Play nice or get out

Lots of drama, (via).

Okay, let's start at the beginning with some vocab: "cis" or "cisgender", (if I am understanding it correctly by way of context as well as this post on Feministe), means that your genetic gender and the way your mind perceives itself gender-wise match up; cisgender people are people who are not transgender or otherwise gender-queer. For a lot of people (including those who are offended by the term), being cis means you are "normal", and I think that perception is what's causing a lot of the drama in Feminist Bloglandia.

For some reason, some people just don't understand that pluralism applies to everybody. If we get to live in a pluralistic society and have whatever sexuality we feel is normal or natural, that means everyone else does. And it doesn't stop at sexuality or religion or racial issues, it extends to gender. The funny thing is that feminism started as a gender issue, yet radical feminists are the last people to get on the gender-plurality bandwagon, and stop being assholes to people whose gender doesn't fit in with the binary gender our culture has forced upon us because our biology (mostly) limits us to one or the other.

The issue is that some feminists think that trans women aren't women. They get offended at the idea of a woman who was born male using the women's restroom. They think that the woman who was born male really is still male, and so will act like a man, and of course the transwoman, who identifies as a woman, who dresses as a woman, who experiences society as a woman -- who sometimes experiences society on even worse terms that ciswomen because she gets the sexist end of the stick from men and the cissexist end of the stick from some women -- is a woman. Period.

We've got all of this shit floating around about what makes a "real" man, what makes a "real" woman; but the large and small of the whole thing is that if you identify as a man, you are a man and if you identify as a woman you are a woman; if you identify as something other than a man or a woman, you are something other than that. And believe it or not people, there are those out there who identify as neither male nor female, or as both; those people exist and they need to be acknowledged as part of society and as part of feminism. Feminism isn't just for women who were born female, who were born white, who were born middle class. Feminism is for the betterment of all women everywhere, and that happens to have a pretty cool side effect (in theory) of making the life better for everyone else who do not identify as women.

The real issue here is prejudice... and well, outright hate in some cases. We can't do this. As feminists we can't do this. Those of us who are not transgender/genderqueer need to educate ourselves rather than expecting people who are transgender/genderqueer to do it, thereby othering them (either purposefully or subconsciously). After we get educated, we need to reach out to trans and genderqueer people and tell them we are sorry for excluding them from feminism and from society. These women (and men) are women and men. They experience society differently from cis-people, but part of that is because we make them. That's not fair.

And I'll tell you something about forcing someone to experience society differently because you think they deserve it: it's not okay. Men have done it to women because "god" made them bigger and stronger. White people have done it to non-whites because "god" advanced their technology faster so they could colonize the rest of the world. Straight people have done it to gay people because someone's god somewhere said that being gay was "an abomination". And now cis feminists are doing the same fucking thing to trans and genderqueer feminists (as well as poor, nonwhite, etc feminists) because god has made it so their brains and biological gender are the same? Come on. We feminists rail against sexism in all of its forms... but when we start acting like assholes because the people we're being sexist against were born male -- this is okay?

Newsflash: it's not. Sexism is wrong. Racism is wrong. Homophobia is wrong. Transphobia is wrong. Cissexism is wrong. We can't play this game, feminism. We can't cut people out like this. It's only going to make our job as feminists harder and our world uglier for all women.

People don't get to be treated well because they were lucky enough to be born "normal"; you treat people well because it's the right thing to do.

My feminist heros Part 1: Mary Kay Ash

I've been a Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultant for nearly two years now, and while I'm getting into doing it full-time, I'm going back and reading her autobiography, Miracles Happen. As I've been reading, (actually re-reading), I've been noticing a few things standing out a little more. I hadn't yet come into my feminism fully when I first read Miracles Happen, so there were a few things the great importance of which I missed the first time around.

For instance:

"One company paid me $25,000 a year to be its national training director, but, in truth, I was acting as the national sales manager - and for a salary much less than the job was worth. Then there were times when I would be asked to take a man out on the road to train him, and after six months be brought back to Dallas, made my superior, and given twice my salary! It happened more than once. What really angered me was when I was told that these men earned more because they had families to support. I had a family to support too. In those days, it seemed that women's brains were worth only fifty cents on the dollar in a male-run corporation. Even more insulting was the way a woman's ideas were rarely respected. I became enraged every time I presented a good marketing plan and was dismissed with "Mary Kay, you're thinking just like a woman." I knew that in my company "thinking like a woman was going to be an asset, not a liability!"

