I heart Parks and Recreation, too!

WEEKEND ARTS SECTION: Dear Leslie Knope of TV’s "Parks and Recreation,", by Sady, Feministe.

[ . . . ]

I don’t know what sealed the deal, but I strongly suspect it was the episode “Galentine’s Day,” where I figured out that you were probably the most likable lady character I had seen on TV in a long time. “Galentine’s Day” is, in addition to being the title of the episode, your name for how you celebrate Valentine’s Day, Leslie. It is an occasion on which you have breakfast with every lady you know and like — there are a lot of ladies you know and like, apparently! That is a full table — and you celebrate your mutual friendship and ladyhood with gifts, including “a personalized 5,000-word essay on why you are all so awesome,” written by you personally.

It is like the best! I mean, I can’t even count the number of times Parks and Recreation has shown ladies hanging out and relating — ladies talk about a lot of shit with each other on this show, things like politics and career and whether or not possums are hideous unearthly monsters that lay eggs — but this was just a really great moment, of a feminist lady on a TV show expressing, in a genuine and believable way, how much she likes and values and enjoys spending time with other ladies. And the greatest thing? That moment was not shown as inherently ridiculous, or stupid, or alienating, or wrong.

I mean, it’s a little ridiculous, of course. That’s why it’s funny. “Ladies celebratin’ ladies,” you say into the camera, with that big goofy wide-open smile on your face, like in such terrible earnest you are conveying the idea of lady-celebrating and it makes you so super-happy. It’s always funny to see people believe in things whole-heartedly without trying to be cool about it; it makes them vulnerable and goofy, like children. And, like, the name of the celebration is “Galentine’s Day,” which is the dorkiest. You are the dorkiest, Leslie: Sunny and awkward and naive and oh so very Midwestern. “It’s like Lilith Fair. Without all the angst,” is your follow-up line. Like Lilith Fair is the most XTreme Rock XPerience you could ever have. It’s so great.

You invited your Mom, Leslie. You. Invited. Your Mom. To the Galentine’s Day party. You do it every year! And it is just the sweetest thing. Ladies celebratin’ ladies. Why don’t more people do this? I think they should.

[ . . . ]

So do I! We should all celebrate ladies, especially other ladies. That's what Women's History Month is supposed to be about.

How are you readers celebrating women in a positive way?

.

Whenever I hear the words "Thomas Jefferson",

this is what comes to my mind, too:

Thomas Jefferson: The Face of a Rapist, by Renee, Feministe. Emphases mine.

Americans look at Thomas Jefferson and see the one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, a statesman, a former president and one of the founding fathers,’ however; when I look at him, I see the face of a rapist. When Jefferson first met Sally Hemings, his slave through inheritance, she would have been no more than 15 or 16 years old. It is rumoured that when she returned from France with him, that she was already pregnant with his child.

[ . . . ]

No matter how many times Black women have angrily contested the use of the term love affair between Hemings and Jefferson, it continues to be the most common descriptor by those who believe the DNA evidence. This assumes that Hemings actually had the power to deny Jefferson sexual access, or that Jefferson had a right to Sally’s body for the purposes of sexual gratification. Both suppositions are erroneous. Due to the patriarchal nature of gender relations, many men believe that they exist with the right to access women’s bodies and that is specifically grounded in the power imbalance between the genders. If we can acknowledge in a modern context that a power imbalance exists between men and women, how much more likely is it that this same imbalance existed between Jefferson and Hemings?

Some may look back at Jefferson and simply claim that he was a man of his time and that he should not be judged outside of historical context, however; in my mind a rapist is a rapist. What he did at the time may not have been considered a violation due to current race and gender relations, however; today we can correctly name his actions. Sally did not have the power to consent to his advances even if she was so inclined; this simple fact must be affirmed not only to honour the memory of Hemings but to change the social understanding that Black women’s bodies are unrapeable. We are not naturally licentious whores who exist to fulfill the sexual fantasies of depraved racist men. We are women that must be accorded the right to control over our bodies without punishment for any decisions we make in that regard.

And yet, Mr. Jefferson has a memorial in my nation's capital. (So does his fellow slave-owner and noted tax-evader George Washington.) This is despite the fact that Meredith Simons at the controversial site Double XX does not think we in the United States live in a rape culture, mainly because she doesn't seem to know anyone who has been raped.

I have never owned anyone, assaulted anyone, or started a war with Great Britain. Yet where is my national monument?

.

Snowmen (and snowwomen) are round and lovable.

They don't need the Special K challenge. So step off, kid.

That little girl needs to watch some Sarah Haskins before she starts dieting in five years.

.

I was thinking about that, too!

Yoko Ono: A Feminist Analysis (Introduction: Oh Yoko!), by Cara at The Curvature via Feministe.

. . . the treatment of Yoko Ono is still relevant to our understanding of art, relationships and a woman’s place in society.

