anything but, “HOW DARE YOU APPROVE OF ME?! Oh, I cover myself in SHAME!” No tee-heeing? At Hugh Hefner, of all people?

Fuck that. Don’t bother saying you’re sorry, and don’t ever change, any of you.

Which brings me to part two, or, What is Pam, Fun-Feminist Chopped Liver? Why is a post about Pandagon’s response to a Playboy nod to everyone at Pandagon–one which links to Pam, the blogger who broke the story and was arguably least biting, first–entitled “Et tu, Amanda?” And why doesn’t Aradhana–or, for that matter, an ovewhelming majority of the commenters on both critical blog posts–seem aware that Amanda is not the only woman blogging at Pandagon?

*Which I’m almost absolutely sure is not, “Yay! Porn!”

Who I Am

At the risk of sounding like Britney Spears, I’m gonna go ahead and throw it out there: I am not a role model.

I am, however, a feminist. And you can try and take away my membership card, but I’m still going to claim it.

I’m a 23-year-old kid trying to get through law school, get a job, and make it through my daily life. I also blog sometimes. Blogging is not my job. I don’t get paid for it, and while it’s important to me, I don’t construct my identity around it.

I’m very flattered that there are people out there who apparently consider me to be some sort of leader in the feminist community. But I’m not blogging because I’m a professional feminist, or an expert on gender issues, or some sort of feminist Yoda (although the best compliment I ever received in my life was when another NYU student called me that). I’m not blogging because I think that I have some big feminist secret to share with you all, or because I think that I’m better-informed or more “feminist” than most other people, and therefore can impart my brilliance onto all of you. I blog because I love the community that we’ve built here, and because these days, feminist blogs are my major connection to other feminists. I blog because I need a space to vent. I blog because I like to write, and because I’m interested in politics and gender issues. I was a journalism and politics major and a gender studies minor, and I wrote an opinion column for two years in college — political/feminist blogging was kind of a natural follow-up. And I spent a year being a teeny-tiny little blogger until Lauren asked me to join her at this space, and I was essentially handed a large, incredibly well-informed audience who I love engaging with in conversation. I feel like this blog is fairly horizontal in structure — it’s not about Piny, Zuzu and I conferring information onto all of you, and everyone sucking it up. For me, this space has always been about having conversations and sharing our perspectives. I’ve never felt like being a moderator of this space somehow makes me any more of a feminist role model than anyone else here.

Read More…Read More…

Feminists Speaking for Muslim Women

Ali has a post up today about Iranian divorce, and Western feminist involvement with the issues facing Muslim women in Islamic countries. Ali writes,

To me, it is better if a progressive rather than a Neo-Con gets gung ho about human rights in the Muslim world because the latter will try to solve the problem by occupation and turning half the country into ‘insurgents.’ The problem, of course, and I think Jill knows this full well (because she tries to confront it), is that progressives will not get gung-ho about human rights issues except as an academic exercise (or when they can get their universities involves). (They are often too afraid to come off as cultural imperialists — which is due to having taken a few too many post-colonial studies classes). Once they “learn” about an issue from an ‘insider’ party, they feel as if they have done their part – as if awareness is activism. This is what distinguishes progressive human rights activism from the activism of today’s neo-liberal semi-neo-conservative. The latter is actually action oriented (even if the action is highly dubious and altogether counter-productive, like invasion or economic sanctions).

Now, I see what he’s saying, but I’m not sure that he’s entirely understanding our (or at least my) motivations. I write about issues facing Muslim women, but I make an effort to recognize that I don’t speak for them, and that there are Muslim women who are speaking, writing and acting on behalf of themselves and other women who share their backgrounds.

Read More…Read More…