Sex is Not the Same as Parenthood: The Abortion Debate Revisited

Whenever there's some young girl who gets knocked up after having "too much fun," a the pro-lifers say she should have thought about that before she had sex. They say it's unfair for her to have all her fun without a care in the world, but then act like she can't take responsibility for the child that is the natural product of all that fun.

I'm surprised that this argument isn't laughed out of the room more often. Since when does ANYONE, even the most orthodox of religious nuts, have sex for the procreation only? Clearly what's on you're mind when you decide to have sex is a very different set of thoughts from when you're picking the best preschool education for your child on your budget. They are apples and oranges. It would be like making someone take responsibility for, I don't know, stealing, by learning how to waterski.

To society's credit, we are at least consistent with this principle. When a man has sex for fun, we expect him to pay for the child that comes out of that fun. I guess the idea is that he was careless and if he had any presence of mind, he would have used a condom...

Aside: incidentally, it makes no sense that we expect the guy who's too irresponsible to care for a condom to care for a human being. That kind of logic would make sense only if we were PURELY INDIFFERENT to the kind of human beings who were being raised into our society.

But I digress. I was going to point out that the case for "taking responsibility" becomes much less clear when the man in good faith believed he was doing just that. We feel a lot more sympathy for the guy - let's say he's a rich and widely respected guy, like a politician or an athlete - if some no-good golddigger got him drunk and lied to him about being on the pill, only to get pregnant purposely so that she can milk child support from him for the next 18 years. Under the law, it's not much of an argument that the man was tricked. He still has to pay regardless, for the sake of the child, but we as a society are a lot more confused about we might feel about that obligation as a form of punishment for the man.

I mention this gray area because it seems like for men we're at least a little closer to understanding sex as something different from parenthood. For women, we're a lot farther away because we don't think of the obligation to raise a child as punishment or responsibility, but rather an affliction, a condition of helplessness and dependency. "If you can't raise the kid yourself, put it up for adoption." As Cephalopod pointed out in an earlier post, it's sort of unacceptable that women should expect to rely on alms and welfare when it's eminently practicable to make the choice to be in the driver's seat oneself. The logical response should be, "If you can't take responsibility for a child, don't have a child." It's an attitude pays due respect to the woman's ability to accept consequences for her actions and to be held accountable for her choices. I think once we come closer to thinking of sex as a genre of life choices for women, the closer we'll be to accepting that the choice to have sex is not the same thing as the choice to have a child.

Dude blogs...

This Is Lady Gaga, People Are Sick Of Her

I just thought that this was somehow appropriate, I don't know why, really. I guess I like seeing the myth of GaGa busted, in whatever fashion, because I'm tired of her being the "thinking woman's pop icon" (see post waaay earlier). But I think also it's really funny that this post about gay icons and gender boundary pushers should appear on a site that is WAY sexist and often pretty racist, but really kind of indifferent (beyond the pretty tame sissy jokes) to gays. Whatever. And yeah, I do find these dude blogs entertaining. I don't think they promote healthy images of women, but still, they're a guilty pleasure. You know what though, I did notice that, during the Rihanna getting beat up by Chris Brown (punk ass bitch) uproar, the most vehemently anti-Brown posts were from these dude blogs that I visit (wwtdd.com and IDLYITW). The male bloggers at these sites had so much hatred and anger for what Brown did, and for men who would lay a hand on a woman in violence, that I was kind of stunned. Especially since like, 60% of their posts has some kind of borderline rough sex joke. I guess I should feel heartened though, by the fact that even these guys are like, fuck no, there is no excuse to beat a woman ever.

Olivia Munn: "Walk it off, bitch, walk it off"

http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2010/06/24/olivia-munn-daily-show-women-comedy-central-g4-attack-of-the-show/

In the linked post, Olivia Munn talks about her new "Senior Asian Correspondent" gig on the Daily Show, and on how (I'm paraphrasing her own words, so if it reads kind of stupid, well...) she's out there, trying to make it, like everyone else, and that people who say that she got her job because she's a woman are setting women back by insisting on dividing humanity into "man" and "woman". Munn says that when she's competing for jobs, she doesn't think about being a woman, just about being recognized for her work. She tells bloggers who would question the connection between her gender and her career to "turn off the computer, take the sandwich out of her mouth, and go outside for a walk. Just walk it off, bitch, walk it off."

I've seen Olivia Munn on Attack of the Show, and she's kind of funny in a geeky smart way. I've seen her, on AOTS, dressed as Wonder Woman, in a bikini, and in some kind of mud wrestling match, in addition to reporting on the latest video games. I have to say, I've never seen her cohost on AOTS, Kevin Pereira, doing skimpily dressed segments. Olivia Munn, though not super famous, has a pretty high profile out there in the 18-35 male demographic that Attack of the Show targets, as evidenced by her presence on dude blogs such as this post:

Olivia Munn Does FHM
And this post:
olivia munn is a good model
And this post:
Hot Woman Jumps Into Giant Pie

These photo shoots and segments are obviously part of Munn's brand building, and I guess what one notices is that her brand is built on something very specific. No, not her tech savvy...no, not her goofy humor...no, what is it? Oh yeah, the fact that she's cheesecake.

Despite Olivia's pin-up portfolio, I don't think that she got her gig on the Daily Show because she's a woman. I think she got it because she's Olivia Munn, who has a big following among the 18-35 year old males that happen to be Daily Show's core audience. Since her job is as the DS senior Asian correspondent, I wonder if she was up against the hilarious Bobby Lee (from Harold and Kumar, the overeager Korean student). And, I just watched her DS segment, and it was about her being part Vietnamese and being maybe but maybe not the new hot "newsbunny". So, she didn't get the gig because she's a woman, but maybe because she's a part Asian woman, I guess. Either way, it's about aspects of her identity that are easily appraised by the naked eye, so far. So maybe Olivia Munn needs to settle down about her humanity being divided.