Yoko Ono’s name is tossed around as an insult, sometimes "jokingly," sometimes really and truly hatefully. Any woman who dates a male band member and expects to be treated like a person, or any woman who is seen to in some way cause a change in a male artist of any kind, is particularly at risk of being called “Yoko.” To a lesser extent, so is any woman who expects to be given equal consideration as her partner and her partner’s friends friends. Why is it an insult, exactly? Well, because “everyone” hates Yoko Ono. She’s a mentally unbalanced, scheming, money-grubbing, castrating bitch. Oh, and she broke up the Beatles. Or so they say . . .

. . . If you actually take the time to read Beatles history, you’ll see pretty clearly that the cracks in the band were showing for some time before John Lennon even met Yoko. John was growing away from the Beatles musically, struggling with drug addiction and with the insecurity he seemed to feel in varying degrees throughout most of his life, and was therefore lashing out and pulling away from the group. Paul McCartney was making a power grab for control of the band, one that he was winning and John felt powerless to stop — and while John had a tendency to be nasty to the people closest to him, Paul had a tendency to be extremely condescending and controlling. George Harrison was resentful of John and (especially) Paul’s refusal to take his songwriting and musicianship seriously — even though despite being neither the greatest songwriter or vocalist in the group, he was absolutely fucking brilliant. Ringo Starr never had a serious problem with any of the other Beatles, but was feeling incredibly marginalized within the band and distraught over the disharmony.

Poor Ringo. :( I see him as the undersung Beatle.

The other thing that changed my mind was John himself, and his persistent, repeated earnestness in professing that he wanted out of the Beatles long before Yoko and she only gave him the strength to do it; not to mention his proclamations of happiness and rightful insistence that anyone who hated Yoko and didn’t respect their relationship certainly didn’t love him or have his best interests at heart. And realizing that Yoko wasn’t to blame for the Beatles breakup makes you ask a question. Why does the myth persist?

Why indeed. Rebel Grrrl mentions the old SAT-style analogy "Men:Heroes as Women:villains". I agree with that in so many ways. Cara is bringing the deepness with her Yoko Ono posts.

.

I'm guest-blogging at Feministe!

I'll be posting over there for the next two weeks. So come visit me!

.

In Women's News Today

Daria Takes Aim At Jane Magazine, by Slut Machine at Jezebel, via Feministing. Hooray for Daria! The comments led me here. Yippee!

WNBA rookies work on their game faces, by the linster at AfterEllen. Feministing also wrote about this story last month, but the linster points out the inherent homophobia along with the sexism involved.

The AfterEllen article led me to these poignant articles on how the American mainstream media dealt with Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign:

Woman in Charge, Women Who Charge, by Judith Warner at The New York Times.

and

Hating Hillary, by Andrew Stephen at New Statesman.

I have a whole heap to say about the people who let out the hate in their hearts during the Democratic Primary Season. People who won't be satisfied until Senator Clinton grovels at Senator Obama's feet, then leaves the country--nay, the planet(!) and begins her life anew on Mars. People who actually repeated this image on the news, not to condemn its existence, but to lament the loss of Senator Clinton as a late-night talk show punching bag. For now, I leave you with this statement from Feministe's Jill:

I know many women (and men) today are mourning the fact that the female candidate didn’t get her historic moment. I am mourning that too. And again, Melissa says it better than I could. Women are hurting, and our confidence in our “allies” and in our fellow progressives has been thoroughly challenged.

See The Daily Kos for evidence of those so-called "progressives", who often consider 51% of the population a special interest group.

.

Musings from a Black Woman: April Showers

This is some nonsense. This isn't "artistic" or "beautiful." This is not about whether teenagers are having sex, Defamer. This is a situation made of fail. Miley's parents failed her. Vanity Fair failed her. Annie Leibovitz failed her. Disney failed her.

Miley is 15. When I was 15, there is no way my Mummy and Grammy would have let someone take a picture of me wearing a bedsheet. That is nasty. All the perverts involved in creating this debacle deserve a visit from Dateline's Chris Hansen, complete with a pitcher of sweet tea.

Trai_Dep sums up my final thoughts on the matter:

When I see a picture of The Jonas Brothers tarted up, wearing smeared lipstick and posed so they look like they've just had the holy crap raped out of them, then I'll know that America has finally reached sexual equality.

Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, free at last!

Also, where were Taylor Momsen's parents during this photo shoot?

~

Next!

This appropriation situation got me thinking about Jessica Valenti's appearance on The Colbert Report last year. When it aired, I was proud that Stephen had a young feminist on his program. However I was also annoyed for reasons I couldn't identify. Now I know why.

In a May 20, 2007, post on Feministing, editor Samhita asked "why is Jessica the face of Feministing?"

