Fine! I Admit It! Bitches really are crazy.

I hate to sell us out, Ladies, but the fact is We Are F-ing Crazy. Not “crazy” in that “She’s off the hook!” way that carries somewhat of a positive connotation, suggesting power and a no-bullshit attitude. Nope. Full-on, fucked in the head, distorted perspective of reality, padded walls & buckled jackets type of “crazy”. It is hard to deny this fact when you stop & consider the way we see ourselves, each other, the whole of woman-hood. Who else but the truly crazy hate their bodies the way we do & try everything in their power to force their figures into impossible shapes and sizes? Who else but the mentally ill would subject themselves to such levels of self loathing rooted in aspects of our physical appearances that we have no control over? Is it not abnormal to have such distorted visions of ourselves, to be blind to our own fabulousness because one minor flaw sticks out in our minds above all else? What about the way we detach ourselves from our bodies? As if the mind & the bod were mutually exclusive entities; one having to babysit & regulate the other, which never seems to project the person we are inside no matter how little we eat, how much we spend on our beauty regime, or what ridiculous women’s magazine “advice” we follow to the letter. It’s not like being a female is one long trip to Wakko World; don’t get me wrong! At some point after high school is over, you learn to give yourself a break now & again. BUT, it never really goes away does it? You still have spats of the “crazy” & you still judge other females by the book’s cover, so to speak. Self-loathing is either less extreme these days or it’s so much a part of your day-to-day that you notice it less than you used to, but either way it’s still hanging around; dictating your wardrobe choices, shot-calling when it comes to how much time you spend “getting ready”, and regulating when it is that you draw attention to yourself. I mean, shit! Look at the way advertisers speak to our inner crazy person to convince us to purchase their crap! Even they know what is going on in our heads, just how distorted our body image actually is, even if we aren’t all that quick to admit it out loud.

This one here is an ad for breast augmentation. Look how happy & healthy (& scar free) she is with her new fake tits! Don’t you want to be happy & secure enough to frolic about top-less? Yeah? Then buy you some silicone falsies, undergo a notoriously painful surgery that will increase the likelihood of breast cancer going undetected in it’s early (& easiest to treat) stages, run a 25-40% chance of having to undergo a second surgery to correct issues associated with the initial implants, and get used to the idea that your formerly normal breasts may now “leak”, “rupture”, “deflate”, “harden” from the presence of scar tissue around the implant, or result in irreparable nerve damage! Maybe even develop a Connective Tissue Disease! Still smiling? Despite the availability of this kind of vital risk information (here’s the FDA’s page on the subject), a whopping 399,440 women in the United States still bought into the bullshit in 2007. It is projected that over the course of the next five years, up to 179,748 of those ladies will undergo a reoperation to deal with complications (this is the FDA’s conservative estimate, BTW). Sounds like self-destructive crazy bullshit, don’t it?

And what about the mind-fuck we’re handed where food is concerned? The first ad, for Calvin Klein panty hose, just screams “Suck it in!” and we all know that bitch*** ain’t in need of the tummy & bottom control panels described in the ad copy. Is that even the lower half of a woman? A definite lack of curvature, a signature trait of the human female, makes me wonder. The second ad is accompanied by the copy “The pair you wear to cooking class will also look fabulous at your weight loss seminar.” WTF? Seriously? Can you sell us shoes minus the food/weight issues, please? And what would that slim woman be doing at a weight loss seminar? Anyone? If she’s in need of a fatty seminar, I’m way over due. The third ad sells us chocolate as a substitute for another guilty pleasure, expensive shoes. Not chocolate for it’s own sake, y’know cause it’s chocolate & tastes good? Nope, Hershey’s would rather appeal to our fucked up system of rewards be being “good girls”. Behaved yourself? Alright, you can indulge in a pair of shoes or a chocolate bar (just ONE though, fatty-fat-fat!). I mean, a food item can be associated with any other set of wants & desires EXCEPT those associated with eating. God forbid you acknowledge the candy for what it is! If you thought about the neurotic assumptions behind all these ads; that you might eat something & therefore need an excuse or explanation for your behavior, that you might have (ekk!) curves as a result of that eating, that you apparently only wear shoes to places associated with food or fasting; you might be taken aback by the Anti-Fatty messages being (excuse me) shoved down your throat. Or you might just (sorry) ingest the Skinny Minnie Ideology, just like the 75% of Glamour Magazine readers who think their “too fat”. Even you smart chicks aren’t above the bullshit on this one – a study of Stanford undergraduate & graduate students found 68% of their sample group felt worse about their looks after exposure to ads like the ones above. Even more annoying is the discovery that as we age, we tend to compare ourselves to advertising models more often & since we’re less likely to bare a resemblance, we’re more likely to be disheartened & depressed by the imagery. *sigh*

***See? Hostility much?

 

Is it really surprising that we see ourselves as a mish-mosh of woman pieces rather than whole female humans? And is it too much to ask y’all in the ad world to hook us up with an entire woman in a mo’ fucking ad? This bits & pieces shit is creepy & it’s gotta’ go, y’all. Might have been “cutting edge” way back when, but I think we can agree that it’s tired now. Thanks for the complex though!