And a final thing, I think it's interesting that her response to criticism is to tell female bloggers to take the sandwich out of their mouths, because her haters must be fat and unattractive. Way to not set women back, Olivia! Go you!

The Karate Kid and girls in 80s movies

So, I don't know if this counts as feminism, or whatever, but I noticed, during a recent viewing of The Karate Kid (the 80s one, not the one with Will Smith's kid) that Elisabeth Shue's character, Alli, is a really cool chick. She's totally into Daniel-san, and flirts with him, like love interests in all teen movies do. But she's also cheerfully assertive in a way that I found pretty awesome. Alli follows up with Daniel-san, blithely moving on from her breakup with the evil Johnny in a healthy, carefree way. Daniel-san worries about it to the point of avoiding her even though he likes her, but Alli is all about "dealing with it." And, Alli invites herself to sit with Daniel-san at lunch, and to the arcade, where there's a cool game she wants to show him. Alli is totally taking the lead in the relationship, which is really nice to see. She sticks up for herself with Johnny too, telling him to buzz off at the beach, and getting in his face about his aggro tendencies. When Johnny kisses her at the country club (why is there a country club in Encino?! and is Encino any less bad than Reseda?) to humiliate Daniel-san, Alli punches him in the face and tells him to drop dead. Good stuff. What really impressed me is how, during the climactic karate tournament, when Daniel-san is like, "what is going on? I'm dead for sure", Alli is the one who explains the rules and point system to him, calmly and efficiently, because she's GOT THIS.

I feel like I don't really see many characters like Alli. Love interests in movies about male friendships tend to be visions of perfection who glide through the movie in soft focus, giving the hero small acknowledgements before he somehow gets her in the end, with the help of his buddy. But Alli is her own character, and despite the fact that she's the third wheel to Daniel-san and Mr. Miyagi, it's still really clear that she knows what's going on and has her own motivations and personality. I wish they had kept her around in the sequels, especially in the third one where the girl character was so very very superfluous. I haven't watched any teen-marketed movies for a long time, and I wonder if there are more or fewer Allis now. I hope there are more.

One last thing thing I noticed about Alli is kind of superficial, but I think not really. Elisabeth Shue in that movie was really pretty, but looked like a real girl. She didn't look like a sex doll like Megan Fox, or like some fake-wholesome Miley Cyrus. Elisabeth Shue was also healthy and athletic looking--not the tiniest girl you'll see, but definitely one that could hold her own in say, a pickup soccer game with Daniel-san. In other words, she looked like a normal teenager. Why can't girls look like that in movies now? Why do even the "nerdy" ones like Needy in "Jennifer's Body" have to be Amanda Seyfried, that is, bombshell behind glasses? I think I'm showing my age here, but damn it, why can't girls in movies look like normal people like boys do? I think I'm also reminded of this because I recently watched the "Flowers in the Attic" movie again, and noticed that Kristy Swanson was kind of chubby in that. In a baby fat way. But she was still cute, like a normal teenage girl. No way could a girl like that be in a movie nowadays. They'd have to be very thin, with big glossy lips, and around 8 lbs of hair extensions. That sucks.

Flowers in the Attic

As a fun summer reading project with my friend Anne, I've decided to reread V.C. Andrews' Flowers in the Attic. This book (or perhaps the movie with Kristy Swanson that was on TV a lot when I was young) was part of the adolescence of many a young girl in the 80s and 90s. There was a time when you couldn't go into the grocery store or the Target without some kind of V.C. Andrews book on the cheap paperback rack, and the whole shebang started with Flowers in the Attic. This story, of stern grandmothers, selfish mothers, sexual daughters, and--most infamously--lustful brother, occupied a place for many girls that (I believe)is the same place that "mature" manga held for boys; that is, a piece of fiction that had a story and characters, but fascinated above all for its depictions of relationships between men and women outside of what was available on regular TV, or at school, or from your parents. This book touched and lingered on growing up and emerging female sexuality in a way that many of its readers sort of identified with, but magnified it and distorted it within a context of imprisonment and incest, with which its readers (I really hope for real) couldn't identify. The mixture of these things, the weirdness of the story and the writing, and the age and impressionability of the readers probably translated into some attitudes that lasted until adulthood, or college, when life experiences supplanted those gleaned from lurid, secret novels. Revisiting this book now as an adult, having kind of forgotten it for a long time, I am picking up on things that kind of bothered me before (like the atrocious writing) and REALLY bother me now (the depiction of rape) or just kind of confuse me (the author's views on the importance of independence for women). I'll be writing about these things, with my friend Anne (who contributed the razors post here) on The Gray Taffeta Files on Blogspot, but I'll also be writing some things here. If you haven't read this book, I recommend it as a fun way to pass a day, and also as a crazy document of sexual attitudes. Sadly, some of those attitudes seem to be making a comeback in pop culture, and I'll be touching on that in my next couple of posts.

Why do I feel less able to play this game than Mafia Wars?

A new game called "Sorority Life" on the Facebook

I was not in a sorority when I was in college, so I have no experience of Greek life, but I am still surprised at how alien I find this particular game. As a female, shouldn't I be able to relate to experiences of groups of young women? Perhaps the trouble comes in the "losing body fat as you grow your sorority numbers" aspect of the game. Or, the "people can vote whose avatar is hottest after a face off on the runway" part of the fun. I can't relate to that. I have a suspicion that this game capitalizes on the assumptions of most people about what life is like in sororities, and assumptions of what popular and pretty girls must be like (petty and mean), rather than reflecting the real sorority experience. I mean, I know people who were in sororities, and they're not mean or bitchy or petty. So, what's up with this game?*

The image of sororities being perpetuated by games like "Sorority Life" is hard to reconcile with recent news items about sororities (all in Ohio) having disgusting, absolutely gross piss-and-shit-and-vomit-everywhere-formals in public places. It was shocking to read about young people (the girls AND their dates) who thought it was okay to act like that anywhere, much less in public. But this kind of news also makes me wonder about the freedom of these girls to act like beasts, and whether any of these girls see themselves as feminists, and if they thought that the freedom to act like utter fools was one of feminism's goals. The equal license to be disgusting is, some might argue, a step forward from when young women were supposed to be prim and proper. But I always thought that if women were going to rowdy, there should be a legitimate reason for their rowdiness. I certainly think way of men; if they're going to be loud and aggressive, there'd better be a good reason for that behavior. Hmmm.