Because she got to promote her first of three books on The Colbert Report, a program that prefers its guests to be older, white and/or male. The Report occasionally books female guests, but rarely are they of a nonwhite persuasion. (Yes, I do know Michelle Obama was on the show two weeks ago.)

Additionally, Jessica is listed as the "Executive Editor" of Feministing.

It's that simple. I haven't seen "Vanessa, Ann, Celina, Jen" or Samhita on any Comedy Central program. I haven't read any controversy stirred up about any of their books like the controversy fostered by the cover of Jessica's book. In fact, I haven't heard of any of their books. Do they have a three-book deal? And if so, why have I not heard about it?

Back to me. I was annoyed because I shared the feelings that MirandaJay expressed in the comment section of Jessica's latest mea culpa:

I'm glad you finally said outloud you realize part of the reason why the mainstream media picks up on your work is because you are cute, white and well dressed and not because you have anything edgy or new to add to feminism. I think you are right to be proud of being able to make a living off of writing, but it's good you understand why you REALLY got on to the colbert show.

And yes, Jessica finally acknowledged this sentiment in the post by stating

I have no illusions as to why my work has gotten the press that it has. The media likes nothing more than a young sassy white feminist who is mainstream-friendly. I know that there is work out there being done that is more nuanced and cutting edge - because I see it all around me. That’s not to say I’m not incredibly proud of the work I’ve done. I am proud. I know that Feministing and [her book Full Frontal Feminism] have made changes in people’s lives, and that warms my heart every day. I believe, whole-heartedly, in the work that we are doing and the women who I’m fortunate enough to blog with. But I also believe in our ability - and my own - to do better."

I agree with all of that. I just wish that more people, like Amanda and, er, other people, could understand that when colorful people like myself point out the racial disparities in our media.

It is indeed a huge personal accomplishment to write a book. It is quite another thing to get it 1) published, 2) well-marketed, and 3) supported by a late-night talk show targeted at an 18-34 white male demographic. Those latter three qualities are much easier to attain if the people in charge of the publishing house, the public relations department, and the television network all think the author is "marketable", i.e. young, pretty and white. And if you have a thin, naked white woman on the cover of your debut book, all the better.

These are the feelings that have fueled the anger behind Amandagate. This isn't about trying to "tear up someone’s career" or "setting out to destroy someone’s reputation as sport". It Was Never About One Thing. This is about acknowledging that (perceived) talent and hard work aren't the only things that make people successful, especially in the arena of mainstream media, and that with great privilege comes great responsibility.

For more on appropriation, inaccurate media representation, taking a stand, and misguided ally chutzpah, respectively, I direct you here:

About Erasing …, by Thomas at Feministe.

Trans-Racialization in "21″, by Jenn at reappropriate.

To BFP: Chickens, Princesses, Gypsies, and Slaves. by Rainbow Girl at Team Rainbow.

Intellectual Appropriation, Attribution Of Credit & Privilege (UPDATED), at PhysioProf.

My favorite part was this:

OK. One final point about male privilege and the role of men vis a vis feminism. This partial excerpt of a comment to Holly’s post was written by a dude named Hugo:

I write all this not to distract from the conversation at hand. The point is, the meta-conversation between white feminists and RWOC bloggers (acknowledging that those categories create a bit of a false dichotomy) has produced a lot of pain — and a lot of growth — for a lot of us this past year. That conversation works best, however, when we move away from the personal attacks of the sort that have been thrown, primarily in one direction, this week.

I am not a woman, so there is, of course, no way for me to know how women would react to this kind of comment by a dude. But this made my jaw almost hit the floor. I sort of imagine that if I were a woman, my reaction would be “Us!? What the fuck are you talking about, dude!?” And it kind of surprises me that in the comments to Holly’s post, no one said, “Yo, dude. This particular argument is about and between women; mind your own fucking business.”

I have always assumed that women would find it really fucking annoying if I were to ever tell them what is feminist or not, or to use the pronouns “us” and “we” in reference to feminists. And I certainly never refer to myself as a feminist, as I don’t think it is for me to say if I am a feminist or not; it is for women to judge.

What I do is try to treat women like human beings, and tell other men what I think they can do to try to treat women like human beings. You gotta be fucking nuts to wade the fuck in there as a man and start taking sides in an argument between a white female blogger and WOC bloggers over how to further their respective common and distinct goals. Seriously.

I get that I am viewing Hugo’s remark as a privileged male, so I could be missing something important. Am I getting this wrong?'

Nope, you're not getting it wrong at all. Also, all you anti-choice men in the House and the Senate and in state legislatures trying to restrict my reproductive rights, please take note: you don't have a uterus, so get your laws off my body.

Seacrest out!

.

Musings from a black woman: Cheese and Crackers, I'm tired.

I was reading Hear me Roar by Tobes yesterday, when I got sucked into this drama: This has not been a good week for woman of color blogging, by Holly at Feministe. I didn't leave any comments. I didn't even have an opportunity to read all of them.