And finally, my most favorite line of crap that I am as likely as any other broad to buy into…

The Photo Shopped Skin in Beauty Product Advertisements! Never a flaw! Not in the teen years, the twenties, thirties, on up to however fucking old Diane Keaton is in those fucking L'Oreal ads. My bucks fly like confetti when these ads invade my space & I’m not even gonna’ front by telling you I don’t believe the crap I’m told in the ad copy. In fact, it’s probably the only bullshit I believe at face value, without question; it’s sort of my theological belief – that said beauty product shall bestow promised results upon the believer, Amen!

Crazy bitches or what? Honestly?

Ms Maryjane Foxie’s All-Time Favorite Broads on TV

**** Californication’s Marcy: The naughty little smurf (formerly) married to Hank Moody’s publisher/best friend, Charlie Runkle, is one potty-mouthed bad ass & I love her for it. She runs a salon specializing in pubic hair eradication, she obliges her man with a threesome (even though it ends in disaster, she still goes there!), and all the while she juggles her own drug abuse demons & her philandering husband with style! This scene from season 1 is the best pre-wedding pep talk ever! Far too many good lines to quote just one, so just watch the video.

**** Veronica Mars: Being super girly & being kick-ass shouldn’t have to be mutually exclusive traits & the character of V. Mars proved how well the two go together in the detective-teen drama-comedy series, Veronica Mars. She’s witty, she’s smart (assed), has a normal healthy attitude towards sex & shit, PLUS she’s a little damaged without being emotionally retarded or unrealistically bulletproof. Played by one of the few blond actresses that I think is beautiful, Kristen Bell (from Forgetting Sarah Marshall), Ms. Mars is dearly missed; three seasons just wasn’t enough.                   

**** Nancy Botwin of Weeds: She’s flawed, beautiful, intelligent, and damned thuggish when she needs to be. She fucks when she sees fit (sometimes that causes trouble, but isn’t that the case in real life?), she loves her kids but isn’t some selfless drone like too many TV mothers, and she is one unexpectedly successful pot pusher on a show that is not only realistic about the ups & downs of the biz, it is also written & directed by a female (Jenji Kohan) which is a rare occurrence these days. This video features Nancy handling a screwed up situation as best as she can. When this prick won’t give up the brick she came to retrieve without her performing a “brick dance”, Nancy shows them assholes how a white girl gets down. 

**** Tara on True Blood: My most favorite character on my most favorite vampire show ever! Tara is BFF with the show’s lead character, Sookie Stackhouse, & this bitch has a mouth on her! She’s got a temper problem, but who wouldn’t when your mom is intent on killing herself by drowning in booze? Tara definitely gets some of the best monologues in the series & I am looking forward to more of her lip in Season 2. This clip features Tara showcasing her excellent customer service skills.

**** Lindsay of Freaks & Geeks: It was such a shame that Freaks & Geeks only lasted one season, especially since it had one of the most believable female teenage characters ever on TV. Lindsay navigates the scary world of high school without resorting to tired TV stereotypes of what teen girls act like. Bravo! This clip features Lindsay stoned out of her gourd on a good ramble about the universe & existence.

**** Joy Turner of My Name is Earl: Joy is soooo running shit! This clip features the trailer park queen getting hers!

**** Darlene Conner of Roseanne: I LOVE ROSEANNE & dearly miss the program. Obviously, my favorite daughter was Darlene & even though it ‘s totally weird to date the brother of your sister’s husband, I forgave that minor quirk & kept the character as one of my personal role models. Honestly though, Aunt Jackie is a close runner up. Since I couldn’t find a Darlene vid, I decided to post this hilarious clip of Dan, Roseanne, and Jackie stoned.  

**** Daria Morgandorpher & Jane Lane of Daria: I have watched every Daria episode several times & have yet to tire of her dead pan humor & outcast persona. The best spin off of Beavis & Butthead, wouldn’t you agree?

**** Dana Scully from the X-Files: Gillian Anderson’s most distinctive role ever will always have a place in my heart because Scully’s “But Mulder! What about Science?” attitude was the perfect counterweight to David Duchovny’s mentally off-balanced Fox Mulder conspiracies. I would have totally flipped the channel had someone not been around to point out how nuts half his ideas were!

 

Who are your favorite TV ladies?

It’s the same old song & dance, my Friend

North Dakota’s House of Representatives has passed a bill (HB 1572) that grants legal rights & personhood status to fertilized eggs, fetuses, embryos, and zygotes. Republican State Representative Dan Ruby, House sponsor of the bill, says the bill will withstand any challenge based on Roe's precedent because, "This is the exact language that's required by Roe vs.Wade. It stipulated that before a challenge can be made, we have to identify when life begins, and that's what this does." According to HB 1572, life begins at conception & from that point on the fertilized egg is granted all the rights of a human being. The ignorance of such legislation can be clearly identified by pondering the following legal & practical questions… (some ripped off of Shakesville’s posts on the subject, others from the vast wasteland of my own mind, & still others from the mouths of those I’ve discussed the subject with)

1. In the event of a miscarriage, which happens 10-25% of the time according to the American Pregnancy Association, how are the authorities to deal with the situation? There must be an investigation & an autopsy to rule out foul play, because the embryo has the same rights as any other North Dakotan. Right?

2. What about all those embryos in the fertility clinics of North Dakota? They are technically being held against their will, being frozen & all. What to do with these new citizens?