Anyway, are there any sorority ladies who could enlighten me on this Facebook game, or on why these Ohio girls turned into shit-throwing chimps at the zoo?

*I also wonder why I, at least initally, found it so much fun to do hoodrat stuff vicariously via Mafia Wars, but I think that's explainable by mass exposure to action movies about the mob.

Sarah Palin Will Probably Be President Soon

I had this horrible thought today while reading a few opinions by Justices Marshall and O'Connor. The following captures my deductive reasoning:

1. America was ready for a black Supreme Court Justice before it was ready for a female one.
2. But the female Justice didn't come too long after the black Justice.
3. The black Justice was wonderful, one of the best. He was the culmination of true social change.
4. The female Justice was a nightmare and a disaster. She was the product of the conservatives trying to prove something.
5. Our first black President seems pretty good so far, and because he's got that JFK charisma, he'll probably be remembered even more favorably by history.
6. Our first female President will be a nightmare and a disaster, a product of conservative tokenism.

Ergo:
7. Sarah Palin will be our first female President.

AHHHHHH!

No one promised me the world

Palin pushes abortion foes to form 'conservative, feminist identity'

from which: "They can give their child life, in addition to pursuing career and education and avocations. Society wants to tell these young women otherwise. These feminist groups want to tell these women that, 'No, you're not capable of doing both.' . . . It's very hypocritical."

Two things with this:

1) I viscerally disagree with anti-choicers, but the fact that their women are organizing to support female political candidates deserves respect. Even if their agenda is to destroy the rights of women to control their own bodies and lives.

2) I don't think feminists are being hyprocritical at all in saying to young women that if you choose to have a child, you will not be able to do other things that you had planned to do and still very much want to do. They're being honest, and they are assuming that these women who choose to have their children will take responsibility for their choice and for their children.

If you are 16, and you have a child, and you take responsibility for the care of that child and become its primary caregiver, hopefully alongside the father of said child but maybe not, you will not have time to do other things. Not if you are going to give that child the attention, resources, and level of comfort that it deserves. Especially with cuts to social services for the needy like the ones that are proposed in states like California. You may have time later on in life to pursue your goals, if you end up with a partner who is ready and able to support and to care for this child while you pursue your goals, or if you can find and afford a decent childcare situation. Even so, it is THAT much harder to enter the workplace and put in the time it takes for professional advancement when you have a kid to take care of, if you want to give that kid everything it needs. That means attention, encouragement, guidance, parenting. Love is a given.

"But the family can help and be a support system!" Yes, it can, but it shouldn't be expected. It is simply unfair to expect a family to absorb the burden of caring for a child because its parent is unprepared to raise it. Now, hey, if the family says, "you cannot get an abortion, and we will help you raise your child and support you as you go live your dreams" then that's one thing. If, because there is no other legal option, all families must assume the responsibility for an unprepared mother and her child, then that's totally something else and a situation that is not necessarily good for anyone involved.

"But there's always adoption!" Yes, there is. And adoption is a wonderful thing, and parents who adopt are heroes, and adoption should be made easier but still safe. Would that every child who needed a home got one, especially since there are so many out there who want children but can't have one biologically. But not every adoptable child gets a home, and if anyone's noticed what happened with Nebraska's penalty free child abandonment law, even children who have a home might not stay in it because there simply aren't enough resources for it. Is it right to bring a person into the world and then hope that by good fortune it ends up in a loving family?

For this Cephalopod, feminism is about giving women the right to take responsibility for themselves. That means being able to choose have a child and then taking care of that child without assuming that you can rely on others to make things easier. That means being able to choose NOT to have that child because you know you are not personally ready for one, and living with that decision, however hard it might be. That means there are choices to be made all through life, about what you want, what you are ready for, and what you are willing to give up. Those aren't easy choices, but they should be ours to make. Feminism never promised that I could have it all, but it promised that I deserve, and would have, a chance to get what I really want. That's not being hypocritical, that treating me with respect.

That's right, HRC.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

I remember the furor when she told that questioner (what does Mr. Clinton say through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton) to shove it. The Daily Show was making fun of her, everybody was. Except Jeffrey Gettleman of the NYT (whose NYT profile pic is smoking hot, btw), who had been following her through her entire African trip, seeing her talk to Congo rape survivors, trying to push for women's rights in Africa. He totally understood why, after all that, it was total and utter bullshit for some man to ask her what her husband thinks. So yeah, listen up, don't you worry about what Bill thinks. He's doing his own thing. Hillary is advocating for women around the world.

How Are Teenage Girls Supposed to Identify as Feminists With These Role Models?

How Are Teenage Girls Supposed to Identify as Feminists With These Role Models?

Posted using ShareThis

I think this piece is really interesting, and kind of touches on a lot of the issues that Rex and I were thinking about when we came up with Spectacular. While I like the fact the author is going to be her own role model or look for ones closer to home, it is important to have someone in the public eye who advocates for feminist ideals and objectives, because that kind of person brings more people to "the cause" and keeps the issues in the public eye. Just because we aren't satisfied with what's out there in terms of feminist role models doesn't mean we don't need one or shouldn't have one. And not just one, but many. If this generation (and I guess I mean also the generation after mine?)'s feminists don't define and broadcast the movement, then of course it is easy for asshole advertisers, dumbass pop stars, and crazy dudes and women to twist it around and pull a "Spectacular" (see Rex's first post) on us.