That eventually led me to On having a black name, by Daisy at Daisy's Dead Air (where I did leave a comment), and Denial: It’s a White thing, by Ampersand at Alas, a blog, which led me to this comment by Leora:

My sister and I are both white females, both came from working class parents with a strong work ethic, and are both first-generation college educated with advanced degrees. Inasmuch as we can be similar, we are as sisters. The main difference in our lives is that she is able-bodied and I am disabled. (I am very obviously vision and hearing impaired.)

My sister is a very hard worker and has a successful career. I would not say that she hasn’t “earned” her successes because she put her nose to the grindstone, made the right decisions to get to her goals, and met her goals by working hard.

The difference between her and I is that she has always had the OPPORTUNITY to work hard. For her, say the goal is “D”. If she worked hard at A, it would get her to B. If she worked hard at B, it would get her to C. If she worked hard at C, it would get her to D. She pretty much has always had the benefit of the assumption that A B C=D. There was an obvious return to her investment.

For me, A may or may not = B, which may or may not get me to C, etc. And the time I will have to spend at any one of these steps (working just as hard or harder than my sister, is usually longer and may offer me less return on my investment.)

To use real life examples: My sister could earn money in high school by babysitting or doing high school fast food jobs. It was relatively easy for her to get the opportunities to work hard. I sat around a lot in high school earning way less money because people were less inclined to hire a deafblind babysitter or fast food worker. She had the opportunity to work hard.

She was in honors programs and I was in special ed, which didn’t even allow me to take the qualifying tests for honors programs. She worked hard in her honors programs because she had the opportunity to work hard.

She got through college more quickly than I did because she was able to work to pay for college at a much increased rate than I did. I did work, in high school and college, but I spent much more time job hunting and doing volunteer work to get my foot in the door or begging for more hours than she did. She did work hard to put herself through college, as did I, but the benefits allowing her to work hard gave her more opportunities.

Most notably, she got many jobs and internships, etc. by word of mouth. Someone would recommend her and she would get hired. I had people who were also willing to vouch for me, and they would come back to me apologetically saying that they put in a good word for me but that the other person said that they just didn’t know if they could see themselves hiring a disabled person.

In her case, with all of these opportunities to work hard, she was able to build on her success over time. In my case, any accomplishment I earned in the past by hard work was not likely to count for anything past my disability. Her past accomplishments led to more opportunities to work hard and earn more successes. I have to start over proving myself at every opportunity as if I have no past. I have to defend myself for things that may or may not happen in the future. I have no past and no future in regards to earning things, her past accomplishments are step ladders for her and no one expects her to prove that she will never make a mistake in the future she cannot foresee.

So, I have never understood this argument that sailorman gives. No one is saying that white people didn’t work hard to earn their successes. But don’t they understand how fortunate they are to have those opportunities to work hard? And how frustrating it is when you want to work hard, you have the skills, you have played by the rules, yet there is no return? Working hard and earning success is a privilege that is not afforded equally to everyone in society. Why is that so hard to understand?

As an interesting epilogue here, my sister has now reached the proverbial glass ceiling in her career. She is finding that she has reached a point that she cannot move out of. A B C is no longer easily equal to D. She is seeing younger, less qualified men jump past her in promotions and opportunities. And I’m sure they worked hard, too.

Notice how I linked to all those posts and acknowledged the authors, even though I was pressed for time.

Oooh! Also this: Taking credit for other womens' work isn't feminist. It's just tacky., by belledame222 at Fetch me my axe, and her comment about the origins of Rent. I knew Joey Fatone and Chris Columbus weren't the worst things to happen to that musical. Well, maybe Chris was. You can read more about the appropriation and whitewashing of the story here and here.

.

I'm sure you readers aren't avoiders.

Or are you?

Sixteen Maneuvers to Avoid Really Dealing with Racism, by Holly at Feministe.

Which of these moves are you adept at? We all know some of them.

Confused? Feeling like you don’t understand how to execute or evade some of these maneuvers? Feel free to ask for help in the comments.

The Bootstrap Myth
“Racism is a thing of the past… this is a free country, and anyone who works hard can make it in America.”

The Backtrack
“Hey, wait a second, that’s not what I meant… I mean… you took my words out of context, don’t make it try to sound like I’m racist!”

The Remove the Right To Be Angry
“You’re too sensitive… if you weren’t so aggressive, vocal, hostile, angry, or upset, people would listen to you and you wouldn’t get in trouble!”

There's more. Keep reading!

.

Canadians and Mondays

(Reference at 4:53.)

In case the video goes away, Russell Peters informs the Def Comedy Jam audience that some white guy (and his friends) in Boston calls black people "Mondays." Why? "'Cause nobody likes Mondays."