3. How on Earth does the state of North Dakota plan on monitoring this shit? Since there is no test to determine pregnancy immediately after conception, there will be this big gray area when a crime against a fetus might be committed but no one will know! Will the vessel’s eating habits be monitored…er… the Mother’s eating habits, I mean. Will they be under scrutiny & subject to the latest scientific findings regarding the dangers of too much caffeine or sugar or sushi?

4. Since I don’t imagine North Dakota is a cash cow of a state, where will all the money come from to support the child welfare department & the foster system that will be increasingly over burdened after the Senate passes the personhood bill? What about funding for the prison system that will have to house all those “murderous” would-be mothers & abortionists? And the Medicare programs that will have to pay for the pre- & post- natal care of low income women forced to carry a pregnancy to term?

5. What about the personhood status of the woman who is forced by the state to carry a pregnancy to term? What about her rights? Are they not infringed upon by the state of North Dakota involving itself in her reproductive choices? I liked this point made by Melissa McEwan @ Shakesville:

"I'd like to note that, since a fertilized egg is actually dependent on another human body for its survival, the ND House technically voted to confer upon a fertilized egg more rights than any person. Unless, that is, ND has also passed a law allowing its citizens to, say, demand a spare kidney from any compatible donor, irrespective of the donor's consent."

Speaking on Domestic Violence

My last long-term relationship showcased my worst qualities on a regular basis – my violent temper, a penchant for drowning my problems in alcohol, and an inability to address emotional issues before they become unavoidable roadblocks to my own happiness. It is true that violence begets violence and my abusive behavior directed towards my former beau sprang from the internalized messages learned during my own abusive childhood, but at some point we all become responsible for our actions and the abuse I suffered does not justify or excuse my abusive behavior. Thankfully, I am a female without much muscle mass or physical prowessness, so the amount of damage I caused was minimal and, more often than not, evoked laughter from my target instead of the intended fear response. Never the less, abuse is abuse & this type of behavior is not all that uncommon. A recent study on the subject suggest that men are battered by their partners more often than we might expect, given the relative invisibility of male victimization in American pop culture and the media’s one sided attention to battered females. In the United States, according to this study, men and women are equally as likely to report having hit their partners in the past 12 months, so the whole “Men are more aggressive” line is obviously a fallacy & should be dismissed as a stereotype.

While men might be victims of intimate partner violence as often as women & their experiences should not be discounted or ignored, the truth is women are more likely to be seriously injured, killed, and suffer greater consequences at the hands of their domestic partners than men are. When one considers the biological fact that most men are larger, stronger, and more capable of inflicting pain upon their partners than most women are, it is obvious why abuse against women is the central focus of most domestic violence activism. Injuries sustained by battered women are more likely to result in hospital visits than those of battered men. Of the people murdered by a domestic partner, 74% are women and according to FBI statistics, domestic violence claims the lives of more than four women everyday. The Bureau of Justice reports that 30% of women murdered are done in by their domestic partners, compared to 5% of murdered men being killed by their partners. Men are also more likely to be in an advantageous financial position than their female contemporaries, making escape from an abusive situation easier & more likely to be successful. Another statistic that should be acknowledged is the fact that most intimate partner violence against women occurs to those separated from their abuser. It is often cited that women attempting to leave an abusive situation are in the greatest danger, but it is worth repeating since blaming the victim in these situations is still very popular in some circles. Additionally, violence against women has been justified by various religious, social, and cultural norms in a way that violence against men has not. After all, the bible does not advocate violent disciplinary action against one’s husband and there hasn’t been legal guidelines on the books to regulate how much force a woman can use when beating her man. Until the women’s liberation movement of the 1970’s made the personal political, domestic violence wasn’t even considered a social issue in need of our attention, so the issue is far from exhausted & the recent Chris Brown / Rihanna incidence illustrates how the subject is still in need of some serious discussion. Ill Doctrine posted an interview on the topic with journalist Elizabeth Mendez Berry that addresses domestic violence within & without the hip hop community that raises some scary statistics (See below).

African American women, aged 20-24, are more likely to experience intimate partner violence than are similarly aged white women, and murder by their partners is the number one cause of death of black women in that age group. Damn. Reflect on that for a minute. Young black women are more likely to die at the hands of the person they love than they are to die from any other fatal situation. Why is this?

For more discussion on the subject see the following pages:

Elizabeth Mendez Berry’s article “Love Hurts” from Vibe magazine

Bitch Magazine talks about how we address the Chris Brown / Rihanna issue

Domestic Violence Way Up says Shakesville

A blurb about Wrigley's response to Chris Brown's behavior vs. the corporate sponsorship backlash against Michael Phelp's pot faux pas

I tell you all the time, It’s none of your business!

The newest means of attacking women’s reproductive rights in this country of ours is to promote the idea that pharmacists have the right to morally object to dispensing the contraceptives their customers seek. While some may argue that a business owner is allowed the power to pass such judgments & withhold birth control or morning after pills, I must point out the fact that pharmacists have a duty to the public. They are licensed by the state. They are given the power to legally dispense drugs by the state & have a virtual monopoly on the industry granted to them by the state. Therefore, if the contraceptive in question is legal in the state they practice in, they must be required to distribute the pharmaceutical to citizens of that state. Otherwise, they are not fulfilling the duty that the state (and it’s residents) expects them to & the privilege of running a pharmacy that receives Medi-Cal payments or other state sponsored health benefit payments should be revoked. The government should not be allowed to distribute our tax dollars to pharmacies that refuse to service the entire community. Just like we don’t give federal or state monies to educational institutions that discriminate based on race or gender and we don’t give religious institutions special tax-exempt status if they are used as political machinery, we should not financially support businesses that discriminate based on the fertility status of one’s uterus or those businesses being used as obvious political tools. As health care professionals, pharmacists have accepted the responsibility to help patients, regardless of their personal takes on the patient’s prescriptions. They are the only folks able to dole out the meds & that shouldn’t make them gate-keepers to America’s fertility options.