Beyonce: "Why Don't You Love Me?" Because you are setting us all back.

"Why Don't You Love Me" - Beyoncé from Beyoncé on Vimeo.

What the hell?! Beyonce, do you think this is cute? You can prance around in skimpy outfits cooking, cleaning, gardening, shaking your ass dressed and made-up to look like a 1960s sex doll all day, but don't go around and complain that your man doesn't even care to know that you're smart. Do something friggin' smart to show how smart you are. Just be smart and have some damn respect for yourself. If you put yourself in a subservient role, doing everything to please your man instead of yourself, how on earth can you expect him to consider you as your own person and respect your feelings? EDIT: I guess I should allow for a chance that Beyonce is being ironic. But I honestly don't think she is.

Is it weird that this reminds me of that one segment of the Joy Luck Club (which I really didn't enjoy overall) when that one woman is so deferential and submissive in her marriage that her husband demands that she give him an opinion about what food she herself wants for dinner, and when she says, "whatever you want!" he decides to divorce her? Then, when she grows a damn spine and speaks for herself, they get back together (she should have just spoken up for herself in a whole new relationship, but whatever). Anyway, the point is the same. Don't try to be someone so that your man will love you. Be your own damn person, and let him love you or leave you. I shouldn't have to tell you this, L'Oreal spokesperson Beyonce, but you're worth it.

Pornography Should Be Illegal

There, I said it. It's an unpopular position because there are some frightening free speech implications. For example, if pornography were illegal, would the world have such gems of art such as Last Tango in Paris? Okay, I personally wouldn't miss it if Last Tango in Paris were never made; but putting aside my personal preferences, even if Last Tango in Paris were the Citizen Kane of our time, in nudist form, I'm still not sure it wouldn't have been made if pornography were illegal.

You see, my position on art (and this goes for the free download debate in music as well) is that art cannot be suppressed. If the spirit moves the artist, she or he will find a way. Payment and fame and even publication are secondary concerns.

The problem with a lot of art is that these secondary concerns are treated as primary concerns. Most of the time it's harmless, and you just end up a lot of useless, forgettable movies like the Rob Schneider ouvre (for whatever reason). But in the case of sexual explicit "art" (using the word provisionally), it often leads to exploitation and real harm against women. Notwithstanding the occasional insistence by sex industry workers that the business is "empowering," the usual objections are pretty well known. Most of the women in the sex industry are recruited when they are very young; they come from socio-economic conditions where there are not a lot of options for success, or even survival; they are often physically coerced through violence, rape, and psychological manipulation into doing an abusive man's work. Etc. etc.

In fact, I never understand why all the arguments against prostitution are not deployed to argue against pornography. The harm to individuals and society is the same. It doesn't make any sense that it's illegal to pay someone to have sex with you, but it's perfectly legal to pay someone to have sex with someone else (or you) as long as you film it.

The harm to women generally, I think, is something that applies a fortiori to pornography than to prostitution. One of the arguments against prostitution is that it is harmful to third parties - ie women everywhere - to commodify something that is so personal to them. I would further object that it is harmful to women everywhere to commodify what is essentially womanhood: the vagina is one aspect (perhaps the most objective aspect) of femaleness, and to put it on the market degrades us all. That would be like putting one's race up for sale. The reason why it's objectionable for Madonna to buy an African baby for prestige - that's the same reason why it's objectionable for men to buy a vagina.

I say the harm is more serious from pornography than prostitution because pornography captures an expression of an attitude, beyond the isolated physical act. The more people believe that there is "a certain kind of slut" who can be reduced to sex, tits, ass, and pussy, the more unfair the burden lies on all of us to prove that we are the OTHER kind of woman. I'm not saying that prostitution doesn't disseminate the "certain kind of slut" myth; I'm just willing to give it a little benefit of the doubt that maybe some men view their prostitutes as real individuals and real people. Internalizing the practice as "my friend Sally will have sex for money" is different from "women who wear miniskirts will have sex for money." The second is obviously more harmful. And the very art-like nature of pornography makes the second inference easier. Art is about the general, not the specific (see Aristotle), the porn stars do not play themselves but certain character types - significantly, often everyday types like the "girl next door" - and people who watch porn are spared some of the more unpleasant realities of the sex industry, such as the pimp lurking in the next room with a lead pipe and the shared IV needles.

To be honest, pimp with the lead pipe is one of the most persistent and troubling aspects of the sex industry, and I'm not sure if I could devise of a world order without him. But for the purpose of this mind experiment, I want to pretend for a minute that people don't exploit each other and make them do things they don't want to do. In this regime, sexually explicit art could continue to thrive if

WE MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO PAY THE ACTORS FOR ANY SEX ACT.

Which is my way of saying let's make pornography illegal. I'm not saying we should censor the expression. I'm just saying we should prohibit the kind of underlying conduct that is indistinguishable from prostitution and that leads to exploiting vulnerable women. If women did not have the prospect of gain from this business, presumably they would not enter it despite their detriment (again, assuming that there are other laws to ensure that they are not forced into it by violence or duress), and there would be far fewer women entering it because of fraudulent representations. At the same time the (few, I'm sure) women who genuinely feel empowered by the expression will be able to make their art in the same way that all art is made - because of the passion, not the money. In short, I suppose I'm proposing that every porn star be the producer of their own works. The current system we have, where minions do all the heavy lifting without any option of creative input or control over their expression of their bodies, is simply unacceptable.

Christina Aguilera - Not Myself Tonight (Official Unedited)

This is, I'm pretty sure, meant to be transgressive and sexy. But it isn't. It's so damn tired, on every single level. Of course, most obviously, it recycles a million things that Madonna and others had done, like, almost 20 years ago, so it's completely unoriginal. But, worse than that, it's trying too damn hard, in a time when totally sexualized and fetishized images of women are the norm. This, and the recent Lindsay Lohan gun and blood photoshoot/video are part of what I hope is the death knell of "pushing the sexual envelope" for women in pop culture. Even male bloggers running websites devoted to lusting after swimsuit models and dogging "ugly chicks" are bored with this bullshit.