Which leads me to this article from Feministe: But some of my best friends are Canadian!, by Jill.

How about these racists stop coming up with labels like "urban" or "well-mannered" or "tall" to discriminate against black people, and instead use that wasted energy to better themselves and get a job?

Things I liked this week

Jokes that objectify women, by Matsu at media girl.

Let She Who Is Without Period Stains Throw The First Tampon, by Margaret Cho at The Huffington Post, via Feministing.

The Slut on Gossip Girl, by Jessica Wakeman at The Huffington Post, via Feministe.

Know Your Limit . . . For Rape?, by Cara at The Curvature, via Feministing.

Montana, nation's least-black state, confronts issues on MLK Day, by Rob Chaney at Billings Gazette, via Racialicious.

How would Chris Matthews sound if he talked to men like he talks to women?, by Hart Seely at Slate, via Feministing.

Also, I am now cross-posting my relevant musings at BlogHer.com, so tell your friends in China!

Happy reading!

Update 1/28/2008 - I forgot this one:

That fragile male ego, by media girl at media girl. including privilege, a poem for men who don't understand what we mean when we say they have it, by D. A. Clarke.

. . . privilege is being
smiled at all day by nice helpful women, it is
the way you pass judgment on their appearance with magisterial authority,
the way you face a judge of your own sex in court and
are over-represented in Congress and are not strip searched for a traffic ticket
or used as a dart board by your friendly mechanic, privilege
is seeing your bearded face reflected through the history texts
not only of your high school days but all your life, not being
relegated to a paragraph
every other chapter, the way you occupy
entire volumes of poetry and more than your share of the couch unchallenged,
it is your mouthing smug, atrocious insults at women
who blink and change the subject -- politely -- privilege
is how seldom the rapist's name appears in the papers
and the way you smirk over your PLAYBOY . . .

.

Fried chicken tacos

Obama and the Latino Vote in the NY Times, by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez, at Multiplicative Identity, via Feministe.

. . . There are many things to admire about the New York Times. A complex and nuanced understanding of the vast diversity of Latino America is not among those things.

In a story on page A1 of the Times yesterday, reporters Adam Nagourney and Jennifer Steinhauer stated that Latinos are not going to support Senator Barack Obama in his bid for the White House because, “in Obama’s pursuit of Latinos, race plays a role.” In other words, they said that Latinos would not vote for a black man, and backed it up with nothing other than a couple of anecdotal quotes from random Latinos in Los Angeles.

The sloppy, inaccurate story goes on for 32 agonizing paragraphs, using the terms “black” and “Latino” as though they were mutually exclusive – which they are not. Historians estimate that 95 percent of the African slave trade to the Americas took place in Latin America.

To this day, the vast majority of people in the African diaspora live south of the U.S. border, in Latin American countries from Brazil to Colombia to Cuba and, yes, even Mexico. The song "La Bamba," in fact, was brought to the Veracruz region of Mexico by Africans enslaved to the Spanish. The song likely has roots in the Bembe (Bantu) culture from what is now the Congo. This is only a stone's throw, geographically, from the Kenya of Obama's father's birth.

How quickly we forget in this country. How brutally we refuse to learn . . .

That's been bugging me too. What also has been chapping my hide is the incessant drumbeat of the mainstream media insisting that black people and women are also mutually exclusive voting blocs. After listening to the cable "news" outlets and reading the major national publications--all of which are owned by corporate oligarchies--one would come to the following conclusions about the 2008 Presidential election as well:

• Older women are voting for Hillary Clinton because they felt sorry for her after she cried.
• Older black people are voting for Hillary Clinton because they want Bill Clinton back in the White House, while younger black people are voting for Barack Obama because he's younger and he gives them hope.
• Hispanic and Latino voters are all Spanish-speaking immigrants who live near the border of Mexico or in Spanish Harlem or in East LA, and they are all voting for Hillary Clinton because they don't like black Barack Obama.
• White people all over the country tell pollsters they will vote for Barack Obama, but "will secretly vote for John McCain" or some other white candidate. Why? Because either they want to impress the person doing the poll and appear "open-minded" by voting for the black guy, or they don't know that in their hearts, they are really racists.
• Barack Obama will never win the South because the South is where all racists live. No racists live anywhere else in the United States, no nonwhite people live in the South, and every white person in the South is a racist.
• Americans are not concerned with any current events or issues like the illegal occupation of Iraq, health care, the current recession, education, the mortgage crisis or the rising cost of living. Americans are only voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, or for Barack Obama because he is black. Americans are only concerned with making the 2008 Presidential election a historical event because they could choose the first President who is not a white male.
• There are only two people who can become President: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. There are people running on the Republican side, but no one really cares about them because they are too old, too stupid, too racist, too Mormony, too lazy, too into 9/11, or too . . . wait, who are you again? Oh.
  