(Italics in the original, bolded text mine)

It's statements like those bolded in the paragraph above that make me wonder why Mary Kay Ash has been over looked for 50 years by feminists. Looking at her words now, when contemporary feminist writers don't hesitate to let their words reflect their rage, Mary Kay's words are pretty tame. But when you think about the world in which she grew up, that she would acknowledge her rage and then go on to do something to change the world she lived in so dramatically, it's hard not to see her as a feminist icon. Even if she did change her world with what some might dub as "proping up the patriarchy" -- because after all, Mary Kay's empire was founded on a tool used by the patriarchy to make women feel bad about their bodies -- right? I mean, that's all she did, right? Make up?

Wrong. The company is called Mary Kay Cosmetics, but it's not really about make up. It's about skin care. And the way Mary Kay taught us was that we need to teach other women about skin care. Maybe the reasons skin care is so important is so that we can be physically attractive in our faces, but the motto of the company isn't Enriching Women's Lives for no reason. Mary Kay Ash wanted women to learn about their skin, to feel good about themselves, to be confident in their abilities, to be able to run their own businesses, and to gain financial independence in a world that pretty much ignored a woman's need and ability to provide for herself.

If that's not feminism, then apparently, I'm in the wrong club.

Mary Kay Ash took something that pissed her off and actually created change in the world. Today there are more than 1.5 million active Independent Beauty Consultants, like myself, in more than 30 markets worldwide. South East Asia, Eastern Europe, Iran -- places where women are even less respected than they are in the West, places where it's incredibly difficult for a woman to survive without the support and approval of a man. How is that not feminism?

I'm not saying that skin care is a feminist act. I'm not saying that make up is a feminist act. What I'm saying here, ladies and possibly gentlemen, is that Mary Kay Ash was completely forgotten by the feminist community, and I think that's something that needs to change. Maybe she didn't do a whole lot of feminist writing (that is, writing couched in popular feminist terms), but she did do and say a lot that lead to the actual empowerment of millions of women. Her work is as important to feminism as the work of any other woman (or man, for that matter) who created change for women and for society in the last -- however long its been.

I love Mary Kay. I love Mary Kay products. I love teaching other women about skin care and letting them choose the things they want to learn about (surprise, I don't sell make up to everyone who comes to a skin care class, because not every woman likes make up -- although I do hear "I don't really wear make up" as a reason not to host a class quite often and I smile and say "that's okay, the first class is about skin care anyway -- you do have skin right?" I joke). I love that Mary Kay Ash saw a world that ignored women's abilities and decided to act to capitalize on the abilities of women. She wanted to create a world that had

"instead of a tightly closed corporate door bearing the sign "For Men Only", our company has an open portal that bears the invitation "Everyone Welcome - Especially Women."

And that's the world that she worked to create. That's the world that Mary Kay Cosmetics still works to create. That's why I'm proud to call myself a Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultant. And I would love to share it with you!

Sure, if you're a sexist, feminism has ruined your love life

One of my homies over at Feministing posted an article by Dr. Wendy Walsh, "How Feminism Hurt Our Love Lives". Oy. There's so much wrong with this article, but before I go into that, I had to do a little research on Dr. Wendy Walsh.

It turns out she's actually got a Ph.D in clinical psychology -- which means she's a therapist, well, actually, she's just overqualified to write self-help books because her undergraduate degree is in journalism. Although, I shouldn't criticize her credentials because I'm sure someday someone is going to criticize me for having my undergrad degree in art rather than something related to law. Bygones. Dr. Walsh has written two books The Girlfriend Test: A Quiz for Women who want to be a Better Date and a Better Mate and The Boyfriend Test: How to Evaluate his Potential Before You Lose Your Heart. I'm not going to go into these books, but suffice it to say, Dr. Walsh writes from a perspective of maintaining heteronormative dating standards, especially the ones that say you're not worth anything, as a woman, if you don't have a man. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but in my opinion anyone who asks "are you girlfriend material?" is going to place a value judgment on the answer.

Now, getting to why feminism ruins people's love lives. At the beginning of the article, Dr. Walsh makes it clear that she is indebted to feminism and she knows it. Good. Perhaps she should have done a little research about feminism, however, rather than just spouting off all of the misconceptions about feminism like...

"I think the whole feminist movement is a bit of a misnomer anyway -- feminism didn't liberate femininity. Feminism liberated masculine energy in women. It was a masculinist movement. This is a good thing. Because of masculism, er, I mean feminism, we can now procure income in the male dominated marketplace and buy ourselves any kind of life we want."

Feminism didn't liberate femininity. Funny, that. Before I go into how wrong she is on this point, let's look at the fallacy that is "we can... buy ourselves any kind of life we want", which in her mind does not include the so-called traditional lives that many, many women still live, even in a so-called liberated society. That's not to say that a great deal of the feminist movement hasn't disappointed women who prefer to be housewives, but "any kind of life we want" does not happen to preclude being a wife and mother -- you can even ask Gloria Steinem. But that's just a semantics argument, the real issue here is her insistence that feminism only liberated masculinity in women, but did nothing for femininity.