Besides, it’s just plain shitty to be a Contraceptive Nazi. It’s discrimination towards women, since there isn’t an effective male pill @ this point & that leaves us gals as the victims in this situation (unless you count the guys that get screwed into fathering an unwanted child because their partners don’t have access to birth control pills). After all, a hell of a lot of women in this country are on one B.C. form or another, 95% of American women use contraceptives @ some point during their breeding years and 50% of them use pharmaceutical methods.* The World Health Organization & slews of other national & international health groups have identified access to birth control as a critical component of basic health care for women. That being said, don’t you think it is a total dick-move to ignore the basic needs of such a large group of people? Besides medicinal marijuana users, who else would face this kind of crap? Nearly every state has a law on the books to protect citizens from sex discrimination when they seek goods or services in establishments that serve the public. Pharmacies are such a place & denying women B.C. is clearly a violation of these protections.

It’s discrimination against poorer women & those in rural areas, that might mot have the means to travel elsewhere to get their prescriptions filled. Some insurance plans require women to use specific pharmacies if their prescriptions are to be covered & if the woman is forced to get her pills from another pharmacy, she’ll pay an arm & a leg (maybe a fetus). Po’ folks ain’t got the budget for that kind of bullshit. Since 1994, unintended pregnancy rates have shot up by 29% for poor American women and they are now four times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy, five times as likely to have an unintended birth, and more than three times as likely to have an abortion than her wealthier counterparts.** Is it really a great idea to further limit their access to contraceptives? That would only increase the number of unwanted children & abortions among the lower economic classes, all because some dick thinks the pill is a slight against God! WTF? 

It’s discrimination against rape victims in need of the 72-hour pill, against ladies that were unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of a broken condom’s leakage, and it’s discrimination against the many citizens that might need emergency contraceptives because the risky lovin’ of last night just wasn’t worth it this morning. EC’s effectiveness decreases with time (it’s most potent taken 12 hours after the ‘security breach’) and if a pharmacist denies a patient’s request, they effectively increase the possibility that she will become pregnant against her will. Sort of ‘Second Hand Rape’, if you will. The truth is, sometimes a bitch gotta’ get her E.C. on & who the fuck do these pharmacists think they are to decide when & if she get’s knocked up? If we don’t condone husbands, boyfriends, families, or rapists dictating the reproductive status of women in this country, we sure as fuck shouldn’t allow some glorified drug pusher to do so.

And that’s what the fuck I’m talking about.

* According to Planned Parenthood

** According to The Guttmacher Institute

Here’s femininsting’s latest Friday Feminist Fuck You addressing the subject (the source of this post’s inspiration, by the way). Can I just say how fitting using Salt n’ Pepa’s “None of Your Business” at the close of this vlog is?:

And for further information on the topic & what you can do about it, peep the following sites.

ACLU's Reproductive Freedom's Page

The Guttmacher Institute

The Center for Reproductive Rights

Planned Parenthood

The National Women's Law Center

Sarah Haskins

The feminist blogosphere has fallen head over heels in love with Sarah Haskins and I must confess that I, too, am crushing on the lady behind those clever Target Women segments from infomania. Lately, it seems like every time I start to question some ridiculous aspect of our media culture, Haskins has already called it out in her segment (Yogurt, I’m talking to you)! Thank you, Sarah, for delivering our weekly dose of media insanity just how we prefer it – dry, sarcastic, and relevant. Here’s a few of my favorites…

This segment, titled “Suffrage”, addresses how the media & our Presidential candidates are approaching American women in the post-Hillary world.  The Hit-The-Nail-On-The-Head statement: “You know what makes me angry? Watching you talk about how angry I am.”

The infamous “Yogurt” edition of Target Women brought up a slew of good points regarding the way yogurt is advertised to women (THINK: those annoying Yoplait ads where the two chicks one-up each other’s declarations about how good the shit is - “This is like not catching the bouquet good!”).

A much needed Rude Awakening about the ridiculousness that is Botox.

Title IX: The amendment that changed our world

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance”    -Start of the original Title IX law

The story of Title IX sounds like it was made up as a leftist-feminist conspiracy tale, intended to prove just how fucked up gender discrimination was (is) in America. But, I kid you not, this is how it happened:

In 1965, presidential Executive Order 11246 prohibited federal contractors from discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, or national origin. President Johnson later amended the Executive Order to include discrimination based on sex in 1968. Soon there after, Bernice Sandler of the University of Maryland realized that, as federal contractors, most universities and colleges were subject to the Order and her efforts to bring this to light caught the attention of Rep. Martha Griffiths (D-Michigan), who then gave the first Congressional speech about discrimination against women in education on March 9, 1970. The conversation that the speech started inspired Rep. Edith Green (D-Ohio) to draft anti-discrimination legislation and hold the first congressional hearings on discrimination against women in education and employment during June and July of 1970. Senators Birch Bayh (D-Indiana) and George McGovern (D-South Dakota) managed the bill in the Senate and after several months of debate and compromise, the Education Amendments of 1972, including Title IX, were signed into law by President Nixon without much fanfare. Supporters of Title IX intentionally kept mum on it’s benefits & relied heavily on the ignorance of it’s would-be opponents. What they didn’t notice, wouldn’t piss them off until it’s too late! Sorta’ like the strategy used to pass the Patriot Act, except instead of circumventing the freedoms of Americans, Title IX expanded them. It is a common misperception that Title IX only applies to women’s participation in sports programs. It did open the Wide World of Sports to the fairer sex, but it also prohibited the common practice of steering girls away from science or math programs and into Home Economics courses against their will. It did forcibly open up the Debate Teams, the student government, and all those extra-curricular programs that colleges look for on student applications. Educational institutions receiving federal money were no longer allowed to keep women from receiving higher education, less they jeopardize their grant funding. It did de-gender scholastic subjects making it easier for American girls to become Mathematicians, Scientists, Engineers, and Intellectuals in traditionally male-dominated fields. It is difficult for me, a girl born into the post-Title IX era, to imagine what the educational system looked like prior to 1972. We certainly didn’t have to attend our Mamma’s high school! That maybe why I can’t hem a skirt, but that’s another story!

The wording of the Education Amendments was intentionally vague, since any specifications in the initial bill would jeopardize it’s passage, and it took three more years before the specific regulations of Title IX were signed into law by President Ford on May 27, 1975. These specific regulations/ protections required school districts (or other such systems) to appoint at least one Title IX coordinator, who’s name & contact information is available to all students / parents / staff members, to oversee compliance efforts and investigate any sex discrimination claims. Districts were also required to make grievance procedures and discrimination policies public. After these regulations were announced, districts (and the like) were allowed to undertake a one-time self evaluation of discriminatory policies and were given the opportunity to layout plans to rectify bias, this way the schools weren’t slammed by a wave of lawsuits they were unprepared to face. Title IX went largely ignored and under enforced during the politically conservative Reagan and Bush Sr. Administrations, but since the 1990’s it has become an indispensable piece of gender-equality legislation.

Title IX has since been renamed the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, in honor of the late Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii), the co-author of the original bill. Thirty-six years after Rep. Mink and Rep. Edith Green watched their historic legislation signed into law, we are still reaping the benefits of their hard work. The drop-out rate for pregnant teens and young women with children has dropped 30% since the 1970’s, largely because Title IX prohibited the automatic expulsion of mothers or would be- mothers. In the 1970’s, only 18% of American women completed four or more years of higher education. But, for the first time in American history, women now outnumber men in undergraduate programs & women receive 55% of all Bachelor’s Degrees. Women went from earning only 7% of all law degrees (in 1972) to a whopping 43% (as of 1994); they formerly held only 9% of all medical and 1% of dental degrees, but as of the early nineties women have received 38% of the degrees in both fields. There has been a four-fold increase in women’s participation in athletics since 1971, undeniably a result of Title IX’s protections. Probably more important than any tangible statistical comparison is the change in social beliefs about women and education. Many modern American families want their sons AND daughters to participate in sports programs, successfully complete high school, and go on to an institution of higher learning to earn their degrees. Prior to the ‘70s, this was necessarily the case in households across America. There isn’t exactly a study or bar graph I can cite to prove the change in American attitude toward women & education, but the proof is unnecessary if your mother, your grandmother, your aunts, or other ladies educated in prior generations are available to talk about the subject. This month marks the 36th anniversary of Title IX’s passage and I suggest we take a moment to reflect on how we have benefited from it’s existence. Devote a minute, an hour, an afternoon to thinking about how education has impacted your life and consider the not-so-distant past when women, just like you, were denied the opportunity to learn. Threats to equality never cease to exist, so peep yourself up on game about the campaign to Save Title IX at the EXercise My Rights webpage.

 

Facts and information cited in the above post was gathered from the following sites: Historical info found in the WEEA Digest from August 1997 located HERE, progress statistics were found in an archived progress report from the U.S. Department of Education dated June 1997 located HERE. Sorry, I couldn’t find more recent information on the subject.

Employment is apparently a male occupation

The boob tube is awash in “reality” programming and has been for sometime. The genre’s newest products – those day-to-day chronicles of blue collar jobs – annoy and bore me more than any of the previous incarnations involving elimination rounds, confessionals, and/or tokens of faux affection in the form of roses or oversized clocks. These new shows are specifically male-oriented, diluted in testosterone, and DULL AS ALL HELL. The culprits include:

* Ice Road Truckers: Another of The History Channel’s non-history programs, this one documents the trials & tribulations of truckers driving Canada’s Dempster Highway. The Male-centricity of the show is underscored by the confessions of the trucker’s wives – worried & proud of their men! The fact that the truckers are blowing through untold amounts of fossil fuels to service the DeBeer’s diamond mines and the show gives no lip service to the environmental or human rights aspects of the industry doesn’t surprise me, but it does annoy me. Unless someone finally dies on that God Damned ice road, I don’t give a fuck what those boys are up to.