• John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich do not exist. In the Democratic primaries, people are voting for Barack Obama because they don't like women, or they are voting for Hillary Clinton because they don't like black people. There are no white men in the Democratic party running for President, so they must vote for Senator Clinton or Senator Obama.

Happy voting! Also, watch the Congressional Black Caucus Democratic debate on Monday night!

.

Sunshine and Rain

(I heart Psych.)

Things that made me upset this week:

The CW's views on the roles of young women in society, as featured on Wednesday episode of Gossip Girl (at 3:23).



If you can't see the video, of if The CW has snatched it off of YouTube, here's what the closeted attempted-rapist said to the recently-dethroned Queen B:

"You held a certain fascination when you were beautiful, delicate, and untouched. But now you’re like one of the Arabians my father used to own: Rode hard and put away wet. I don’t want you now and I don’t see why anyone else would."

As I told Carrie on South Dakota Dark, Chuck's pot needs to meet Blair's kettle.

Talk about "rode hard and put away wet." Or in his case, "put away in a gay closet." What Pandora's Box of STDs is that boy dragging around in his pants?

#

What is wrong with Gloria Steinem?

. . . Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.

That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter) . . .

. . . So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what . . .

No wonder so many progressive non-white women don't consider themselves feminists.

#

I didn't know 30 Rock was on last night, and I missed it. :(

#

Janet Jackson's video for her new single, "Feedback." I have been playing the song all day almost every day for the past month. But the video needs help. And more dancing.

#

Things that made me happy this week:

My friend Chrissy saved this week's 30 Rock on her DVR, so now I can watch it this weekend.

#

Psych is coming back tonight!

#

I got a Hello Kitty calendar. It only took me a week to realize that I would need a new one for 2008.

#

I'm sure some more good things happened, but I can't think of them at the moment.

.

I'm working very hard before the New Year,

so enjoy these insightful posts from people I've never met, mostly via Feministe:

On Being First, by Jay Smooth at ill Doctrine.

#

Godwin’s law: NEW RECORD, by Sara at Sara Speaking. Emphases mine.

. . . So all of that I’m holding in mind as I’m reading this advice column about “professional” language. All told, it’s not a bad column, and I’m not here to pick at it. I’m just here to pick at the concept of “professional” language period. And I’m wondering if I’m smart enough to really unpack it the way I’d like to — but hey, that’s what other people’s blogs exist for, right? Surely someone else out there has deconstructed it more meaningfully than I will here.

But: professional language. The language of professionals, of people who know their shit (but probably do not name it), the language of power. Who is in power? Well, white guys. Straight white able-bodied Christian cisgendered [defined here] heterosexual (did I miss anything?) guys. So when we’re talking about “professional” language, isn’t that what we’re really talking about? . . .

#

Most Dangerous Person 2007, by Christina at Saying Nothing Charmingly.

First runner-up: Mike Huckabee. If this man should, by some conspiracy obviously organized by Satan himself, win the Oval Office, we will see a theocratic kleptocracy the likes of which The Shrub only fantasized about in his most fevered wanking sessions . . .

#

Boo Urns., by Red Stapler at Me and My Red Stapler.

The movie Idiocracy is on cable right now. I'm excited about this, because I never got a chance to see it.

The wonderful Sara Rue has a small role. As usually happens when I watch movies with my laptop in front of me, I looked her up on IMDB.

I saw some photos of her there, and I was so appalled by what I saw . . .

#

Finally, my favorite: Jamie Lynn Spears: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don’t, by Emily at Planned Parenthood. Emily says much of what I have been thinking for the past month. Emphases hers.

I would agree that consequences of teenage pregnancy (here in America) have generally become less dire. But even today, it can mean losing a shot at college (b-ball player Darnellia counted on sports to secure her a scholarship), losing your job (in Jamie Lynn's case, her TV show) and losing your reputation (from role model to "trailer trash whore" ).

That's a whole lot of loss. Yet our message is--- we want young women to keep unplanned/unwanted pregnancies but we're not going to give them respect, decency or even a great number of options . . .

. . . I talked about this with a friend and was shocked when she told me, "She better be fired from that show!" When I asked, why, she said, "Because she's a role model!"

Perhaps she is. But she's also a human being. Is it so unreasonable to think that a 16 year old might have a sexual relationship when she's a working actor and treated like an adult in so many other aspects? Why does Spears lose the right to her job because she's pregnant? . . .

. . . We can all agree that teenage pregnancy is nothing new, so can we find common sense middle ground between "slut-bashing" and "don't do it"? Could we please talk about the obvious? Birth control! Sex education! And forget reducing girls to "role models" - teenage pregnancy is an issue so much bigger than one 16 year old girl. If we want to send better messages, we need to start from a broader cultural standpoint that frankly discusses reproductive functions and consequences. Because let's face it, no young girl's world is G-rated anymore.