Let's go back to the femininity thing, in fact, let's go all the way back to sexism.

"Remember the chick you once broke down in tears in the office? How embarrassing, you thought. You vowed then, to never, ever act like a "girl" at work, right? By the way, I was that girl and made an even stronger vow that day. I swore that no one would ever see me as weak again. And, so I trashed my authentic self -- the girl who used to be vulnerable, honest, and aware of my feelings -- and I even began to distrust my own intuition. Intuition, a primal gift to women, now somehow seemed illogical in the workplace."

Feminism tells that woman that she's not weak because she cries. Feminism attacks this sexist principal (that women are weak and illogical because they are emotional) and attempts to slit its throat, but people like Dr. Walsh here keep applying first aid to the idea that woman=emotional=illogical=weak. Moreover, it applies the opposite standard to men: that masculinity is anything but these things, ergo the stigma around emotionality as a feminine trait persists to the detriment of individuals and relationships. This is exactly the opposite of what Dr. Walsh claims, that women becoming feminists, becoming strong, ruins relationships because now no one is crying, emotional, illogical, and weak.

Weakness is a sexual epithet. If you are weak, either physically or emotionally -- that is, if you show any sort of discomfort at physical or emotional trials -- then you are weak, no matter your gender. That is a societal stigma that feminism strives to defeat. Feminists like myself want to erase the idea that being emotional is a sign of weakness and thereby a sign of being less-than. Weakness leads to vulnerability, and while being vulnerable in the arms of one's lover is a good thing, while meeting new lovers it can be very dangerous. What feminism has done in dating is level the playing field (although, not wholly because women do tend toward showing vulnerability before men do), and taught women to be on their guard because some men are abusive assholes who will take advantage of you. Never forget, of course, that anti-feminism has done the opposite and taught men that any woman is to be taken advantage of because they're all going to use you for your money, trick you into getting married, and blah blah blah. While this could be considered a backlash, it's just misogyny making an attempt to take feminism down with it.

"Finally, feminism did a disservice to many women who weren't (and aren't) unhappy with traditional gender roles."

Really? Is that why all the sexism in the media has disappeared in the last 30 years? Is that why there are no dating websites dedicated to "traditional gender roles"? Is that why the population has gone down so dramatically, and the rate of reproduction since the Women's Lib movement of the 70s has decreased so much? Is that enough sarcasm?

"Feminism robbed them of their identities by devaluing their job description. Millions of women whose self esteem was derived from their role as a great mother or supportive wife were suddenly left with a low-ranking title. There are still many women, (indeed, the backbone of our country) who cringe at a cocktail party when that inevitable small-talk query pops up, "And, what do you do?"

Somehow it seems awkward to say, "I take pride in my soufflé, kiss plenty of boo boos, find joy in my garden, and I spend a lot of time helping my family with their emotional struggles." No, instead, the woman who does those very things everyday is forced, in public, to extol the merits of the part-time office job that brings her income and not much more."

No dear, that was unfettered, unregulated Freidmanite Free Market Capitalism^TM. Because while many women seek to be more than just wombs and caregivers, there are a lot of women who enjoy being mothers and wives, but their families can't be supported on a single income like they could during the golden age of the middle class in the 50s. It wasn't feminism that destroyed this, it was deregulation of markets, outsourcing of jobs, and wages not keeping up with the cost of living. For centuries lower class women, who didn't have the luxury to remain housewives worked to support their families, and feminism allowed them to demand equal wages and equal opportunities. One of my heros, Mary Kay Ash, began her own feminism movement by starting the Mary Kay Cosmetics company, not because she wanted to be more than a housewife, but because she had worked all her life to support her family and saw men she had trained advancing far and ahead of her.

Mary Kay couldn't, even if she had wanted to, just resigned herself to being a middle class housewife, and by claiming that feminism has ruined it for middle class housewives is completely bogus because the majority of feminism's history has been all about the straight, white, middle class, housewife. Up until recently feminism has all but ignored women who didn't fit this mould, so don't tell me that feminism ruined everything for the wife and mother because she is now uncomfortable with the knowledge she has the privilege to be a stay at home mom.

"And, if you think that a married woman who is in touch with her femininity is a pariah in public, imagine a single woman who is developing hers: "Well, I read a lot of parenting and self-help books. I'm currently dating and hoping to encourage emotional intimacy in a man so that we can form a warm union and grow together." That statement just wouldn't fly, would it? Yet, I think this is what many of us are secreting hoping for."