* Ax Men: Apparently, the History Channel thinks this type of show is quality programming, because they’ve hit us with another version of Ice Road. This time the show details the daily activities of loggers in the Pacific Northwest. Once again, women are non-existent in the Ax Men world, unless they are expressing concern for the logger’s safety (like a good wife or mother). Also, the environmental aspect of logging goes un-disclosed which makes me wary of the political motivations behind this show. “How dare you question the noble & historic profession of logging! People can die, you know!”

* Tougher in Alaska: Also the fault of The History Channel. This show chronicles various professions & aspects of life in Alaska, but still remains the realm of the Penis. *Yawn*

* Deadliest Catch: The God-Father of this kind of reality show, aired on The Discovery Channel, and probably the one that I have the least amount of beef with. Crab fishermen tend to be men & it actually is semi-entertaining.

* Black Gold: Tru TV has entered the fray with their own Man Job epic, this time the industry in question is the PR-needy purveyors of fossil fuels. Seriously? They aren’t even trying to hide their motivations anymore? See my issues with Ax Men since the problem with Black Gold is the same.

Dudes need shows too, I know, and obviously someone is watching these programs, but is it too much to ask for a little more equality in representation? Women do make up 46% of the American workforce, after all. I bet I’ll regret saying this when some network launches Secretaries! or The Secret Lives of Nurses, but whatever.

Sing it, Sister

Kick ass! Lisa Simpson is a feminist icon! Right up there with Daria, Ms Pac Man, and Jem! Peep the video of her best moments HERE. Are you still under the impression that such icons are unnessasary? If so, you've been totally mislead, Doll Face. In this day and age, we ain't above cheap sexist bullshit (as documented in this video).

I’d like to introduce myself…

I am always annoyed by the implication that sexism is no longer a threat to women's equality. Just because Women's Lib reached it's peak in the '70s, businesswomen entered the boardroom (shoulder pads and all) in the '80s, and "Girl Power!" gained popularity in the '90s, it does not mean that modern women are free from the misogyny that plagued generations before us! The Spice Girls don't make for a revolution, God Damn It. Millennia of oppression can't exactly be undone with 30+ years of progressive activism! Shit, most people my age (late 20's) still can't self-identify as feminists without explaining that they Do Shave, they Are Straight, and they Want To Have Children. As if "feminist" was synonymous with "hairy, ugly, barren lesbian". At this point in human history, those of us willing to let go of cultural norms and traditional gender roles have realized that not all women are the Mommy-type, a penis does not automatically make a person superior, and just about the only skill that men possess but women do not is the ability to write their names in the snow.

That being said, studies and reports that aim to decode the reasons behind our current social shortcomings had better come up with something better than our lack of ambition, our biological inadequacies, or our Mother-ing instinct because (in case the researchers didn't notice) women are allowed to be literate these days. The study that lit my fuse on the subject is discussed HERE 

and is supposed to shine some light on the subject of women & political representation. According to Richard L. Fox of Loyola Marymount University and Jennifer L. Lawless of Brown University, the fundamental reason that women are under-represented in American political institutions is because (*drum roll, please*) women don't run for office since they lack the political ambition that men have!

This cop-out conclusion is just about disproved by the "factors" they attribute the gender gap in "ambition" to! According to the study, women have less political ambition because of the following five factors (my commentary is confined to the parentheses):

1. Women are less likely to be willing to endure the rigors of a political campaign. ("rigors" of political campaigning? Like what? Surviving slanderous attacks? Being constantly on display & subject to the opinions of the public? Sounds like A Day In The Life, to me)

2. Women are less likely than men to be recruited to run for office. (I'm unsure how this effects "ambition". This factor suggests to me that women are blocked from political positions because of sexism within the political parties. Right?)

3. Women are less likely than men to have the freedom to reconcile work and family obligations with a political career. (Once again, how is this "ambition" and not circumstance related to gender roles?)

4. Women are less likely than men to think they are "qualified" to run for office. (Here is an adequate reason for why women might lack political ambition! But it also suggests that women internalize the message that they are inferior, which would be a product of society's sexism)

5. Women are less likely than men to perceive a fair political environment. (See 2. Gee, I wonder why they would perceive things that way?)

Anyhow, the definition of the word "ambition" is 'an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power' & (aside from 4) none of these factors would necessarily effect the Desire to hold political office, as much as it would impact the belief that such a feat was possible. 

Governments are gross! And I’ve heard they have cooties too!

- Disgusting world events shrouded by a veil of Good Will and Progress make me want to scream. A perfect example of this type of information distortion is an article from BBC News titled "Cluster bomb ban treaty approved". According to the BBC, ten days of debate in Dublin resulted in an international ban on cluster bombs supported by 100+ countries. Of course, the treaty was not OKed by the United States, Russia, Pakistan, India, Israel, or China. At first glance, this article seems to suggest progress is being made toward promoting peace worldwide. Yeah! No Cluster Bombs! That's a good thing! Further thought on the matter suggests otherwise. Now, I'm all for getting rid of cluster bombs but if the U.S. isn't agreeing with an anti- weapons treaty, the treaty means squat. America is one of the largest stock-pilers of this kind of weaponry, not to mention the greatest producer of the bombs! If the U.S. isn't going to comply with international suggestion treaties (which is essentially what this is), you can bet your ass that Russia & China ain't fucking with it either! Israel is the United State's lapdog nation, so they'll never get on board with something opposed by the American government. Pakistan and India like to keep tight relations with Washington, especially where weapons & armorments are concerned, so they shouldn't be expected to flip-flop on the issue either. So, basically the point of the story is that the international community isn't yet ready to demand American compliance to international law or to call us out on our bully role in diplomacy. Everyone else thinks we're dicks, but they're still trying to convince us to change our ways (even if it has become clear that we have no intention of doing so). *sigh*

- I tipped off the ladies at feministing again (such a watchdog, I am). See post on the most ridiculous MySpace application HERE 

- Mother Jones' interactive Iraqi War timeline has been updated HERE. Stay informed & pissed; That's my motto!

