-
BlogHer Ad Network More from BlogHer Advertise here BlogHer Privacy Policy -
"In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: either she's a feminist or a masochist." --Gloria Steinem
-
Apr
25
A Crazy 24 Hours
Filed Under WOC issues, books, feminism, media, race and racism | 14 Comments
I’ve been waiting to weigh in on the latest of the Amanda Marcotte controversies: the images in the book. I’m not going to rehash it all here; if you don’t know what I’m talking about, click the link because Holly explains it all.
I haven’t read the book or even seen it in person. So, I was unaware of the images. As for my opinion, I agree with everything that Holly and everyone else who was outraged had to say. I noted my shock and disgust in the comments. And I didn’t anticipate writing anything about it unless there were developments.
There have been. Both Amanda and Seal Press have issued apologies.
And though I’m happy that they realize they’ve done something wrong, the apologies themselves do bring up a hell of a lot of questions.
Popularity: 21% [?]
Apr
1
Taking the Word “Judge” Out of Context
Filed Under books, courts gone crazy, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexism, slut-shaming, stereotypes, violence against women and girls | 9 Comments
A new UK book about sexual assault reveals some judges’ disturbing if not particularly unexpected views about victims of sexual assault and their personal role in “interpreting” sexual assault laws.
Judges have undermined a law intended to stop defence lawyers cross-examining women in rape cases about their sexual history, by continuing to insist on their discretion to allow it, a new book discloses.
Interviews with 17 judges in London and Manchester found that some insisted they still had a wide discretion to allow questions on sexual history, although the law was changed in 2000 to impose severe limits on questioning.
One judge described the provision as “pretty pathetic because it’s get-roundable”.
Another said: “I’m not one for being unduly fettered. I’ve been appointed to do a job on the basis that I have a certain amount of judgment, and to be fettered or shackled by statutory constraints I don’t think helps anybody.”
In other words: “I’m a judge goddammit. That means it’s my job to judge. Who said anything about the law?” Or, perhaps: “Oh yeah, well I judge that your law is stupid! In your face!”
Popularity: 15% [?]
Feb
20
My Daughter Has a Hand Mirror, and Other Signs that the Sky is Falling
Filed Under assholes, books, education and schools, misogyny, patriarchy, religious fanaticism, sex and sexuality, sexism, social conservatives, women’s health | 22 Comments
Be Very Afraid: the root of all sexual deviancy is laying next to your bathroom sink.
I know that this is way too easy. But all the same, when I ran across this “opinion piece” in the RH Reality Check news aggregator, I laughed so hard that I nearly sprayed orange juice across the computer screen. It just screams satire, and yet is absolutely, frighteningly serious. From Robert H. Knight, Sex Education Veers the Wrong Way:
What is it with “advice” experts? Are they all drinking the decades-old Kool-Aid from sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey?
A case in point: In her “Family Almanac” column in the Feb. 15 Washington Post, Marguerite Kelly advises a mother to steer her curious 11-year-old boy away from the Internet and toward the kiddie sex book, “It’s Perfectly Normal.”
An illustrated, over-sized hardback by Robie H. Harris, “It’s Perfectly Normal” has sold more than 1 million copies. It’s full of colorful drawings of nude people, sexual activities including masturbation by both sexes, and even a girl leaning over and holding a mirror between her legs, so she and the reader can examine her nether regions.
If you felt violated just reading this description, imagine how kids feel when looking at the pictures. The book title sums up the author’s agenda, which is to promote all varieties of sex as “perfectly normal.”
That’s right: “even a girl leaning over and holding a mirror between her legs.” I can’t get over the hilarious and telling nature of the fact that among those who think the worst possible human action anyone could commit is to experience any form of pleasure without asking God pretty please first and promising to think of Him the whole time, a girl having a peek at her vulva is the most outlandish offense in a book all about sex. Not the dirty, sinful nudity. Or the shockingly anti-Biblical depictions of sexual activities by presumably unmarried people, including spilling one’s seed. The worst part is a girl foolishly thinking that she has a right to know what her genitals look like. Crazy liberals, don’t they know that God put a girl’s “down there” down there for a reason??? It wasn’t to sell hand mirrors, that’s for sure!