If feminism has taught me anything it's that, as a woman, I should never be ashamed to ask for what I want. If I wanted to be a middle class housewife who takes care of children and is taken care of by my husband, I would have gone to a dating site that caters to people who desire those things. I would have had to marry rich, however, because like most American women, I wasn't born into privilege and I still have to work for a living, just like my boyfriend does. Women who are "secretly hoping" for someone to take care of us, who long for the Cinderella story, basically ignore the fact that in our capitalist society you don't just get a living wage because you have a 40-hour a week job. Middle class is miles away for many of us and that's what you have to be to have the luxury to be a stay-at-home mom. Your beef isn't with feminism, Doc, it's with unfettered capitalism which has destroyed a family's ability to survive on one income.

"It seemed with all the effort to conform and succeed in a male world we unknowingly threw out a crucial, feminine skill -- the ability to be the emotional conduit for a logic-locked man. For centuries, women have held the keys to the emotional locker in relationships."

If I wasn't certain Dr. Walsh was absolutely serious about this, I would be laughing my ass off right now. The notion that all men are logical is another of sexism's core principals. Let me offer a little anecdote here: my boyfriend is not logical unless he's programming. He's extremely emotional, and in the right company he's not afraid to let you know that. I, on the other hand, operating under the assumption that all women are emotional messes, am the opposite. My nature is to be very logical, his nature is to be very emotional. This particular gender-role is reversed, and it's not a detriment to our relationship. What would be detrimental to both our individual and relational well-beings would be to pretend that I am not logical and that he isn't emotional.

The detriment to relationships and the sacred love-life is not that feminism has allowed women to display their logical sides, it's that sexism and misogyny continue to force the idea on us that women are only emotional and "hold the keys to the emotional locker" and that men are not allowed to do this for themselves. So, yeah, I guess if you're a sexist, feminism has ruined your love life.

"In relationships, our retreat from any behavior that might be deemed submissive has caused us to throw out the baby with the bath water. We are so afraid of submission that we have forgotten how to be supportive."

Submission=!=support, for the record. I'm plenty supportive (and in some private instances submissive) in my relationship, but I'm not dumb enough to confuse or be afraid of either of them. My nurturing of the Mister is not subverting my will, and any emotionally mature adult knows the same.

"Indeed many of our Mothers, so inspired by the feminist ideal, deliberately forgot to teach us about love, relationships, nurturing, or -- God forbid! -- the power and creativity derived from running a loving household."

Once again, Doc, your beef isn't with feminism, it's with capitalism. Wanna know why my mom didn't have the opportunity to teach me about running a loving household? Cause she was working. She had to work, and she worked her ass off just to keep a roof over my head. It wasn't that she was inspired by the feminist ideal, it was that she didn't have the luxury of being born into privilege and therefore not having to focus all of her energy on paying the bills. She didn't forget: she was busy making sure I had food. I suspect that that is the case for most of these "Mothers" who "deliberately forgot". They didn't forget dick, working for a living sucks.

"Martha Stewart reminds us of what's missing in our lives, as we manage our hectic schedules, eating from take-out boxes, in our immaculate granite kitchens, wearing our own purchases, and juggling would-be suitors who don't happen to suit us this week."

Martha fucking Stewart. One of the most successful women in America. A woman so successful that she was punished for her success under the guise of "insider trading" and sent to jail. A woman so successful that her prison sentence was minimized when the federal facility was called "Camp Cupcake". Martha Stewart is not someone whose visage you want to conjure while demonizing feminism. Martha Stewart is a pioneer for feminists, even if she does support her empire doing traditionally feminine things, like crafts and baked goods. Good! She's doing what she loves and making a fantastic living at it! She's a perfect role model for capitalists and feminists! By the way, Martha is a divorced single mother. She doesn't exactly have the luxury not to be a brilliant business woman.

"In short, love has become a mystery. Relationships have an arcane quality that puzzles both genders. I personally think that most single men keep hoping that the right woman will come along with the keys to his emotional locker."

In which case he needs to grow up. Being in a relationship is not about replacing your opposite-sex parental figure with a spouse -- that's creepy. I'm not my boyfriend's mother, he's not my father. It's not my job to unlock his "emotional locker" (what the hell is that, by the way?), that's his job. Feminism, and more generally, pluralism, has taught us that we are all individuals (we are all individuals) and the life of each person is that person's responsibility. Having a pluralistic, and specifically feminist, view of the world and the self enhances one's ability to be a good mate. You can't be in an emotionally mature and satisfying relationship if all you're doing is parroting the gender roles that were prescribed to you upon your birth and classification as male or female. It's not possible.