Not to perpetuate fear, but…

After refueling @ a 7-11 in Orlando, Fl, 18-year old Mildred Beaubrun & her friends were harassed by a carload of dudes. She didn't respond to their requests for her digits, so they threw a T-shirt & a battery at the young woman & followed their car for some distance, even attempting to run it off the road at one point. A shot was fired from the boy's car & it pierced the rear door of the girl's vehicle, striking Mildred in the backseat. It is not clear if she will live or if she does, whether or not the teen will walk again. Unbelievable. This is a big reason why I'm not always quick to rebuff annoying men - because fear is quite a prison cell. Read more @ Racialicious.

Women’s News = Fluff, Fat, and Fashion!

I never bother to read any section of a newspaper directed specifically to women, because it's usually celebrity oriented swill, diet advice, fashion tips, recipes, and etiquette or advice from Ann Landers, Ms Manners, or Dear Abby. Not only do I find this boring & condescending, I also think it's inaccurate to label these topics as "women's" reading. The only person I knew that ever read Dear Abby was my ex-boyfriend. My former roommate was a male that couldn't get enough of celebrity gossip. The fashion and culinary worlds are dominated by male moguls (think Ralph Lauren, Wolfgang Puck, etc.). And to be entirely honest, why is a Women Only section necessary, unless a newspaper or periodical is aware of the fact that their editors don't approach women's issues as worthy of space in the rest of their pages? Recently, my hometown newspaper announced it's new weekly insert, San Joaquin Woman, and (as you may have guessed) I "missed" it's debut issue. For some reason, I can't even find reference to it on the paper's website & I think that says a whole lot about how important it's content must have been. The Wall Street Journal has also announced a female-specific section of it's publication. "Journal Women" has it's own webpage & (Surprise!) it's more of the same crap-o-la I mentioned above. It's headline Health & Wellness article is about suggested alternatives to the gym (as opposed to a piece on heart disease, the 1 killer of American women, or breast/cervical/uterine cancers), followed by a reminder that "mindless munching" isn't healthy (OMG! Really? I never knew that!). It's Style and Dress section has a particularly obnoxious article about showing too much cleavage at work related dinners (ANY female that has ever had boobs is well aware of the ruckus they can cause & we hardly need the Wall Street Journal to reiterate it to us. Fuck y'all, it ain't like we can leave them at home! My opinion about cleavage? The only reason it is cast as derogatory is because straight men are sexually aroused by boobs. It isn't our responsibility to make sure dudes are focused on work instead of our chests, so the WSJ can fuck off with their titty advice.). Journal Women also includes a blog titled "The Juggle", an obvious reference to the "juggling act" that working mothers struggle with. Apparently, the WSJ still buys into the mythology that working fathers aren't strapped with parenting duties that conflict with their work schedules. Working while parenting is difficult for everybody & perpetuating the notion that women have to perform a "juggling act" that men don't only backs up the stupid idea that men aren't (or shouldn't) be involved in child rearing like mothers or that women aren't competent enough to approach both tasks like men do.

People (usually guys) ask me why we need Women's History Month or magazines like Ms and this is exactly why! Because the "real" news or history excludes us. Bullshit inserts & separate sections for women only perpetuate the idea that we are somehow separate from the rest of society and our concerns or achievements aren't important to anyone but ourselves. To that I say: Penis envy, my ass! We suffer from spotlight envy, if anything! 

