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.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
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!
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!
Saturday, May 15, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, May 10, 2010
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.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
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.
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.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)