There are a lot of people who find these prescribed gender roles comfortable, but the will do nothing but benefit from the self-searching that questioning gender roles provides. Why do I cook dinner for my boyfriend? Because I'm a good cook. Because I like it. Because he gets home later than I do, and feeding him is just as easy as feeding myself. Why do I do other domestic chores? Because they need to be done, and I have the opportunity. Asking ourselves why we do certain things helps us to be mature, better people. If you're doing something because society tells you to, not because you want or need to do it for your own personal reasons, you're going to be unhappy.

Feminism teaches women and men to question societal gender roles. Do I have to lift weights? Do I have to knit? Do I have to do these things that are prescribed for my gender in order to be happy? No. You don't. You can do things that aren't prescribed for your gender, and no matter which gender stereotypes you conform to, you're no less of a person for it. That's the point. Feminism doesn't just make women more masculine, it also makes men more feminine -- if they WANT to be. I mean, hey, just look at Martha Stewart.

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton on Women's Issues

Come on Cosmo, seriously?

This article was touted by a link on Yahoo as "The #1 Trick To Deepen His Love For You".

Rather than go and read the article yourself, let me tell you what their answer is: think positive!; ask yourself why you're upset when he does something annoying (and, of course, then deny that it bothers you); never bitch about him to your friends (in fact, just ignore all that stuff that you would say to them during vent-sessions); and turn around all those nasty habits, thereby ignoring them, and make them positive effects on your life. He's messy? No! He's "laid-back and not controlling", and you should be grateful that you're cleaning up after such an awesome dude!

There are so many things wrong with this article, but the first one is the title: "the #1 trick to deepen his love"? "The secret girlfriend weapon"? Excuse me, but the secret to a happy relation is emphatically not denial. Men may be complicated when it comes to their careers, their hobbies, their politics, but when it comes to relationships, the "#1 trick to deepen his love" is head. It sounds sexist for me to say that (both against men and women, wah, oh well), but it's true. The patented, trademarked Girlfriend Secret Weapon is oral sex.

See, the thing is, men are physically stimulated before they are mentally. If you do something that feels good, that he enjoys (and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that all men enjoy getting good head... in fact, I'll go out even further and say that all men enjoy getting even moderately adequate head), he's more likely to stick around long enough to get to know you well enough to realize that you're pretty awesome. Of course, he shouldn't be treating you like a fleshlight, and if he does, DTMFA, but that's not my point.

My point is, Cosmo is wrong. Not only is it wrong about the fact that denial being the secret to a happy relationship, it's wrong in even assuming that women shouldn't be bothered by the annoying things that their partners (of either gender) do. While, yes, women who get insecure about not getting an immediate response to a text message need to get the fuck over it, when your partner does something that bothers you rather than "question[ing] why you're upset" and subsequently ignoring being upset, do the unthinkable and talk to your partner. Tell him! (or her, because I try really hard not to pretent that lesbians don't exist -- quite frankly, I like my sister and prefer to acknowledge her existance and the existance of her wife, even if I do it in a seemingly-pandering sort of way).

In all honesty, the secret to a happy relationship is communication. Verbal is the most direct, but non-verbal body language (and understanding that the mess you left in the bedroom may be contributing to his overall demeanor of nastiness) is also vital.

And, of course, oral sex. Don't for get that.

The root of misogyny: superstition

It's no secret to us liberal skeptics that superstitions held by humans have done more damage to the species as a whole than anything else (eg. the whole "never have so many men done such great evil as has been done in the name of God" thing), so it comes as no surprise that misogyny is born out of this too.

I'm reading Leonard Schlain's Sex, Time, and Power: How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution, in which Schlain discusses the origin of the species and how gyna sapien (as opposed to homo sapien, Latin for wise man) changed the direction in which our species headed. I'm in the midst of a chapter about menstruation called "Periods/Perils". Allow me to quote something I found very interesting.

If a wounded animal bleeds excessively, a hunter anticipates that it will soon collapse. Animals that bleed intuit instinctively that they have been injured, and will retreat to the back of the cave or burrow to lick their wounds. A predatory homonid male would be acutely aware that copious bleeding in a wounded animal is an event preceding its death.

Imagine, then, the awe, fright, and confusion that men experienced when the furtively caught sight of a woman's menses. Women bled, but they did not grow weak. They bled, but they were not injured. They bled, but did not die. Sexual relations with a menstruating female would conclude with the male's withdrawing with a blood-smeared member. Feeding many male's innate castration fears, this disturbing sight would tend to cool a man's ardor and make him believe that a menstruating woman possessed a power beyond his ken. Menses would seem to him to be some sort of magic. Perceived supernatural powers induce fear, and men began to fear women. This in turn led men to resent women, because, even though they were bigger and stronger, men were afraid of the otherworldly supremacy they imputed to women.