And Xtina, you're not yourself tonight, but what are you all the other nights? Is this supposed to tap into the kinky vixen that all women supposedly secretly are? The lady on the street, but a freak in the bed? Whatever. This isn't some kind of empowering statement of ownership of your sexuality. This is a super desperate bid for attention, and I guess it sorta worked. But it doesn't make me want to buy your album or go to your shows.

Topless March in Maine

In Maine, women blow their tops over inequality

By GLENN ADAMS
Associated Press Writer

If it's already LEGAL for women to go topless in Maine, why are these women protesting? I get that these protesters would like it to be socially acceptable for women to go topless, but I'm not sure that protests like these are going to do it. It'd be one thing if they were doing it everyday, so that people in their communities become accustomed to the sight of a bare-chested, but nonsexual woman. But a one time mass rally like this, without follow through, that just becomes a male ogling spectacle. And, why aren't there men marching with these women with no shirts on in solidarity? If there were more men involved in this, and in feminism in general, on a visible level, it probably wouldn't seem like such a freakshow. And, maybe they should be marching for rights for women that aren't already recognized by law?

By the way, I agree with the lady holding up the sign, "Tops for All". I don't need to see men walking around with no shirts on and bathed in their own sweat. It's gross.

The Model Whisperer workout

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/t-magazine/25remix-whisperer-t.html?pagewanted=2

This relates back to Arubin's post about the control of the body.  If you read to the end of the article, the workout guru says, 

“It sounds corny,” he adds, “but I’ve always been about woman power. What I tell my girls applies to everyone and not just models: Look at what you are and what you have, and use that to the best of your ability. It’s all a matter of how you exploit what’s there naturally. Take what you’re given and do the best with that.”

Well, great. The whole article is talking about models, and how their workouts have to be structured a certain way because, "they can't afford to bulk up" even with muscle. Certainly not with food. You want a great body? Cut out all animal products and eat only broccoli, spinach, and kale. Don't use weights more than 5 pounds! Don't do lunges or run up stairs! Tone up, but don't look like you weigh an ounce more than before! So, when you "exploit what's there naturally" and "take what you're given and do the best with that," make sure you do so within the norms and boundaries set by dudes who can't bear to see you "big." Empower yourself! To conform to ideals established by (mostly) gay men!

There is another article or feature, I guess, in the NYT Style section, about the chief makeup designer at Chanel, playing with makeup. Less is more! Because "great skin is the ultimate luxury!" Check out his concepts. He loves that you can't see the eyes on the women; indeed, you can't see their eyes. So they're nothing but a blank canvas, a mannequin. So they don't ever engage with their viewer or with their male-designed look.

Fashion can be fun and enjoyable for women, but it sure ain't feminist.

Girlcore

http://girlcorerules.blogspot.com/

I just found out about Girlcore today, via Jezebel.  Apparently, Girlcore is a "collective" of young women who have really elaborate theme parties (sounds fun, if kind of a pain) all over the world and let men into the parties only if they come in drag and according to theme.  They also have a lot of female musicians, artists (photographers, graphic artists), and tips on creating visual pieces on their blog and magazine.  There's a distinct, hipster-y, Threadless-ish visual style to their work.

According to Jezebel, there's some criticism of the Girlcore group for being all glittery and fluffy. They're most definitely not RiotGrrls, Rex and my heroes.  But not all feminists have to be RiotGrrls and/or fall under the "hate men and hairy legs" stereotype, so that's cool.  What I do wonder is if the Girlcore girls are actually feminists?  They do promote female artists and musicians, and they foster a creative party atmosphere that is aimed for female consumers.  But the fact that they're so niche and so bound up with the creation and consumption of art and lifestyle gives me pause.  Is this again, a Butlerian performance of gender subversion, without agitating for societal change?  Should Girlcore promote these female artists AND lobby for record companies to sign more female artists beyond the pop mainstream?  Or to push for more equal education opportunities for women?

All that seems beyond the mission of the Girlcore, and there isn't a problem with that.  You can have whatever mission you want to have.  But when Jezebel says Girlcore "makes feminism fun" (because sometimes fighting for the cause is so "exhausting"), I think it's fair to ask and to debate if Girlcore is feminist. That's our mission.

Sex, Violence, and Humor

My mind started wandering this morning, in my super-boring administrative law class, about how easily female sexuality conjures up an association with violence. This is true even when there is no overt violence - eg, horror movies where the virgins are the ones who survive and the victims are running around half-naked - or, to cite something in the news more recently, this genre of holocaust erotica where Nazi officers are imagined as sexy dominatrix women (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/world/middleeast/06stalags.html). I was thinking about the much simpler proposition embedded in the image of a man surrounded by scantily clad dancing girls: that man is "bad," a transgressor of decency, someone who undermines the social fabric of respect and power by objectifying (and thereby controlling) people who are other men's daughters, wives, and sisters.

Perhaps there is something inherently violent in the proposition that any one person can objectify and dehumanize any other person - regardless of whatever puritan, desexualized norm that other person was supposed to conform to. This would probably be true if, instead of controlling a person's sexuality, the image were one of controlling a person's labor, say - that is, images of chain gangs and concentration camps are inherently violent too. But the thing that's troubling about sexualized violence is that it's violent only when applied to women. It just doesn't have the same meaning to sexualize a man transgressively. In a lot of ways men are subjected to the same kinds of puritan norms that make it shocking and out of place to see him in a sexualized light ("It wouldn't look right; like Santa Claus taking a shower" - to cite an extreme example of out-of-place sexuality from last week's 30 Rock). And yet when we see images of sexualized men, we don't think it's transgressive and violent. We think it's transgressive and funny. Santa Claus taking a shower is one example. Patrick Swayze and Chris Farley's Chippendale SNL skit is another example. And Jackass - a show that I love that is often expressly violent - is another example.