And trust me, we aren't doing young women any favors by crucifying their former idols as "sluts."

That's what I'm saying, yo. I grew up on an island whose public high schools had to install an official uniform for pregnant students because they had so many girls in a family way. Let's not act like Jamie Lynn Spears is the only undereducated 16-year-old who has ever gotten pregnant. Let's not pretend that her young American fans--who are growing up in an increasingly oversexualized culture--don't already know where babies and STDs come from. Let's not demonize a teenager whose parents didn't seem to mind that she was allegedly living with her 19-year-old boyfriend. If parents can't handle teaching their children about sex and its consequences, they are in for a rude awakening: if you don't explain healthy sexual behavior to your children before someone else does, your children may end up pregnant or dead.

For more insanity on this topic, I give you Sherri Shepherd's take on The View: Should Nickelodeon Take The Knocked-Up Jamie Lynn Spears' Show Off The Air? A Very Special 'View' Debate, via Defamer.

Happy New Year!

Posts that have intrigued me today,

mostly via Feministe:

Hannah Montana, Part II, by Reb at Adventures in Lame.

The Mommy Fetish- short version, by The Red Queen, at Elizabitchez.

Why so angry? by zuzu at Feministe.

And The View on transgendered children, by Jessica at Feministing.

.

“Teaching men not to rape”

Politicians and Rape: For Once, Good News, by Jill at Feministe. Emphases mine.

This made my day. Tory leader David Cameron is proposing broad educational and service-based responses to sexual assault:

He pledged longer-term funding for rape crisis centres, to change attitudes towards rape through sex education and announced a Tory review of sentencing.

The government says it has taken action to improve conviction rates.

In a speech at the Conservative Women’s Organisation conference, Mr Cameron said: “Studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believe there are some circumstances when it’s okay to force a woman to have sex.

“To my mind, this is an example of moral collapse.”

He called for “widespread cultural change” and warned that society has become increasingly “sexualised” over the past decade, during which time treating women as sex objects has become viewed as “cool”.

He also called for compulsory sex education in schools to drive home the message that sex without consent is a criminal offence.

. . . Acquaintance rape can be a tricky issue, because “no means no” just doesn’t jibe with all of the other messages that men and women received. The sexual power game puts a lot of women on a tightrope between virgin and whore; there’s pressure to have sex, messages that nice girls say no at least once or twice, imaging of sex as domination, assumptions that women will be the “brakes,” shame in giving an enthusiastic “yes” under certain circumstances. Men see the same thing — and they internalize the idea that “no” might mean “yes,” that women get off on being “ravished” and want men to take complete sexual control, that if a woman is in your bed it means she’s consented to doing pretty much whatever you want, that women exist largely for male pleasure . . .

That's what I'm saying, yo. Women shouldn't be the only ones taking rape prevention classes. It's not like they're raping themselves.

Let's Blame Oprah

Gosh, I’m sorry you don’t feel special anymore, by zuzu at Feministe.

From the “Everything can be blamed on a woman” files: Oprah Winfrey is single-handedly responsible for ruining the marathon.

The piece is an extended, and dishonest, whine about how they let just anybody run marathons nowadays, instead of special, dedicated men who did it for the thrill of competition and the frisson of self-denial — oh, and Americans aren’t winning marathons like they used to, which is Oprah’s fault.

After Oprah won her beef trial, I thought we were done blaming her for the ills of America and the world . And by "we", I do not mean people like me.

"Yah, this is why I don’t watch this crap."

Women in Competition (How I Met Your Mother), by Purtek on The Hathor Legacy, via Feministe's Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday thread:

A couple of weeks ago, on this thread, I mentioned that men are constantly portrayed as competing for women in a way that makes the woman essentially irrelevant. We use game metaphors to describe the system, but the winner and loser–the agents of participation–are always just the men. The women, I said, are the ball, the object you score with.

How I Met Your Mother decided to construct an entire episode (”The Belt”) around proving this point for me, throwing in the additional jaw-droppingly double-standard driven repetition of the idea that women are competitive bitches.

Barney and Ted have a long-standing competition as to who will successfully have a threesome first (two women, of course). They literally have a belt to give the winner–one of those super-tacky, wrestling championship style things. When Ted meets two women in a bar, he’s at first not sure which one he should go for. He keeps sneaking off to make phone calls to evaluate his strategy–note that he never gives a damn about the personalities of either of the women. One is just as good as the other, as long as making a move on the first doesn’t kill his chances of “scoring”. . .

Lily, who is mainly being ‘one of the boys’ during the whole threesome discussion, gets to be the one to remind us (again, repeatedly) that women who do these things are “sluts”.

It goes on from there. You should read the rest. No, I don't need to watch the episode. No, I don't care if my blog friends and outside friends think the show is funny. Yes, I still heart NPH.