(Emphasis mine.)

In other words, ancient man's fear of ancient woman created a hatred of women that has been passed down through the generations and made just as innate as "many male's innate castration fears" because this fear of women (that turned to hatred) began at the dawn of our species when gyna sapien began menstruating.

For the record, guys, women's periods don't imbue us with special powers. In all honestly, no one's really sure what purpose menstruation does serve, but we do know that it doesn't make us magical, and that there are no "menetoxins" or "bad humors" being flushed from our bodies each month with our periods. Gynecologists aren't even that certain any more that women even need to have periods, which is probably why those of us who have decided that we don't want monthly periods (or periods at all) haven't imploded, exploded, or suffered any real health problems for lack of periods.

By the way, Sex, Time, and Power is an awesome book so far. I recommend you check it out. (Actually, I believe I already have recommended it. Twice.)

Summer Reading List

Here are a few books I've read, am reading, or purchased with the intent to read in the near future this summer:

Full Frontal Feminism by Jessica ValentiThis is a great guide for any woman, but especially young women, who aren't quite sure what feminism is about (3rd-4th waves baby), why it's still around, and/or why they should care. I've got a couple of people I'm thinking about getting this book for partly to help validate concerns, partly to influence the next generation of self-sufficient women.

How to be an Adult in Relationships: The Five Keys to Mindful Loving by David RichoI bought this one last summer, and tried to read it then, but I only managed to actually do so after I devoured FFF and started my reading again. It's a really great guide to thinking about your behavior toward yourself and your partner or partners. The title sounds a little condescending (especially if you recieve this book as a gift) but it's definitely not presented that way. As they say, you can't judge a book by its cover.

He's a Stud, She's a Slut and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know by Jessica ValentiI love Jessica Valenti. Her second book lays out in blunt language just how fucked up our society is in the way it treats women. I highly recommend it, espceially if you're starting to get a sinking feeling that something's just not right here.

The Vagina Monologues by Eve EnslerThis is the 10th Anniversary edition (which came out last year) and has a forward by Gloria Steinem. I have to admit that I read the entire thing (200 pages!) in about three hours on a Friday night (then proceeded to write for an hour and a half about my vagina). It's really a great read. Now, I have seen it performed (well, part of the HBO special), but I had never read the words. It's got a huge impact and is a must-read for all owners of vaginas.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent BugliosiYes, this book actually has the shortest title of all the books I've read so far this summer. Vincent Bugliosi was the prosecutor who sent Charles Manson to prison, and he's written a number of prescient non-fiction books about legal matters. He wrote about the idiocy behind the prosecution in the OJ Simpson murder case, as well as the Supreme Court precedent that allowed Jennifer Flowers' civil case against Bill Clinton to go forward while he was still in office. Bugliosi is a brilliant legal mind, and I have to admit it's nice to see some of my opinions about our "president" being validated by someone who is not on the side of the Democrats or Republicans, but on the side of the truth and the side of the people whose lives have been destroyed by this motherfucking war.

The Essential Feminist Reader edited by Estelle FreedmanI just started getting into this one last night. It's my bathtime book. As you might guess it's a collection of feminist writing (theory, poems, speeches, plays etc) spanning the last 500 or so years. I figure it should be in my library if I'm gonna call myself a feminist.

Sex, Time, and Power by Leonard SchlainThis is from the same author who brought us the very heady Art and Physics. I haven't started reading it yet (you can see I've had a few books on my table for the last few months... and I keep picking up new ones to read! I love reading!) but I look forward to it. (A friend of mine has another of his books The Alphabet and the Goddess and we're planning to trade when we finish reading.)

I don't know how I'm ever going to read all the books I have, but I think I'm just going to figure out how to do it. Books are so great. They promote ideas, they promote imagination. Plus, they alleviate boredom better than the internet!

So go check out a book! I highly recommend any of the ones above.

Affectionately,
Rachel

A note on conventional beauty and feminism (and assholes)

Originally posted sometime last week.

Wow.

A number of respected (and beautiful) feminist bloggers have responded to this diatribe today, and I'd like to add my name to the list. For those of you who don't really want to read the "article" (I don't blame you, it's long and awful), Feminist Anonymous has taken it upon her(?)self to declare that all physically attractive feminists are not actually feminists. She cites specifically The Apostate (for daring to wear a bikini top!), Jill at Feministe ("the original Fake Pretty Feminist"), Natalia Antanova (who is "pretty for a feminist"), and Renegade Evolution (a sex-worker and feminist whom everyone hates because "she pisses people off when she waves her tits in their face"). All of these women are well-spoken, thoughtful feminists who also happen to be blessed with convetional beauty. However, FemAnon failed to mention the other bajillion feminists who are also pretty and therefore not feminists.