I'm not sure where this leaves me in suggesting feminist action points, and I'm not even sure if it's better or worse for sex to be violent or funny. I just wanted to point it out.

Are you a rectangle or a triangle?

The strangest things come up in my English III class. In my unending quest to show my students that I'm a real person who watches TV and has a life outside of our classroom, I used this Schick Quattro commerical to illustrate a point about society's need to control the body.

First, they had never seen this commerical. It took us three screenings, because there's a lot going on here. It's complicated in that it puts out there that women can talk about these things in public (yay you for feeling liberated enough to throw this is your basket at Target), but it basically affirms already prevailing ideas about controlling the body. What worries me is the fact that only a very small number (two, people) understood what the transforming shrubbery was alluding to. Funny that the voiceover promises results "whatever your style"---given the shrubbery, that means that any symmetrical, well-defined shape is cool, just as long as you get that shiz under control. Above all, remember, good girls are clean girls.

Verdict: not feminism, and not feasible. Given the symmetry of those shapes, does the trimmer come with a stencil?

Grow the hell up and deal with medical terminology

http://jezebel.com/5525506/gross-anatomy-disgusting-words-for-lady-products

This poster can't get over the word "speculum".  She thinks it sounds like ooze or something.  It means something doctors use to see inside your vaginal canal and your cervix.  Speculum.  It's not gross.  It's just medical.  Same with the other offending terms, like diaphragm.  Or Pap smear.  Or colposcopy.  

Get over it, please.  Please.  Honestly, if you are acting like a child about medical tools and procedures, or need pleasant sounding names to gloss over the fact that you're dealing with your biological functions, and feel like proper medical terms make you feel icky, is it any wonder that lawmakers feel it's okay to lie to women about their bodies and pregnancies?  Stop acting like an idiot and act like a grown up.  Then maybe people will no longer think it's okay not to treat you like one.

Oklahoma Passes Strictest Abortion Law, Protects Doctors Who Lie To Women

http://jezebel.com/5525617/oklahoma-passes-strictest-abortion-law-protects-doctors-who-lie-to-women

WRONG.

Why can't women just make their decisions on their own?  Why is it okay to be lied to so that they'll be making uninformed decisions?  If they decide to do one thing, and then regret it later, what the hell business is it of yours?  You're dealing with frigging ADULTS here.  Oklahoma, why is it okay for doctors to lie to half their patients?  What can they lie to men about?

Follow up to Rex's "Loose Women Cause Earthquakes": The "Boobquake"

6.9 earthqaue hits Taiwan on Boobquake day - NYPOST.com

Ugh. A "Boobquake". My sympathies are indeed with the "brainquake" folks. I don't want to see your cleavage, and certainly not as an "act of protest". By the way, does anyone still remember Neda Agha Soltan? I had basically forgotten her name too. But I think she was really doing more against the Iranian clerics and for women's rights in Iran than the Boobquakers, don't you?

"Alice in Wonderland": what is the deal with "empowerment"?

and "Drinking Blood: the New Wonders of Alice's World" (NYT)

I haven't seen this movie, because I'm not into self-indulgent late Tim Burton. I mean, does Johnny Depp have to be so "weird" in every damn movie? Does everyone have to look so pasty, and does the tea party really have to look like Miss Havisham's house? Anyway, has anyone seen this? From the looks of the trailer and the NYT article, it seems like Alice has become something of a "empowered" heroine. She runs away from a stifling engagement, falls into "Underland" (I mean, please), and leads an army against the Red Queen and the Jabberwocky? Then she goes with her father on a merchant ship to Hong Kong (or China, whatever) for a life of adventure rather than staying put as a prim and proper lady in England? Is that how it went? I'm interested to know whether anyone who saw the movie found Alice to be a feminist heroine, or if she is more of a personally liberated young woman who decides to live outside of period conventions. Any ideas?

The article got me to thinking about "empowerment" and "girl power" in pop culture, though. We have a lot of things that are considered girl power-y, like shows on Nick and Disney with female protagonists who have their own online youtube channels and pop careers and stuff. Then there's stuff like ads for Yaz that imply female resistance (against PMDD). And then there's stuff like Alice in Wonderland, the screenwriter of which said the following (in the linked article):

“I do feel it’s really important to depict strong-willed, empowered women,” she added, “because women and girls need role models, which is what art and characters are. Girls who are empowered have an opportunity to make their own choices, difficult choices, and set out on their own road.”

While I think it's great that this slightly older Alice (there's also this annoying "I'm not a girl, but not yet a woman" thing going on in a lot of pop culture) is not a damsel in distress and is fighting and being strong-willed, I don't know that this Alice qualifies as feminist. When she makes tough choices and sets out on her own road, does she carry the experiences of others like her, or those in positions of less privilege and power, with her? Are these choices still circumscribed (e.g., Alice can make a choice to have adventure, but not to be prime minister)? What is she doing for other young women like her? Is "empowerment" just an easy way to sweep structural inequality under the rug? I'm starting to think, yes. But seriously, someone who has actually seen this movie, please let me know how it was.

Genius.

by Martha Nussbaum, originally published in The New Republic, 2/22/99. Sent to Spectacular by a sympathetic (and Transylvanian) dude.

"The Professor of Parody"

http://www.akad.se/Nussbaum.pdf

Disappointment....

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/22/us/politics/politics-us-obama-disenchantment.html

This story reminds me of some things from the last election, so I'm going to put it out there. I was never a Barack Obama supporter during the election, even though I support my Democratic president now. I didn't have anything against candidate Obama personally (this includes his biography, his ethnicity, his youth); I just wanted more. I wanted someone with an aggressive--not conciliatory--style of politics, who understood that conflict has a place in democracy. I wanted someone who had some battle scars. I wanted someone to continue LBJ's Great Society and War on Poverty and and fight to win.