Popularity: 41% [?]
Feb
18
And here I was thinking that we should demand structural change
Filed Under books, misogyny, patriarchy, sexism, stereotypes, work | 13 Comments
The Times has an article on two new books about how women can get ahead in the workplace. I’m sure that we’ll hear a lot about both of them in the next few weeks/months as the media trips all over itself at the opportunity to spew misogyny while not actually being held responsible for it. How bad is it? Even the Times thinks its sexist.
“Seducing the Boys Club” is equal parts autobiography and how-to manual. Ms. DiSesa bases her recommendations on her 35-year career in advertising.
[. . .]
She lists seven deadly sins — humility, timidity, cowardice, submissiveness, blind obedience, visible fear and hypersensitivity — as common female traits to be avoided at all costs. On the other hand, she also warns women to avoid male tendencies like getting “drunk with power.”
The two principal tactics advocated by Ms. DiSesa are seduction and manipulation. After bundling them together in a glib Madison Avenue abbreviation, she declares that, “All the men in our lives — the ones we work with or live with, admire or desire, and love or hate — are easier to control if we master the Art of S.& M.” Why would men fall for such tactics? “First of all, they love seduction,” she writes. “And second, they are oblivious to manipulation.”
Ms. DiSesa points out that sex and seduction are not one and the same. The first implies sleeping one’s way into the executive suite, an approach she deplores. The second, as she illustrates in rambling anecdotes, is more about using sophisticated charm and sugar-coated words to win the support of male business associates.
“One of the greatest tools, or weapons, we have as women is flirting,” she says, later adding, “Men like women who like them.”
[. . .]
There are no maybes in “What Men Don’t Tell Women About Business.” Mr. Flett describes himself as a “reformed alpha male” who is now dedicated to helping women outwit alpha males.Mr. Flett says the foundation of the 21st-century business model is “authenticity.” But instead of recognizing the new paradigm, he says, many women keep hiding behind personality masks to play roles like Mother and Geisha or try to pass themselves off as “one of the boys” by feigning interest in macho sports like ice hockey. At the same time, he accuses other women of committing a laundry list of typical female mistakes he details in chapters with subheadings such as “Taking Things Personally,” “Making Excuses” and, in a description of perhaps the most egregious mistake, “Not Keeping Secrets.”
But Mr. Flett also seems to contradict himself. “Women don’t have to become men in order to be successful,” he says. “In fact, they should appreciate that they hold a lot of the skills men attempt to learn.” That said, he proceeds to advise women to act more ruthlessly. Among the dictums he says he has learned from his own male colleagues are “Success is yours for the taking,” “Leadership is given to those who take complete responsibility” and “The world drives over weakness.”
But Mr. Flett also seems to contradict himself. “Women don’t have to become men in order to be successful,” he says. “In fact, they should appreciate that they hold a lot of the skills men attempt to learn.” That said, he proceeds to advise women to act more ruthlessly. Among the dictums he says he has learned from his own male colleagues are “Success is yours for the taking,” “Leadership is given to those who take complete responsibility” and “The world drives over weakness.”
Did you catch all of that, ladies? Don’t sleep your way to the top, but act in a way that will make everyone think that you did. Flirting is great because men are stupid, and even great business men who manipulate people day in and day out don’t know how to spot the kind of manipulation that involves pushing our your boobs. It’s our only hope: flirting is the best “weapon” we have. Since we don’t have brains or anything.
Also, must we tell you again? Stop gossiping and crying to keep yourself out of trouble. And please, mothers/geishas, quit dusting your boss’ office and decorating with doilies. Unless that’s part of your flirting, I presume.
You know, I’m well aware that the business world is still run by men and women are constantly being forced to adapt to the patriarchal rules and make sacrifices to survive. But you know what doesn’t help? Reinforcing the ridiculous MRA claim that women are the ones with the true power because of our innate role as the gatekeepers of sex. Telling women that in order to become equal to men and get them to stop thinking that we don’t belong in the workplace because we’re all manipulative whores, they must start using flirtation as a manipulative device? Hmm. Sounds like someone’s goal isn’t equality. Like maybe the guy who says that women are a great contribution to the workplace so long as they stop acting like sensitive whiny bitches, which they do all the time.