We can't can't a break can we? First we're not pretty enough. Then we're too pretty and allowing ourselves to be objectified and calling it empowering. Then feminism is just a means of allowing "ugly women access to the mainstream" (Drug-Addled Gas Bag, Rush Limbaugh's infamous quote). Then, it turms out that those of us who either a)care about our appearances, b)are blessed with genes that allow us to be "conventionally attractive", and/or c)post pictures of ourselves so that readers can put a face with the words; we're not really feminists at all!!!
Wait... what? FemAnon's version of subverting the male gaze is to the Patriarchy what Satanism is to Christianity. She still acknowledges that all the important tenets of the Patriarchy stand and must be upheld, but in her twisted view of subverting it, she's merely turning all those things on their heads. She still worships the Patriarchy, just backwards.

Women, and feminists in particular are always too much or not enough of something. We're too pretty, not pretty enough. Too athletic, not athletic enough. Too smart, not smart enough. The list goes on and on, but the one thing that all of these criticisms have in common is that they are made from the point of view of the male gaze. By stating "UNTIL WOMEN ARE NO LONGER SEXED UP THEY WON'T BE SEEN AS HUMAN BEINGS BY MEN ." you acknowledge and promote that a woman's worth lies entirely in her looks and that in order to be taken seriously we have to be ugly or merely "presentable" (but only if you work in an office). As a feminist, you are not allowed to wear lipstick, tight jeans, have boobs, or own any makeup or high heels because by virtue of doing or having any of those things you are not adequately subverting the dominant paradigm.

No ifs, no ands, no butts either.

FemAnon's philosophy is:

If an ugly woman posts her picture on her blog, she is being transgressive. But
a pretty conventional woman doing that is performing the exact opposite action.
If you're going to show off your looks to gain approval from men don't call
yourself a feminist.

This is me. I like to think that I'm pretty. I put a lot of effort into my physical appearance, but contrary to what some people might think, I'm not doing it for the benefit of the male gaze. While my boyfriend appreciates my red hair, I've had it for longer than I've known him and I keep it because I like what it says about me: I'm loud, confrontational, powerful, and sexy.

It's been insisted in the past that the reason I look the way I do is because I want to put on make-up and pretty shoes and allow myself to be objectified, then call it empowerment (by someone whose Feminist library consists of one book and only one book, you guessed it Female Chauvinist Pigs -- a fine work, but one's entire feminist philosophy cannot come from derriding other women who want to be pretty). I was told that because I do that, I'm not really a feminist, but rather someone who wants to look pretty but also believes in equal pay for equal work -- you know, cause since I spend time on my appearance, I'm automatically doing it because men like it and my entire worth and personhood is based on what I look like. I've also been accused of beign a bad feminist because I wear and sell Mary Kay products, but excuse me, if you've ever read anything about Mary Kay Ash, it is undeniable that she was a feminist. (The whole reason she started Mary Kay Cosmetics is beause she wanted women to have an opportunity to define themselves financially. You don't get much more feminist than that! Moreover, Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultants are strong, beautiful women who believe that they can support themselves and their families and bring some sunshine into the lives of other women in doing so. I just want to give a shout out to all my MK gals! You ROCK!)

People like to put each other into boxes. We're either A or B, and there is no C. This kind of binary viewpoint is what makes sexism, racism, ableism, sizeism, and any other anti-person-ism you can think of so powerful. You are either beautiful or a feminist. You are either successful or a woman. You are either polite or black. You are either smart or in a wheel chair. You're either in control of yourself or overweight. False dictomies like these are created and enforced and prejudices are maintained. And when people try to insist, for instance, that there are no pretty feminists the only thing being accomplished is the continued reinforcement of this prejudice.

For your information, FemAnon, and anyone who agrees with her, a woman's worth is not entirely in her appearance. In fact, most people have several layers to themselves that include their appearance, personality, intelligence, work eithic, personal honor and integrity, and a number of other things by which they define themselves . I am a feminist because I seek to define myself as feminine, successful, strong, and beautiful and any attempt to subvert my definition of myself by redefining me according to the male gaze is anti-feminist. Period.

Good day to you, FemAnon. Don't forget your hat.

What do women want?

Originally posted June 20, 2008.

Abbey O'Reilly at The F Word wrote Do you love a bad boy? in response to an article in the Daily Mail about why women love so-called bad boys. She begins with a hypothetical situation: you walk into a bar. At one end, sitting alone doing a crossword puzzle (so he appears interesting and smart, rather than a boring loner), who seems polite but isn't exactly going to spark up any conversations in order to prove that one way or the other. At the other end of the bar is your typical James Bond type, with his arm around one girl and his eyes around another, but as soon as any other female comes near him it is his prerogative to rape her with his eyes. He's a schmuck, but completely surrounded by women because they feel special around him, flattered, and don't mind that he's going to try to "fuck and chuck" each and every one of them, all in the same night if he can.