Fear of Fucking

Cat asked me once: "If you had a daughter, what beliefs would you want to instill in her?". I responded: "I would want her to think she was cool". My reasoning was that if a young girl believes that she is cool as she is, she is likely to have a healthier self image, more self esteem, and be more confident during the gauntlet of high school than her peers. She would be less subject to peer pressure, more sure of her academic abilities, and wouldn't feel the need to engage in sexual activities before she was ready to prove her worth. This last part came to mind earlier while I was browsing my favorite feminist news site and came across a link to the article located HERE. It's another ridiculous tale of wigged out parents, sex ed curriculum, and the hymens they think are endangered by truth. Parents in Schenectady (X-B-Aladocious), NY have beef with the school district because sex education taught to seventh and eighth graders relies on materials developed by Planned Parenthood. The instructor was never permitted to discuss abortion or abortion rights, so that is not the issue here. Instead, the problem that these dipshit caretakers have with the curriculum is the suggestion that "masturbation is a source of pleasure." An equally dipshit-esque doctor, Michael Rochet, warned that the suggestion would facilitate curiosity among students & would lead to more sexual activity. This particular county in New York has the state's second highest teen pregnancy rate and I'll bet it has more than a little bit to do with the fucked up approach of parents & educators to sexual matters. First off, masturbation is a source of pleasure and by 7th or 8th grade most of these kids already figured that out. Second, a sex ed course is supposed to educate the class about sex, not force feed them a bunch of moralistic bullshit, so that the teens will have the tools to approach sex (or not approach sex) with accurate information. Censoring subjects that the teens are already up on game about will only give them reason to doubt the accuracy of the rest of the shit they're taught & that won't help reduce the pregnancy rate, now would it? Instead of trusting in what they learn from the instructor, they will turn to the "wisdom" of peers & we all know how much bullshit boys tell girls in order to get in their pants ("You won't get pregnant if you jump up & down afterwards!", "You can't get pregnant in a pool!", or the ever popular "...if I pull out" line). Third, wouldn't casting masturbation in a favorable light be advantageous to the goal of reducing teen pregnancy? After all, if your "going it alone" there is no chance of becoming knocked up. This relates to my theory of child-rearing mentioned above because if these parents & that moronic doctor understood the motivations of many sexually active teens, the sex ed curriculum wouldn't be the villain here. Many teens have sex before they are ready to because they are looking for acceptance or approval during the time that their self esteem's are in the toilet. If a youngster has faith in their coolness, if they believe they are loved and they are worth something regardless of what their peers say or do to them, they aren't going to need the approval or acceptance of a would-be statutory rapist. When you pair that with an accurate dose of sex ed, you are more likely to have teenagers that abstain from sex until they are ready to get down like mature folks. And that's real talk!

Bitches ain't shit, but Hoes & Tricks

Really, Dude? Sexism didn't play a role in the anti-Hillary campaign because deserves to be labeled a bitch since she's "tough", "aggressive", and "abrasive"? This guy is for real? Somebody needs to define "sexism" for the guy before they allow him to speak on it.

Women Hating Women (and the University that loves them)

- Phyllis Schlafly sucks. Here's a CNN piece on the Washington University hoopla.

Trans Toddlers, Bratty Babies, and my Sexist Self Image

This NPR piece about youngsters whose biological sex is at odds with their gender identities & the "treatment" sought by their parentals is terribly interesting. In the case of Bradley (the biological male that identified as female by age 3), I found it worth pondering that the mother was only compelled to seek "treatment" when she realized how dangerous such gender non-conformity would be for Bradley (other boys would surely beat him up & torment him for being a Barbie-loving, girly-boy!). This is very similar to the way parents come down on their daughter's behavior to protect them from the boys that might victimize them (teaching us to 'act like a girl', be quiet & let the boys lead, how to avoid dressing like a slut, run to Daddy for help rather than handle your own business, etc.). Poor kid! Identifying with us females wins him the same oppressive bullshit every teen girl is well aware of! He's better off getting used to the privilege that comes with a penis, if you ask me! Seriously though, I started thinking about how I would approach such a situation if I were the parent of a transgendered toddler & I would like to think that I would be all balls-out (pun intended) like the parents of Jonah/Jona, but I doubt that would be the case. I can empathize with the concerns of Bradley's parents & I remember how fucking mean kids can be to each other. Can you imagine how scary it must be to fear for your kid's safety because who he or she is, how he or she chooses to act or play or dress, how your kid chooses to express their identity is so offensive to other people that violence is an ever-present danger? The stress must be overwhelming. The parents want their kid to be happy, but on the other hand they want their kid safe. That is a fucking quandary. Thoughts?

Speaking of kids, I fucking hate breeders that bring their spawn to restaurants & allow the lil' bastards to trash the place (Cheerios all over the floor & shit...), then ditch the server with the mess & a shitty tip. I understand that toddlers are quick & in to everything so cups will be knocked over, food will be left in the booths, and whining (sometimes downright tantrums) will occur from time to time. BUT the parent is responsible for the kid, therefore the parent is also responsible for the inconvenience they may cause. If you expect the wait staff to deal with Hurricane Baby, tip them accordingly & apologize profusely. It's only common decency, people!

A study of 600 racially & socio-economically diverse teen girls from California & Georgia suggests that how a girl perceives sexism & sexual harassment is largely influenced by cultural factors. According to the researchers; Asst. Professor of Psychology Christia Brown from the University of Kentucky College of Arts and Sciences and Psychology Professor Campbell Leaper of the University of California Santa Cruz; exposure to feminist ideas and less pressure from family members to conform to gender stereotypes resulted in teens that were more likely to identify & report sexual harassment or sexism. Girls brought up without such exposure were more likely to attribute negative sexual attention as the product of their own shortcomings. I can totally buy into this line of reasoning, based on my own girlhood experience. I was the first of three daughters that my Dad, in all his sexist glory, was unprepared to raise. He had very set ideas about what a "girl" was & my vocal aggressive manner was not what he had in mind. I was indirectly taught that my loudmouth & the fact that I refused to be a wilting violet was the reason boys harassed me about my boobs, why they made sexual advances I didn't want, and why they treated me the way they did. As a youngster, I thought that boys harassed me because I brought the attention on myself. Never did it occur to me that they were wrong for grabbing my boobs! I was at fault for wearing too tight of a T-shirt! Fucking sexist parental units are suckier than I thought!

Along the same vein, here's a retarded article about street harassment entitled:Catcalling: creepy or a compliment? Gee, I'll bet the reason gals, myself included, see the absence of cat-callers as an indication that they look bad has more than a little bit to do with the above mentioned cultural conditioning!