*Checks calender* Yup, it’s 2008, folks. We’re still only making seventy-something cents on the male dollar, sexual harassment and other gender discrimination run rampant, maternity leave is a distant dream, and this is what we have trying to pass as a solution.
[NOTE: An earlier version of this post accidentally contained a link to "adult" material. This was obviously not intentional. I was doing a Google Image Search for an image to go along with this post (didn't find a good one) and while searching for "flirt" and "boss," porn unsurprisingly turned up. There is a bug with FireFox (as some users may know) that causes the URL to stick in the address bar at the top of the screen when a large number of tabs are open. I didn't click on the link before deleting it, but can only assume that this is what happened without my noticing after I closed the tab. I sincerely apologize to anyone who clicked on the link, and hope that you know it was a really bizarre accident.]
Popularity: 17% [?]
Dec
11
Prude or Slut? We’re asking the wrong question.
Filed Under assholes, books, feminism, marketing, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pop culture, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, social conservatives, women’s health | 3 Comments
A few weeks ago, Jessica introduced us (or at least me) to the latest nut of the “pro-modesty” crowd: Carol Platt Liebau (watch out for the scary eyes!). She has recently published this new book, just like all of the other pro-modesty books, called Prude: How the Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls (and America Too!). The title made me giggle out loud, but Liebau isn’t joking. Today, the Telegraph, a British online news source, gives her some press time.
Teenage girls would rather be sexy than clever, according to a female academic.
In a society that celebrates people such as Paris Hilton, girls are being brainwashed into believing that promiscuity is synonymous with success, says Carol Platt Liebau.
In Prude: How The Sex-Obsessed Culture Damages Girls, Liebau claims there is “scant recognition or respect” for a woman’s achievement that is not associated with sex appeal.
Liebau says the sexy images of performers such as Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera catapulted them to fame.
She claims that teenage girls are growing up in a culture in which being called “a slut” is preferable to being labelled “a prude”.
“The overwhelming lessons teenagers are now learning from the world around them is that being sexy is the ultimate accolade, trumping intelligence, character and all other accomplishments at every stage of a woman’s life,” says the author, managing editor of Harvard Law Review.
advertisement“The new female imperative is that it is only through promiscuity and sexual aggression that girls can achieve admiration and recognition,” she says.
The biggest problem here is how the Telegraph takes her seriously. Of course, I know that it’s the Telegraph, and we can’t expect much better. But we should be able to, because people do actually read the thing and they actually do believe what’s in it.
Let’s run through the problems.
Popularity: 32% [?]
Dec
8
Nurse Clinton, Senator Ratched
Filed Under 2008 election, Democrats, assholes, books, feminism, gender, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, politics, pop culture, sex and sexuality, sexism | 7 Comments
This week, Chris Matthews (who, by the way, is still allowed to moderate Democratic debates) compared Hillary Clinton to the infamous villain Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.
And, as Media Matters notes, it’s not the first time that the comparison has been made, and they manage to cite over a dozen other ridiculous mainstream references to Clinton as Ratched. The proof is in the google image search: I’m not nearly twisted, bored or motivated enough to have made the image above myself. And for the record, it kind of creeps me out. A lot.
But it got me thinking. Personally, I like One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. I have read the book and seen the film both for the first time in the last year or so (there will be some spoilers in this post). I enjoyed both. Nurse Ratched has become a pop culture figure for a reason: she’s evil, and yet she’s also the kind of person you might meet on the street. Or who might be deciding your medical care. I also know that the character of Nurse Ratched is deeply misogynist — and that this is the reason that the Ratched/Clinton comparison exists.
Popularity: 25% [?]
Nov
5
Title IX: Separate But Not Equal?
