When Elie Wiesel calls you evil...
As Woody Allen would say, sheesh.
"The girl was arrested after she was caught in her parents' car, which had been reported stolen from her parents' Tukwila home. Deputy Travis Brunner spotted the car driving without headlights about 3:45 a.m. on 32nd Avenue South in SeaTac and pulled it over.
She and another 15-yearold girl were arrested and taken to SeaTac City Hall to be fingerprinted before being transported to the youth detention center."
"is Hirsch being a good [sic]humanitarium and helping this woman or is he a sleazeball who is out to make money off of someone's unfortunate circumstances?"
Labels: Rachel Maddow
Labels: High how are you?
Everyone, for some reason, has to have an enemy. Even on Myspace surveys, "do you hate anyone?" "Who's your enemy?" (Although, to be fair, Myspace surveys are more likely to as "wh00z ur enemy".) My problem here is that having enemies, hating people, making something like a patriarchal structure with a history of favoring (white) men to the detriment of women (and people of color) into something that can be personified defeats the purpose of things such as feminism. The other problem with this divisive approach is that you end up alienating people who could otherwise be allies.
Not all feminists and feminist theory does this, and that's wonderful. But some feminists promulgate some forms of feminist theory that actually ends up doing more harm to women than good. Feminist theory that embraces this idea that all sex workers are unwilling, and if sex work were just illegal it would end and no wimminz would be subjugated by teh patriarchyz. Feminist theory that embraces the idea that if women would just refuse to give in to the "arbitrary beauty standards of the patriarchy" (like shaving, wearing make up, wearing skirts/dresses/high heels/other uncomfortable shoes) and be natural, the subjugation of women would end (or something). Feminist theory that embraces the idea that men are the enemy because by their very existence they prop up the patriarchy.
These theories alienate sex workers, women who like make up/skirts/dresses/uncomfortable-yet-super-hot shoes, men, and pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with these standards of what I like to call "exclusionary feminism" -- in other words, if you're not part of our club, you're not a real feminist. Well, thanks exclusionary feminists, but I'm pretty sure that I am a feminist. I'm not only a feminist, but I'm a good, well-educated, not-naive, not-secretly-subjugated-by-my-patriarchal-overlords, and I think that any woman who has the courage to stand up and call herself a feminist (or act as a feminist if she's not comfortable with the title -- or any title), or even any man who stands up for the rights of women -- they can be feminists too. That basically your feminism is whatever you want it to be.
You see, the thing is, an "Us" versus "Them" mentality is a patriarchal structure in and of itself. My friend WitchUponAStar once left this quote from a Women's Studies text book in an online forum:
"...Only in a patriarchal society would the inclusion of women be interpreted as a potential threat or loss of men's power. It is a reflection of the fact that we live in a competitive patriarchal society that it is assumed that the feminist agenda is one that seeks to have power over men. And only in an androcentric society where men and their reality is center stage would it be assumed that an inclusion of one group must mean the exclusion of another. In other words, male domination encourages the idea that affirming women means hating men and interprets women's request for power sharing as a form of taking over. This projection of patriarchal mentality equates someone's gain with another's loss. ..."
In other words, by attempting to prop up adversarial philosophical models like criticizing a woman's feminism because she likes sex, or lipgloss, or eats red meat, or any other arbitrary things that have absolutely nothing to do with whether she stands up for herself or other women in asserting their rights to the same rights that people of privilege have; by doing this, radical feminists in fact perpetuate that of which they claim to seek the destruction. And that is simply something up with the likes of which I shall not put!
Using the George W. Bush model of "if you're not with us, yer agin' us" is not only foolish, but it props up the same old idea that there has to be someone on top. And, last time I checked, feminism wasn't about one person being on top (even if that person is a woman), but rather leveling the ground so that everyone has a chance to lie in the sun and get a nice privileged tan.
So, seriously, stop criticizing other women. Stop asking straight women why they sleep with men. Stop telling young girls that pretty and empowered are mutually exclusive. Stop telling sex workers that their voices only matter if they've been forced into it or abused in some manner. Stop telling submissive women that their consent is totally fake. In fact, keep your hyper-privileged-lesbian feminist-bitch-on-a-patriarch-power-trip nose out of my goddamn vagina.
"The Obama administration is telling the Pentagon and gay-rights advocates that it will have to study the implications for national security and enlist more support in Congress before trying to overturn the so-called "don't ask, don't tell" law and allow gays to serve openly in the military, according to people involved in the discussions.While it is interesting that President Obama would call for such a study, it is not definitively or even partially indicative that he's planning on going back on his promise to overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell. I have to say that if I was President right now, I might do the same thing and here's why: conducting a study prior to overturning a stupid rule proves that the rule is stupid.
They said Obama, who pledged during the campaign to overturn the law, does not want to ask lawmakers to do so until the military has completed a comprehensive assessment of the impact that such a move would have on military discipline. Then, the president hopes to be able to make a case to members of both parties that overturning the 1993 law would be in the best interest of national security."
"PMDD occurs regularly before a woman's menstrual cycle."