So, in the early stages of the primaries, I supported John Edwards. I didn't like him in 2004, when I had the (sadly correct, DING DING DING) feeling that he was too slick by half. But in 2008, he was talking about taking the fight to the insurance companies, really fighting them; he was talking about poverty being a problem in urban and rural America alike; he had Elizabeth and her dedication to a real healthcare plan for America. Then, even before he utterly disgraced himself and devastated his wife and family by not keeping it in his damn pants, he was out of the primaries. He just had no momentum. I was sad, but it wasn't exactly unexpected.

I then decided to go with Hillary. Yes, she and Bill were practitioners and pioneers of Democratic Centrism; they wouldn't identity themselves as liberals. But you know what, Obama isn't a liberal either. He never sold himself as such, even though his supporters wanted to see him as one. He and Hillary were quite close on most issues. So why did I go with Hillary, instead of supporting the person who would become the first black president of the United States?

I supported Hillary because she is a tough lady, who'd been in the trenches in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. She'd been called a bitch, a ballbuster, a frigid wife who drove her husband to marital affairs, a Lady MacBeth. She had been called a traitor to feminism for sticking with her husband during the Lewinsky scandal. Yet she was still in it, giving as good as she got, and then some.

More than that, I supported Hillary because she was a qualified, WELL-QUALIFIED woman, who'd paid her dues, and had fought the fight. She would pursue a feminist agenda, and defend choice, because if she didn't, she'd have to answer to her own. She was a uniquely high profile female candidate, when there are none others on the horizon. I knew that if Hillary didn't make it this time, we wouldn't see a female presidential candidate from a major party (and please, don't even bring up Palin; she doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence) for 20 years. I wanted little girls to know that they could be proud feminists AND be president one day.

And during the campaign, the amount of misogynistic vitriol spewed at Hillary was unbelievable. Commentators on MSNBC would say about her, "man, she reminds me of an angry ex-wife!" For young women (3rd wavers, perhaps), she was the candidate for "dried up gray haired old feminists", who had the temerity to demand that the Democratic party to prioritize their agenda. There was so much eye-rolling about 2nd wave feminists and those old biddies' refusal to move on from the 1970s in ladyblog land. Look, I didn't and don't have a problem with a woman supporting Barack Obama. There were different compelling reasons for doing so. I DID and DO have a problem with women justifying their preference by slagging on Hillary, and by extension, on the generation of women who argued with their families, who marched, who protested, who voted, who went back to work, who demanded respect in the workplace, who broke into the ivory tower, so that their daughters and nieces and granddaughters wouldn't have it so damn hard when it was their turn. And in the end, Hillary lost the primaries. She didn't run the best campaign; she took her lead for granted. But she suffered more than she should have because of her gender, and still she stuck it out to the end.

For the most part, Hillary's supporters went to Barack Obama. Certainly the Party was telling them to, and to stop making such a fuss! But there were a few who formed or identified with groups like PUMA (Party Unity Means Authority, or Party Unity My Ass), who refused to budge. Some of them even made noise about supporting Sarah Palin, which is unreasonable and insane. There are a lot of issues that are important, not just "women's rights", like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, healthcare, education, national defense, etc. When the ultimate choice is between a moderate Democrat and conservative and utterly craven Republican, the Democrat is still going to be the better choice. But I think in the back of these PUMAs' minds, they knew that, if they didn't make some noise, women, a major Democratic demographic, would be forgotten and taken for granted.

And they were right. Sure, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed, but that guarantees a woman (or any person receiving discriminatory pay), the right to sue, which is great. It doesn't actually mandate wage equality. But that Stupak Amendment to the (watered down and insurance company-enriching) healthcare bill, denying any federal dollars to abortion access or coverage, making it more difficult for many women to buy health coverage, or to pay for the abortion that is still their right to obtain? That came from a Democrat, in a Democratic congress, in a Democratic bill, with a Democratic president. Abortion rights groups and pro-choice Democrats were outraged, but when NARAL-Pro Choice America endorsed Barack Obama over Hillary, when Democratic voters were yelling at Hillary and Chelsea to go iron their shirts during rallies (oh, bitterly true story), the fight for reasonable abortion access had already been conceded. It had been conceded because a lot of women voters in effect said to the Democratic party, "you know what, put other interests ahead of ours as women. It's okay. Us girls, we'll wait our turn for representation in the highest office in the land (even though the UK, Iceland, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan, and Liberia have all had female heads of state). Don't mind us. Oh, those (old) shrews making all that noise? We're not here with them." And you know what? Fine. If getting out of Iraq was your top priority? Fine. If electing a president of color was what you cared passionately about? Fine. But those priorities and the choices made based on them, they have consequences.

So there's some disappointment now, and there should be, about a lot of things. But if the disappointment is with women's rights not getting enough respect, there's plenty of blame to go around. I don't feel let down by Obama personally right now; I was disenchanted a long time ago with my own party, in the heat of the primaries and their aftermath. And as happy as I am genuinely am that America elected a black Democrat president, I know that I don't have much in common with a black woman investment banker from Wall Street, or with a Latina woman doctor, or with a lesbian soldier in Afghanistan, or with a white woman in rural Appalachia. I don't share their experiences from being black, brown, or white (even though I'm yellow), from growing up in different parts of the country, from being rich or poor, from working in different jobs, or from having children. I share their gender, and that gender is still waiting for equality.

"Can Feminists Wear Aprons?" Can feminists find better things to worry about?

http://jezebel.com/5522007/can-feminists-wear-aprons

Everyday, when I have time, I like to check a bunch of websites. I start with DListed, and work on to Gawker, Gizmodo, ArsTechnica, then move on to the newspapers. I also stop at Jezebel, the ladyblog division of Gawker media. I enjoy Jezebel for the most part, because its writers tend to be politically and socially aware women. I have become, however, increasingly impatient with some of its posts, like the one above.