Filed Under books, discrimination, education and schools, feminism, gender, marketing, media, patriarchy | 9 Comments
Stephanie at OUPblog (that’s Oxford University Press) sent me a post on a topic that us feminists don’t seem to talk about very often — the discrimination against women and girls in sports.
Now, maybe we don’t talk about it often because we’re more theoretically-minded people, more likely to have our noses in a book than be out on a race track. And though there are plenty of bookworms who are also athletes or sports fans, it seems like a large number of us aren’t. Also, women are taught from a very young age to not be interested in sports, even with Title IX, because the TV and all of the school pep rallies are still blaring with messages that “serious” sports are for the guys. In any case, I’ve always been a highly nonathletic person and take little interest in sports. All I know is that even with my embarrassingly gratuitous use of tags, I don’t have one for anything to do with athleticism. But my personal interest or investment in an issue isn’t exactly the defining factor in what is an is not a feminist issue.
And as a matter of fact, I did find this post to be very interesting. It’s an interview with Laura Pappano, co-author of Playing With Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports.
Says Pappano:
Title IX opened doors for females to play sports, but it opened sex-segregated doors, effectively limiting women’s athletics to second-class status. Title IX never demanded equality - only improvement - and it is not well-enforced and budgets for female sports dwarf spending on men’s sports, particularly football. Ticket prices for women’s events are lower than comparable men’s teams- even when a team (like the University of Tennessee Lady Vols basketball team) far outperforms its male counterpart on the national stage. Publicity, television and print exposure for men’s teams remain the primary focus of college sports offices. This is not fair, particularly at institutions receiving federal funds. We need a wholesale re-thinking of the way organized sports are structured and supported.
Popularity: 17% [?]
Oct
20
We Don’t Need Another Wave
Filed Under LGBTQ issues, WOC issues, books, feminism, media, race and racism, reviews | 3 Comments
I just finished reading We Don’t Need Another Wave: Dispatches From The Next Generation of Feminists, edited by Melody Berger. It is a collection of over 30 essays by young feminists talking about why feminism is still relevant today, how the movement is evolving and ways to work on new issues and methods.
Of course, with any anthology there is going to be a mixture of quality, and therefore I enjoyed some essays more than others. I did find it to be a fun and intellectually stimulating read, though.
I found the book to be quite diverse. It managed to include many women of color from a wide range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, several queer activists and a couple that were both.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Oct
1
The Girls Who Went Away by Ann Fessler
Filed Under abortion, books, human rights, patriarchy, pregnancy, reproductive justice, reviews, slut-shaming, women’s health | Leave a Comment
I just finished reading Ann Fessler’s The Girls Who Went Away: The Hidden History of Women Who Surrendered Children for Adoption in the Decades Before Roe v. Wade. From the title, it’s clear that this is a book about adoption. To me, it was about what happens when we don’t give women choices.
“Girl who went away,” according to Fessler, is a term that most women and men who grew up in the years between the end of WWII and the Roe v. Wade decision would instantly recognize. It was code for a woman with an unplanned “illegitimate” pregnancy. The girls “went away” in futile attempt to hide the pregnancy and to save their family from embarrassment, before relinquishing their child for adoption. They went to live with distant family members, or more often a maternity home for unwed mothers, where pregnant girls and young women were generally forced in, went through labor and kicked out as though on an assembly line.
The book is an oral history. The bulk is made up of extended first person narratives of women who surrendered their children for adoption. Interspersed between the narratives are chapters by Fessler that better explain various aspects of the surrendering process- becoming pregnant, confessing the pregnancy, being sent away during the pregnancy, giving birth, surrendering and grief- with historical details and statistics. I actually learned a lot from these sections, but it was the narratives that stuck with me. The first one made me tear up. And the worst part was just how shockingly similar each and every story was.
The word “surrender” is not accidental. It is incredibly deliberate and highly political. Usually, when talking about adoption, mothers are referred to as “giving away” their babies. But “giving away” not only implies a false sense that the mother did not want her child, it also implies that the mother had a choice. And a choice is the last thing that these women had.
Popularity: 22% [?]