After giving this hypothetical, O'Reilly asks, "If you had to, which one would you choose?"

Uh. Neither. Professors of psychology, experts in all fields, any given heterosexual man, and just about everyone on earth likes to hypothesize about what (heterosexual) women want -- because lesbians are no mystery: lesbians want other lesbians, mystery solved; but straight girls are to be analyzed and tested to see to which stereotype of the heterosexual man they react to the strongest. Nevermind that the author of the study cited in the Daily Mail article did this by asking 200 male college students how many women they had slept with. (Because obviously the best way to assess what kind of straight guy women like is to ask the straight guys. I guarantee you almost every single one of those guys said "women love me, just look how many I've fucked". That is air-tight logic right there.)

Let me tell you "what women want". Speaking as a woman who is more human than stereotype: I like a man who is more human than stereotype. Sure, the guy at the asshole end of the Straight Guy Archetype Spectrum may be pretty, but he's an asshole, and I guarantee you that assholes are resistible. Meanwhile, the guy at the emo-loner end of the Straight Guy Archetype Spectrum (hereafter to be known as the SGAS), is equally as resistible, because all told: he's an asshole too.

The emo-loner archetype is constantly underestimated for his asshattery, because women fail to understand that this guy sees you as an object too: the fulfiller of his every childish need until you become the breaker of his poor widdle hearwt. If he writes a song about you, it'll be more about him. He is just as self-centered as the guy who will try to take your clothes off the minute the two of you are alone: that's why he's sitting ALONE in a bar doing a fucking crossword puzzle. He doesn't have a friends because the degree of his self-centeredness is fucking annoying and no one wants to be around him.

The kind of guy who always wins the dating game is the kind who doesn't fit comfortably into any one archetype because he's mature enough to understand that there are many aspects of the self, and neither he, nor you, is an archetype or stereotype, but a person. What a concept! That's the kind of man women want! The funny thing is that any guy who fits an archetype from Prince Charming (riding to save the day and protect you from everything, because you're a precious object not a person), to James Bond (you're fucking gorgeous, wants to shag you all night and then never call you because you're a trophy not a person), to Emo-Loner (loves you so much, you're his everything, not a person; will write sad poetry about how you broke his heart and trampled all over him because now you're an evil bitch, not a person, but that poetry can get him laid cause it makes him seem "sensitive"), to Mr. Big (rich and independent, terrified of commitment, but knows that you can save him because you're a savior not a person), to any other archetype you might be able to think of; any of these archetypal guys can fake their way into the kind of guy who is more human than stereotype, but after a while it's really easy to see through his bullshit. (These things can go for all people, all genders, and all sexual orientations -- we're all disaffected to some degree and all have different ways of coping. People aren't stereotypes though, they're people. It's just that some of them are a lot more comfortable in their stereotypes.)

The point of all of this is two fold. First of all, if you want to know what a woman wants in a man: fucking ask her! Don't go ask all the guys she's slept with what kind of guy they are and then assume that if you act like those guys she'll want to be with you. There's a reason people break up. There's a reason for one-night-stands. People are as flawed as they are diverse, and just because I have a history of dating assholes doesn't mean I want my current boyfriend to become one!

Secondly, the kind of person a genuine person wants to be with is another genuine person. We don't force ourselves into societal archetypes because we're not comfortable with them, and so the kind of person who does force him or herself into an archetype is not the kind of person we want to be with. Maybe the James Bond guy does get a lot of ass, but I am willing to bet that the kinds of guys who exhibit this type of behavior have never had a truly emotionally fulfilling relationship. I'm also willing to put money on the guy who worships his girlfriend so hard she eventually feels like he's stalking her, never having had an emotionally fulfilling relationship either -- that's why all his songs are about pain and agony and how he cuts himself he's so destroyed over the elusive her.

So, back to the bar analogy. There's a third guy in the bar. He's talking and laughing with his friends, and doesn't appear to be there with anyone. He sees you at the same time the guy mobbed by Barbie dolls is trying to master telekinesis in order to take your clothes off, and crossword puzzle guy tries to look really interested in his puzzle while secretly hoping you'll be the next person to break his heart. Assuming you came to this bar to meet someone new, possible to get a date or get laid, which of these three guys are you going to talk to, offer to buy a drink for, or accept a drink from?

I know my answer. I know that if I wasn't already nailing the third guy, I would totally want to.

Affectionately,
Rachel