#

In semi-related news, Joel Stein can go bleep himself:

This year, I was invited to six Halloween parties, which would not be strange if it weren't for the fact that I'm older than 12. Meanwhile, I was invited to zero New Year's Eve parties last year. People vastly prefer Halloween parties because New Year's Eve involves dressing up like an adult, whereas Halloween involves dressing up like a slut...

...after much research and consultation, I have founded our nation's newest holiday: Slut Day.

It will take place the first Saturday of every August, a time both barren of holidays and plenty hot enough for really degrading costumes. Slut Day festivities include costume parties with themed drinks such as the Lindsay Lohan (just whatever in a giant glass) and, if possible, flat-screen TVs showing the latest celebrity sex tapes and select parts of "Meerkat Manor." Or anything else. Flat-screen TVs are just sexy.

In addition to fixing the Halloween problem, Slut Day also can replace the "Pimps N Hos" parties scattered across the calendar, which are racist and sexist, with an event that is only sexist. That's a 50% reduction in offensiveness.

Immediately after I finished reading this aberration, I composed and emailed the following message to the "columnist":

Dear Mr. Stein,

I used to be a fan of yours. That was until I read your October 26, 2007, opinion piece in the LA Times, in which you stated "I have founded our nation's newest holiday: Slut Day."

I could go on and on for pages on why your article disgusted me. Instead I will refer to the 2004 documentary entitled "Slut" by Rina Barone and Patricia DiTillio. At one point the film was being shown on the Sundance Channel. I'm sure someone with
your connections can get his hands on a copy. I suggest you watch it to understand how deeply this word--and the patriarchal judgment behind it--hurts both women and men.

I also refer you to Feministing, the website which contains the link that led me to your column:

http://feministing.com/archives/007989.html

He has not responded. Oh well.

Stupidest video I've seen today

Purity Pledge via Feministing:



That was until I saw this video that I can't figure out how to embed: O’Reilly: J.K. Rowling Is A ‘Provocateur’ For ‘The Gay Agenda’ Of ‘Indoctrination’ by Matt on Think Progress, which I found via If Bill O’Reilly didn’t exist, we’d have to make him up. by zuzu on Feministe.

I'm a posting fool!

"Just became self-aware. So much to figure out."

Still watching last night "Launch Party" episode of The Office. My favorite part so far:

Ryan: Yeah, I created a website. Look, at the end of the day, Apple's Apple is flying at 30,000 feet. This is a paper company. And I don't want us to get lost in the weeds, or into a beauty contest.

Ryan's boss, Thomas Dean: I told you, I don't want you doing these things in here. You can use your own office or do it in the hall.

Ryan (now crammed into his own tiny office): Convergence. Viral marketing. We're going guerrilla. We're taking it to the streets, while keeping an eye on the street--Wall Street. I don't want to reinvent the wheel. In other words, it is what it is. Buying paper just became fun.

#

Next topic: Nobel Spurs Gore Supporters to Urge Presidential Bid, by Jim Malone, VOA News.

Hooray for Al Gore!

#

Time to delve into the Yahoo dating advice files! by zuzu at Feministe. Clickety-click on the link, and note that I was First! in the comments. I'm so cool.

#

Read my comment here, too: Color adjustment: The return of The Boondocks, by Todd VanDerWerff at The House Next Door, via South Dakota Dark. So far no one has responded to my brilliance under the post, but that's okay.

#

From Defamer: Hollywood Women On Working In A Schlong-Obsessed Industry. My favorite comment:

By TheHMSBeagle:

I'm so, so, so tired of this retardo argument about how wah wah wah women should buy tickets to change the world.

Maybe if they gave us some movies that didn't

a) Suck
b) Treat women as disposable backdrops to the hero's journey of some dude
c) Act like Vera Farmiga's role in THE DEPARTED was "A fucking awesome part for a woman" (WHAT.)
d) Pretend that women die en masse at 29
e) Approach the world solely from a male perspective
f) Treat women as, at best, humorless authority figures out to force you to change and generally fuck with your good time, and at worst as sexual objects who exist only to strut across the screen once or twice and then service the hero after he defeats the giant robots

WOMEN WOULD BUY TICKETS.

And Lynda Obst is such a hypocrite. I know for a fact that she's been rejecting female-lead scripts because they have female leads for at least the past year.

#

More sad news: Mychal Bell Of 'Jena Six' Ordered Back To Jail, by Kurt Orzeck, MTV.com.

"He's locked up again," Bell's father, Marcus Jones, told AP. "No bail has been set or nothing. He's a young man who's been thrown in jail again and again, and he just has to take it."

#

To brighten your mood: Your feminist cute for the day, by Jessica at Feministing.



I'd move to New York to get my daughter into that school. Or, I could use the relocation money to put in her into a good girls' school here in LA. Ha! Like I have money.