Sep
28
On Katha Pollitt and the meaning of feminism
Filed Under books, feminism, gender, media, misogyny, patriarchy, sexism | 11 Comments
Some of you may have already read some of the misogynist hoopla regarding Katha Pollitt’s new book of personal essays, Learning to Drive, but I think that this Salon piece by Rebecca Traister really takes the cake.
You see, it’s technically supposed to be a defense of Pollitt and a rumination on the double-standards for male and female political writers. Except that Traister waits until page 3 to start talking about the double-standards, and until the last few paragraphs to get to the defense. The rest of the time is spent mocking Pollitt in every way under the sun– calling her book “humiliating,” “pathetic” and wondering, oh my, how she can be a feminist even though she has lived a real life.
. . . I wonder: Is there ever a point at which it is a good idea for women, especially intellectual, politically engaged women, to strip off their clothes and caper naked as jaybirds in front of a line of would-be assassins?
. . . Questions about the wisdom of personal disclosure get thornier if the writer is a vocal feminist. If a woman is critical of patriarchal practices, a stance that will inevitably lead to being called a man-hater, is there any gain or loss in disclosing that she is happily married to a man? Or that she is a lesbian? Or that she has recently experienced a breakup? What if she thinks that a personal betrayal, or a love affair, or a sexual experience, has shifted her ideology? What if she wants to make some extra money writing freelance essays?
Hmm, yes, when are women actually allowed to speak their minds? And how do they go about getting permission from the patriarchy? Is there a form to fill out?
Popularity: 14% [?]
Sep
24
On Degradation, Violence and Porn
Filed Under books, feminism, misogyny, objectification, pornography, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 9 Comments
Here is a book that I can’t wait to read: Getting Off (Pornography and the End of Masculinity) by Robert Jensen. It’s a a book by a feminist male against pornography. What the hell is not to like?
But from Don Hazen’s AlterNet review, I can tell that it’s going to be a tough read. From a book excerpt, here’s Jensen:
First, imagine what we could call the cruelty line — the measure of the level of overt cruelty toward, and degradation of, women in contemporary mass-marketed pornography. That line is heading up, sharply.
Second, imagine the normalization line — the measure of the acceptance of pornography in the mainstream of contemporary culture. That line also is on the way up, equally sharply.
If pornography is increasingly cruel and degrading, why is it increasingly commonplace instead of more marginalized? In a society that purports to be civilized, wouldn’t we expect most people to reject sexual material that becomes evermore dismissive of the humanity of women? How do we explain the simultaneous appearance of more, and increasingly more intense, ways to humiliate women sexually and the rising popularity of the films that present those activities?
As is often the case, this paradox can be resolved by recognizing that one of the assumptions is wrong. Here, it’s the assumption that U.S. society routinely rejects cruelty and degradation. In fact, the United States is a nation that has no serious objection to cruelty and degradation. Think of the way we accept the use of brutal weapons in war that kill civilians, or the way we accept the death penalty, or the way we accept crushing economic inequality. There is no paradox in the steady mainstreaming of an intensely cruel pornography. This is a culture with a well-developed legal regime that generally protects individuals’ rights and freedoms, and yet it also is a strikingly cruel culture in the way it accepts brutality and inequality.
Popularity: 24% [?]
Sep
22
Where are all of the feminists?
Filed Under books, feminism, gender, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, products, sex and sexuality, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment, slut-shaming | 7 Comments
I know that you’re here. And I’m here. And lots of other kick ass feminist bloggers (whom I admire greatly) are here. And I have a bookshelf filled with books by modern feminists who are here.
But where the hell are they? Because they’re sure as hell not in the mainstream media.
This morning, my heart broke when I read about a horrifying recent talk given by Naomi Wolf, a woman who changed my life with her book The Beauty Myth. I had heard that some of Wolf’s later writing left a lot to be desired, but I wasn’t exactly expecting a diatribe on the horrors of “hook-up culture.” I mean, I do agree with her basic premise:
“If you’re a woman, did you learn about pregnancy, chlymydia, AIDS, gonorrhea, herpes, separating sores and leprosy? (laughter) So you learned about all the disgusting and scary things that could happen to you if you had sex,