Why? Well, because, seriously? You're having a feminist identity crisis over wearing an apron? I get that she's unhappy about the article that, she argues, uses the cute apron trend to reinforce a stereotype of female domesticity. I'd be pissed at that too. But seriously? You question your feminist cred over an apron? Is that what feminism is about? About how YOU feel about YOURSELF when YOU wear an apron? What's your wearing an apron got to do with the fact that most working women don't have access to adequate and affordable childcare, or that stay at home mothers aren't recognized for their labor?

I think I have a problem with "third wave feminism" in general, which the author of this Jezebel article defines via Wikipedia: "The third wave embraces contradictions and conflict, and accommodates diversity and change." Yeah, great. It's more like, I have enough opportunity and liberty to question whether these opportunities and liberties are really serving my own personal interests, and to bemoan how difficulty my life is, now that I have all these choices to make. Oh man, choices!

You know what, I'm not interested in your identity crises, or the difficult kitchen attire decisions you have to make. A lot of women don't have choices to make and, increasingly, the choices we have are being taken away, or denigrated. So I'd really rather have a feminism that is about improving the welfare of women and less about helping you find an identity that you can deal with.

"Loose women cause earthquakes, Iran hardliner says"

http://www.wibw.com/nationalnews/headlines/91651569.html

No comment necessary, really, other than: HA! In some ways it's almost a compliment - like, say, if it were the lyrics to a snappy rock song (a la ZZ Top) or a bluesy country song. Funny how the speaker changes everything.

Maybe this is a lesson that can be generalized to other discourse about social attitudes as well: think who you are before you say something. Vaguely, I'm reminded of John Mayer thinking that he has a "hood pass" to say the n-word.

Lady Gaga - Paparazzi

Lady GaGa has become, for some reason, the pop star who is okay for smart people and sassy ladies to like. I don't understand it myself; I'm not a fan of her music. I think she has a talent for writing catchy songs that aren't very original, and for self-promotion. Good for her. But a narrative has sprung up around GaGa in ladyblog-land, a narrative in which, because GaGa exercises very tight control over her image and has signed some savvy business deals, she is the feminists' pop idol.

Well then, what is the deal with this:



GaGa gets thrown off a balcony by a boyfriend who has been exploiting her behind her back. She manages to survive, but COMES BACK to this asshole. She fetishizes her injuries by doing a crippled dance number in Thierry Mugler's Metropolis metal suit (first seen in George Michael's "Too Funky" video from 1992, by the way). There are more fetishized victims of violence, in the form of exquisitely painted models posed as corpses all over the place, in bushes, a foyer, poolside, etc. GaGa decides upon revenge by poisoning her boyfriend (yay, feminism?) not because he THREW HER OFF A BALCONY, but because she's pissed that a new starlet has taken her place in the media consciousness. And yes, that is why she kills him. See how she dresses up and glories in the flashbulbs at her arrest.

Is this supposed to be an ironic comment on domestic violence? Is the fact that GaGa kills her abuser enough to explain all the other images of victimized, yet still gorgeous, women? What the hell? I know her song and video are not ABOUT domestic violence, but seriously, way to make it sexy and glamorous. Is this feminism?



In this video from 1999, the Dixie Chicks ARE talking about domestic violence, and you can see that Wanda's face is beat the hell up. That's what domestic abuse is, not an excuse for edgy fashion (except the fashion was edgy in 1992, but whatever). By the way, when the Chicks came out with this video, about a wife getting beat up and murdering her husband as her escape, they caught a ton of shit for doing it. Because, you know, how could they trivialize and advocate murder?

The Last Abortion Doctor

The Last Abortion Doctor

I know that our project is highlighting what feminism isn’t, but I feel that I should post this as an example of what I consider feminism to be. You might not be pro-choice, and you might be pro-choice “up to a point.” That’s fine, and that’s not really why I chose to post this article. I wanted to post this because it’s about a person who cares about women for themselves, not as an incubator for a fetus. This is a person who sees that a woman has an identity beyond “mother” even when she is pregnant. This is a person who risks his life to help women exercise their rights. This is a person who believes that women should control their own bodies and their own destinies. This man is a feminist.

Side note: the fact that these articles on abortion access appear in Esquire, a "men's magazine", and not in any kind of "women's magazine" is its own issue. And the fact that Esquire's covers feature tarted up starlets for the ogling pleasure of men, that's another issue too.

"Equalists"

"I'm not a feminist, I'm an equalist."

No you're not, you're a feminist. Feminists believe in equality. You don't have to have hairy legs or hate men (though both are reasonable lifestyle choices) to earn the title of feminist. It sets us all back to disavow the work of those men and women who advocate for women. Don't distance yourself or leave the advocates hanging. Represent the movement as it is, and be an advocate too.

The Video that Started It All

Welcome to our new femzine! Cephalopod and Rex decided to start a publication to protest all the ways in which people justify atrocious things in the name of women's empowerment. Below is something of an archetype of atrocity, in whose dishonor this blog is named.

Part of the problem is that no one really knows what feminism is. The authors of this publication agree that Riot Grrl in the 90s somehow captures the basic ideals we want to bring back. For that reason we decided that our platform would be the zine. The blog is just a transitional medium, because we hope to bring a real, material, paper-and-stapler zine to life someday, to pass out to be read by people who aren't necessarily seeking us out. We don't want to preach only to the choir. At the same time, feminism shouldn't be just white noise, dammit, so it's our aspiration that we ultimately find a home outside the white-noise interwebs.

Like a magazine, we want a lot of authors and voices heard. Please invite your friends to write a post for Spectacular if you think our hopes and frustrations are compatible.

Because it may be too ambitious, right now, for us to give a definition of what feminism IS, let's start with the more intuitive task of identifying what feminism IS NOT. Then let's debate it. Maybe we can get less undermining and more solidarity once we come together toward something like a consensus. On that note, we present the video that started it all.

Love and bruises,
Rex



And this bullshit: