Seriously?
Joe the Plumber has, for some reason, employed Toshi the 11-year-old web-designer, and made a website complete with scrolling and blinking yellow text (seizure friendly! and how you can tell it was designed by an 11-year-old) as well as sections called "Joe the Forum", "Joe the Blogger", and "Shop Joe". You can get "Joe the Freedom Membership" for $19.95, and even pre-order "Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream", his up-coming book published by Joe the Plumber Publishing Inc. LLC MSDS SRC 501(c)3 ETC. It may even be out in hardcover. Oooooh.
Come on? Hasn't Joe the Plumber had enough time in the spotlight? Hasn't all of this Name the Profession garbage jumped Jaws the Shark? Why is this guy allowed to continue to call himself a plumber when he doesn't even have a plumbing lisence? And why, god, why is Rachel the Liberal Leftist Blogger continuing to pay attention?!
Wow, Fernando the Publicist and Herschel the Lawyer are doing well by this guy. But, unfortunately, with all this money he's raking in, Madison the IRS Agent is going to want all that back taxes he owes. (And got it. Yay.)
I can't take this guy anymore.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Analogy of the Day
From Sanchez in Montibello CA, as heard on the Randi Rhodes Show:
Hank Paulson's new round of solutions is like putting band-aids on King Kong as he's scaling the Empire State Building about to fall to his death.
Brilliant. Thank you Sanchez. Patron Reposada shots are on me.
Hank Paulson's new round of solutions is like putting band-aids on King Kong as he's scaling the Empire State Building about to fall to his death.
Brilliant. Thank you Sanchez. Patron Reposada shots are on me.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
"Equal rights now! Equal rights tomorrow! Equal rights forever!" or We need an ERA
In the 50s and 60s, the Civil Rights movement galvanized around the Black community. In the late 60s and 70s, women got into the movement in a more serious way, and in the late 70s and 80s (especially after the AIDS epidemic began) gay people got into the movement in a more serious way. But ever since then, there's been a debate about whether gay rights is a civil rights issue.
It is. Period. I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but being gay isn't any more of a choice than being straight. I never chose to be heterosexual anymore than my sister chose to be homosexual. Ergo, this argument that "gay rights isn't civil rights, cause being gay is a choice" is bullshit. Gay rights is civil rights.
Homosexuals are a subset of our population, and hating someone for being gay is bigotry. I'm sorry to have to break that to you, but it is. Hating someone for being a woman is bigotry in the form of sexism. Hating someone for being Jewish (a choice, oddly enough) is bigotry in the form of antisemitism. Hating someone for being Hispanic is bigotry in the form of racism. Hating someone for being from Iran is bigotry in the form of xenophobia. Hating someone for being gay is bigotry in the form of homophobia and/or heterosexism. I think that, in the 21st century, we can all agree that bigotry is not a desirable characteristic in our society or government.
But bigotry isn't just hate. A lot of the time, bigotry is a lot more subtle. It's voting for measures that prevent gay people from having rights -- or in the case of Prop 8, voting to take away rights that a subset of the population had been granted by a court interpretation of the state Constitution. Gay people had the right to marry in California for about 3 months. Now they don't. Californians voted to take away rights that gay people already had.
What's next? Who's next? If this isn't a civil rights issue, I don't know what is. If you change the words from "same-sex marriage" to "miscegenation" (people of different races marrying-- like a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya), it's pretty easy to see that as a civil rights issue.
Loving v. Virginia, in 1967 established that it was unconstitutional to make laws prohibiting two adults of different races from marrying, because those laws violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority decision states:
However, that will not be the end of the battle for equal rights in California or anywhere. While Massachusetts and Connecticut have extended marriage rights to all pairs of consenting adults, there are too many places in the United States that have refused to extend the "basic civil rights of man" (humans, including gay ones, oddly enough), the right of a person whether or not to marry the person of their choosing, at a time of their choosing. What do we do?
EQUAL. RIGHTS. AMENDMENT.
We can push patch-legislation through congress, the Leadbetter Act, Equal Pay Act, VAWA, Affirmative Action. We can boycott companies that promote or practice discrimination based on gender, gender-identity, sexual orientation, class, race, religion, disability, etc. We can call for the revokation of tax-exempt statuses of religious organizations that fund political campaigns like Yes on 8, but these are all only half-measures toward what we as Americans really, truly, want and need.
EQUAL. RIGHTS. AMENDMENT.
Our country tried to get the ERA passed in the 70s but too many people were caught up with "Me first!" and the misinformation peddled by such vermin as Phylis Schafley, and the ERA failed. They said, "we can't pass an ERA".
Yes we can.
We've already rallied around one cause and succeeded. We MUST, as minorities of gender, race, sexual orientation, gender-identity, class, disability, religion, etc rally together and take on those who posses white, straight, male, middle/upper class privilege and tell them: YOU had a chance to marry, to go to school, to work, to live the way you wanted to and WE ALL deserve those same rights. This isn't about marginalizing those with privilege, or even eliminating privilege. As Americans we are all equally privileged, but as was so in Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.
Gay people, Trans people, women, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, pantheists, atheists, liberals, conservatives -- we are all Americans. All Americans deserve all the rights and opportunities that are granted by law and civil society. That includes the right to marry, work, live, be healthy, and happy but with an ability to change your own circumstances if you so choose.
To do this, we don't have to take all the money from the rich, old, white guys and give it to the poor, young, black guys -- to do this, we need to pass an Equal Rights Amendment that truly, truly, provides "equal protection under the law" to all citizens regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, sexual-identity, religion, class, disability (physical or mental), or any of the other things that keeps us "separate but equal".
Separate but equal doesn't work. It's not enough because separate is NOT equal and it never has been. These Americans aren't "those people" they are AMERICAN CITIZENS and they deserve to be treated as such. And at the very least, the VERY LEAST we need to have equality for all be true on paper. Because right now, it's not. And that's disgraceful, disgusting, and un-American.
It is. Period. I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but being gay isn't any more of a choice than being straight. I never chose to be heterosexual anymore than my sister chose to be homosexual. Ergo, this argument that "gay rights isn't civil rights, cause being gay is a choice" is bullshit. Gay rights is civil rights.
Homosexuals are a subset of our population, and hating someone for being gay is bigotry. I'm sorry to have to break that to you, but it is. Hating someone for being a woman is bigotry in the form of sexism. Hating someone for being Jewish (a choice, oddly enough) is bigotry in the form of antisemitism. Hating someone for being Hispanic is bigotry in the form of racism. Hating someone for being from Iran is bigotry in the form of xenophobia. Hating someone for being gay is bigotry in the form of homophobia and/or heterosexism. I think that, in the 21st century, we can all agree that bigotry is not a desirable characteristic in our society or government.
But bigotry isn't just hate. A lot of the time, bigotry is a lot more subtle. It's voting for measures that prevent gay people from having rights -- or in the case of Prop 8, voting to take away rights that a subset of the population had been granted by a court interpretation of the state Constitution. Gay people had the right to marry in California for about 3 months. Now they don't. Californians voted to take away rights that gay people already had.
What's next? Who's next? If this isn't a civil rights issue, I don't know what is. If you change the words from "same-sex marriage" to "miscegenation" (people of different races marrying-- like a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya), it's pretty easy to see that as a civil rights issue.
Loving v. Virginia, in 1967 established that it was unconstitutional to make laws prohibiting two adults of different races from marrying, because those laws violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority decision states:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."Emphasis mine. If we take out the language "of another race", we have, essential a supreme court decision that states that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to prohibit two consenting adults from marrying one another. Which is exactly what the California Supreme Court did in May, stating:
"that the California legislative and initiative measures limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violate the state constitutional rights of same-sex couples and may not be used to preclude same-sex couples from marrying."Prop 8, an "amendment" disguised as a revision disguised as an amendment -- except, revising the California State Constitution would require removal of the Equal Protection Clause from the the document and such a move would require a super-majority of the California State Legislature followed by a super-majority from California voters. An "amendment", ergo, not revising the California State Constitution and only requiring a simple majority to pass. As it stands now, the California State Constitution provides equal protection under the law to all citizens, except the ones we don't like -- which happen to be the gay ones at the moment. Opponents of Prop 8 in California are confident that on these grounds (and several others, I'm sure) the California Supreme Court will strike down Prop 8 and gay people in California will once again be full citizens.
However, that will not be the end of the battle for equal rights in California or anywhere. While Massachusetts and Connecticut have extended marriage rights to all pairs of consenting adults, there are too many places in the United States that have refused to extend the "basic civil rights of man" (humans, including gay ones, oddly enough), the right of a person whether or not to marry the person of their choosing, at a time of their choosing. What do we do?
EQUAL. RIGHTS. AMENDMENT.
We can push patch-legislation through congress, the Leadbetter Act, Equal Pay Act, VAWA, Affirmative Action. We can boycott companies that promote or practice discrimination based on gender, gender-identity, sexual orientation, class, race, religion, disability, etc. We can call for the revokation of tax-exempt statuses of religious organizations that fund political campaigns like Yes on 8, but these are all only half-measures toward what we as Americans really, truly, want and need.
EQUAL. RIGHTS. AMENDMENT.
Our country tried to get the ERA passed in the 70s but too many people were caught up with "Me first!" and the misinformation peddled by such vermin as Phylis Schafley, and the ERA failed. They said, "we can't pass an ERA".
Yes we can.
We've already rallied around one cause and succeeded. We MUST, as minorities of gender, race, sexual orientation, gender-identity, class, disability, religion, etc rally together and take on those who posses white, straight, male, middle/upper class privilege and tell them: YOU had a chance to marry, to go to school, to work, to live the way you wanted to and WE ALL deserve those same rights. This isn't about marginalizing those with privilege, or even eliminating privilege. As Americans we are all equally privileged, but as was so in Animal Farm, some animals are more equal than others.
Gay people, Trans people, women, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, pantheists, atheists, liberals, conservatives -- we are all Americans. All Americans deserve all the rights and opportunities that are granted by law and civil society. That includes the right to marry, work, live, be healthy, and happy but with an ability to change your own circumstances if you so choose.
To do this, we don't have to take all the money from the rich, old, white guys and give it to the poor, young, black guys -- to do this, we need to pass an Equal Rights Amendment that truly, truly, provides "equal protection under the law" to all citizens regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, sexual-identity, religion, class, disability (physical or mental), or any of the other things that keeps us "separate but equal".
Separate but equal doesn't work. It's not enough because separate is NOT equal and it never has been. These Americans aren't "those people" they are AMERICAN CITIZENS and they deserve to be treated as such. And at the very least, the VERY LEAST we need to have equality for all be true on paper. Because right now, it's not. And that's disgraceful, disgusting, and un-American.
Monday, November 10, 2008
You'd expect it, wouldn't you?
Nypraxxor
have a more delusional day
Nypraxxor
isn't for everyone. You should consult your doctor before beginning an hourly
regemen of reality enhancing Nypraxxor.
Consult your
neon-pink Godzilla monster if you experience any of the following:
nausea, vomiting, explosive diarrhea, severe constipation, SARS,
acne, barking, increased urination, blurred vision, clumsiness, sterility,
muscle fatigue, a sense of increased importance, spontaneous hysterical
pregnancy, heart palpitations, gout, depression, sugar cravings, excess
creativity, migraine headaches, erections lasting longer than fourteen hours,
yellowed skin, increased musical talent, decreased appetite, chronic narcolepsy,
repetitiveness, inability to spell, repetitiveness, or death.
Nyproxxor may cause typhoid, malaria, leprosy, and severe
eruptions of most common STIs. Anyone with a pulse should not take
Nyproxxor.
Nyproxxor, have a more delusional
tomorrow.
The boyfriend and I were watching the teevee and some cruise ship commercial came on and for some reason he thought said cruise ship commercial was a pharmaceutical commercial... there's really no surprise there. Drug companies want us to think that by ingesting their newest drug our lives can be made better.
Depression drugs that make our bodies not hurt... erection drugs that make penises hard for up to 36 hours... asthma medication that can "increase the possibility of [an] asthma-related death".
And let us not forget the "pink Christina Aguilera monsters" from the Ritalin episode of South Park...
Friday, November 7, 2008
Addendum
I really hope this asshole lambastes me as un-feminist for posting a picture of myself in my bra. And I also really hope she gets into the tattoo thing too. I'm in the mood for a fight.
And at least I'd be in good company if she did.
And at least I'd be in good company if she did.
Friday (tattooed) Feminist Fuck You: Ms. Liz Jones
Oh yes, to be sure, "good girls don't get ink" is an old old OLD line. Those who further wanted to shame those of us who get tattoos came up with the term "tramp stamp" for those tattoos that skinny, slutty women overwhelmingly get on their lower backs.I've even had my dragon called a "tramp stamp" because people who have never seen me in person (or are unable to understand what "high waisted" means) seem to think that that dragon in the middle of my back is in fact on my lower back.
Frankly, it's offensive.
But, as a loud, foul-mouthed, unabashedly sexual, heavily drinking, porn-loving liberal feminist, I'm pretty used to being told I'm not a "good girl". Pretty sure that most tattooed women are used to that kind of shit -- except, tattoos are becoming increasingly common, much to the shagrin of Ms. Liz Jones of the notoriously anti-woman Daily Mail. (Via.)
"They are a mark of temporary insanity, instantly turning the classiest, chicest woman into trailer trash. Not for nothing are they known as 'tramp stamps'."Yes. A woman's physical appearance determines entirely their level of classiness. That's why there are no fat chicks at fancy parties for classy people. That's why people with tattoos don't have classy weddings. That's why blondes have more fun.
"Classy" and "chic" are traditionally words that apply to appearance because in the bad old days, before people decided it was okay to be themselves, you could tell the working-class from the upper-crust based on their clothing. Since the surge in middle class, however, it's become increasingly difficult to tell the working-class from the upper-crust, and "classy" has become a personality trait. A person's class, at least this side of the pond (the Daily Mail is based in the UK), is now determined based on how they treat others, whether they are heartless bitches who judge other women as "trailer trash" for having tattoos or not.
And about that "temporary insanity" bit? Sure, there are a lot of dumb people who decided on a whim to go get someone's name tattooed on their butt (which, based on the tenor of her piece, I'm reasonably certain that Ms. Liz Jones did once upon a time and now has a "faint, purplish shadow" where the name once resided). There are a lot of dumb people who get a lot of dumb tattoos. Of course, there are also a lot of really classy people, like my colleague Thea Wolfe, who have beautiful tattoos that were thought out and well executed. Make no mistake, not ever tattoo on every tattooed body has a story, but many of them do.
As a classless broad who swears and drinks beer, I can tell you that each of my tattoos does have a story and a meaning. I can tell you that I designed each of them, and taking a cue from Axel Rose of all people, waited at least a year after designing it before applying the image to my body. This is the way I get ink -- deliberately, with much thoughtfulness. Not everyone does it that way, but the ink on a person's body generally means something to them.
"What I hate most about all these celebrity tattoos is not just that they have spawned a rash of copycats the length and breadth of the nation, it is that tattoo wearers think that by writing on themselves, a la Angelina Jolie, they are somehow 'alternative', 'deep' and 'profound', that they have meaning in their lives."First of all Ms. Liz Jones, your hate is only hurting you. Get over it you bitter cunt. (I'm sorry, I know that's a terribly thing to say, but I had to. Read the piece and you'll understand why.) Secondly, it's not only people with tattoos that like to pretended that they're "alternative", "deep", and "profound", and have "meaning in their lives" -- for example, religious zealots like to pretended that they are deep and profound and that GOD gives their lives meaning. They're just as poser-riffic as their tattooed brothers and sisters, except that they, like you, are all hoity-toity about it rather than just being dumb. Finally, maybe you shouldn't have gotten Mr. Wrong's name removed from your ass so that you might be able to convince yourself that your life has meaning.
I don't know whether it's fortunate or unfortunate, but those who are actually profound and deep, do tend to have tattoos, so it's no far stretch for those with tattoos to be able to convince the majority that all people with tattoos are deep and profound. That's not because the tattooed are delusional about their own deepness and profundity, (although many of them are), it's because the great majority of people in England and the US are remarkably easy to fool. Example, it's taken George W. Bush 7.5 years of his disastrous presidency to get his approval ratings down to 26%.
"Rather than being the mark of the outsider (or the ultimate insider, that of someone doing time in prison), tattoos show that you are desperate to belong."I remember calling people "desperate to belong" in high school. I was a rebel, they were all sheep, copying me. It turns out, I was just as awkward as everyone else, determined to make a name for myself, just like everyone else. Turns out I wasn't much of a rebel then, and I've actually been offended at being called one now.
Rebellion is so passe -- just like being a judgmental bitch who thinks that tattooed people are more subject to group-think than any other large group of people. Man, un-inked people are all the same!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
See? I can still blog about politics even when things went my way
David Harsanyi of the Denver Post doesn't get it.
"My children continually are lectured by well-meaning adults about the mystifying power culled from our differences, the strength we derive from our disparate upbringing, and the power of diversity.So why, one wonders, does this belief not extend to our politics and ideology? Why do we strive to shed individuality and become herds of devotees and shills?"
He's questioning President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama's call to unity in America. President-Elect Obama has famously said:
"We are not red states and blue states, we are the UNITED States of America."
A call to unity. Harsanyi defines "unity" as
"Unity: n. the state of being one; oneness -- especially when your chosen political party happens to win an election."
K. No. Dave, sweetie, you don't get it. This isn't George Bush's America anymore. President-Elect Obama isn't going to come out and say "either you're with us or you're against us", but rather has also famously said:
"We may disagree, but let us not be disagreeable."
President-Elect Obama, and the America who has brought him to this high office, knows that we aren't always going to agree. But, unlike the Republican party of the last 30 years, just because you don't agree with the President, doesn't mean that he will question your American-ness, your willingness to be united in this new century, your moral values, or anything else that was questioned when you didn't agree with the majority in George Bush's America.
"Winning elections is one thing; governing is quite another. It is impossible to deny that Obama ran one of the sharpest, most diligent and exhilarating campaigns in modern American history or, for that matter, that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has won a resounding mandate to run the country.
That only means we need a robust and principled opposition."
President-Elect Obama would completely agree with you, Dave. I agree with you. If we all flop lop-sidedly and brain-dead onto the Democratic Party's platform, we may get a lot of shit done, but I think we can all agree that when there are no checks and balances on power (kinda the way there were in George Bush's America) the country gets fucked up. But you, Dave, are stuck in George Bush's America, where opposition and differing opinions are bad.
They're not. As long as those opinions are based on reason and not emotion or parroted talking points and we can have a rational discussion on a given subject -- or agree to disagree if we can't have that ration discussion -- we're all cool.
My final photography project, the one for my BFA Show, was based on this idea. Not that we should make fun of George W. Bush, but that we should try to put ourselves in his shoes. And while it was difficult to get some variance of ideas about what George W. Bush would say in the area where I was, the entire point behind the project was unity. We don't have to agree. We don't even have to like each other, but we're all Americans, so as Americans we all have the same right to be heard. That's the point. That's what President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama (I love saying that) is talking about when he speaks of unity.
Dave, I am pretty sure that I fundamentally disagree with you on a lot of things. I'm pretty sure that if we met, you wouldn't like me, but you know what? As long as you treated me respectfully, (which I'm sure you would because you're probably a classy person -- I think we should just start the unity thing by assuming that everyone is classy and fundamentally good; except Dick Cheney), I would do the same for you. As long as we weren't drinking while having a political discussion, I think we would be able to talk civilly, as Americans, and not allow our differences to divide us and turn us against each other; we'd at least be able to agree to disagree.
The thing about politics over the last 30 years is that politicians have done nothing but try to divide us. 70% of Americans believe in a woman's right to have an abortion in at least some circumstances. An even greater percentage than that thinks that health care is a right, rather than a privilege. An even greater percentage than that believes that they are always right. But, over the past 30 years, politicians and their strategists being more concerned with winning elections than actually doing right by the people, have turned the right and left against each other with buzz words like "pro-abortion", "anti-choice", "socialism", "Marxism", "un-America", and turned well-duh issues like women's sovereignty over their own bodies, and access to health care for everyone into wedge issues.
When President-Elect Obama talks about unity, he's not telling you "I'm right 100% of the time and if you disagree with me, you're wrong and un-American." That was George Bush's America. Barack Obama has even said he's not always right, and he knows that not everyone is going to agree with decisions he makes. But he's also said that it is completely unacceptable for any American to question the patriotism and American-ness of any other American for any reason, especially policy disagreements.
Unity in Barack Obama's America isn't about agreeing on everything 100% of the time. It's about agreeing that we all have the right to be heard. Even the opposition. So form your strong and principled opposition, Dave (and Republicans -- emphasis on the principled, no more of this Tom Delay/Ted Stevens/Michelle Bachman shit, okay?), and we will see you on the floor of the House and Senate. We won't agree on everything all the time, but there are some things that we can agree on, and we should start with those things and then have intelligent conversations free of invective on the things that we don't agree on.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
HOORAY!!!
Dino Rossi has conceded the election !!!!!!!!!!!111111111oneoneoneoneoenepipipipie...
No recount!!! No protracted court battle!!! NO DINO ROSSI TAKING AWAY MY DAMN BIRTH CONTROL!!! GO WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This was the other race I was concerned about. Holy fuck, things actually went the way they were supposed to this year!! It's a miracle!!! No it's not, it's justice. Justice was served because people got out there and did the work to make it so.
No recount!!! No protracted court battle!!! NO DINO ROSSI TAKING AWAY MY DAMN BIRTH CONTROL!!! GO WASHINGTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This was the other race I was concerned about. Holy fuck, things actually went the way they were supposed to this year!! It's a miracle!!! No it's not, it's justice. Justice was served because people got out there and did the work to make it so.
Where were you?
I still have to celebrate though.
Last night, around, what was it, 7p Pacific time, Ohio went to Obama. Shortly thereafter, Chuck Todd, the God of Electoral Maps on MSNBC came on and basically said, "California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Hawaii, will be going for Obama, which puts him over 270" -- not what he said, but what he meant. I decided to wait until the polls closed here on the Left Coast before I popped the champagne.
8:01 Pacific time, on the 4th of November 2008, it was over. 21 months worth of blood, sweat, tears, and small campaign contributions later, it was finally over. Obama had won. It wasn't even official yet and I was already weeping. About twenty minutes later MSNBC interrupted coverage of people all over the country weeping and cheering, for Senator McCain to graciously and gracefully give his concession speech. That was the John McCain who should have been in this race, and who knows, maybe the Republicans ran it the way that they did -- ran the last 8 years the way they did -- in order for last night to happen the way it did.
The the Obama victory speech. I was heating up some more soup when he came on, so I pretty much dropped everything except my flag -- which I display proudly in the dining room -- and stood in the middle of the living room weeping. As he spoke, it wasn't hard to allow the flurry of emotions within me to boil over as I wept. I wish I had had my camera handy... the scene was amazing and I'll never forget clutching the flag to my heart, feeling the steady, solid beat of my heart as well as that of the nation as President Elect Obama gave his speech.
I was overwhelmed. Relieved. Thankful. And now, looking at the image of Dr. King which I keep at my desk, I realize that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the first African American president -- elected to the office based on the content of his character and policies -- on the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I hope that I will be able to make it to DC for the inauguration, but I will always remember where I was the night that he won. The night that we won.
Last night, around, what was it, 7p Pacific time, Ohio went to Obama. Shortly thereafter, Chuck Todd, the God of Electoral Maps on MSNBC came on and basically said, "California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as Hawaii, will be going for Obama, which puts him over 270" -- not what he said, but what he meant. I decided to wait until the polls closed here on the Left Coast before I popped the champagne.
8:01 Pacific time, on the 4th of November 2008, it was over. 21 months worth of blood, sweat, tears, and small campaign contributions later, it was finally over. Obama had won. It wasn't even official yet and I was already weeping. About twenty minutes later MSNBC interrupted coverage of people all over the country weeping and cheering, for Senator McCain to graciously and gracefully give his concession speech. That was the John McCain who should have been in this race, and who knows, maybe the Republicans ran it the way that they did -- ran the last 8 years the way they did -- in order for last night to happen the way it did.
The the Obama victory speech. I was heating up some more soup when he came on, so I pretty much dropped everything except my flag -- which I display proudly in the dining room -- and stood in the middle of the living room weeping. As he spoke, it wasn't hard to allow the flurry of emotions within me to boil over as I wept. I wish I had had my camera handy... the scene was amazing and I'll never forget clutching the flag to my heart, feeling the steady, solid beat of my heart as well as that of the nation as President Elect Obama gave his speech.
I was overwhelmed. Relieved. Thankful. And now, looking at the image of Dr. King which I keep at my desk, I realize that Barack Obama will be inaugurated as the first African American president -- elected to the office based on the content of his character and policies -- on the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I hope that I will be able to make it to DC for the inauguration, but I will always remember where I was the night that he won. The night that we won.
Pat yourself on the back, but...
We all deserve a nice pat on the back for the work we did to elect Barack Obama. Big grins -- we helped save the world yesterday, and we all deserve the pride we feel.
But... as Shark-Fu said on Feministing this morning, equality for all isn't exactly raining down upon America.
Prop 8, banning gay marriage in California, passed. Prop 102 in Arizona, banning gay marriage, also passed. Amendment 2 in Florida, banning not only marriage but civil unions (which happens to affect straight people, Florida, way to go), also passed. Arkansans banned gay couples from adopting or even being foster parents (despite the fact that there are 37,000 children in the foster care system in Arkansas and only about 1,000 foster families). Nebraska banned affirmative action. Via Cara.
So while we worked very hard across America, not only for Barack Obama, but in my state for Christine Gregoire (the race hasn't been called yet, but we'll see how it goes -- I say she wins because Washingtonians know how bad it is in other states and how not-bad it is here); in North Carolina for Kay Hagen who unseated Liddy Dole; in South Dakota to once again defeat abortion-banning legislation; in California to defeat Prop 4, the parental consent law.
We did work hard and we did do a lot of good last night. But the work isn't over. So, while the Obamas pick out their puppy, we can rest and relax for a few minutes, but don't forget that once Obama is innaugurated, once congress is sworn in we have a lot of work still to do.
We still have men and women dying or being seriously injurred on the ground in Iraq.
Osama bin Laden is still at large.
Inequality still reigns in too many parts of the country -- racial, economic, gender, sexual-orientation. Now is the time to address these issues.
Our economy is still a mess and the Freidman Zombies aren't going anywhere.
But, for now, sit back and have a beer. Take our victories in stride and use those to continue to fight for justice. We've proven that we can organize a party of cats, so let's keep the structures in place and make sure that next time we defeat the bans on gay marriage -- or even, gasp, legalize marriage for all pairs of consenting adults. Next time, let's make sure that the peddlers of putrid prejudice lose every battle. Next time, let's make sure that we protect sex workers. Next time, we have to work even harder to make sure to keep the mandate we've established.
There's still a lot to be done, and while I may be protected as someone lucky enough to have brains and privilege, I'll be doing everything I can to help everyone else have the opportunities I do as a straight, mostly white, middle class woman.
There I go, getting all Jeffersonian again... if I had had more time, I would have written less.
But... as Shark-Fu said on Feministing this morning, equality for all isn't exactly raining down upon America.
Prop 8, banning gay marriage in California, passed. Prop 102 in Arizona, banning gay marriage, also passed. Amendment 2 in Florida, banning not only marriage but civil unions (which happens to affect straight people, Florida, way to go), also passed. Arkansans banned gay couples from adopting or even being foster parents (despite the fact that there are 37,000 children in the foster care system in Arkansas and only about 1,000 foster families). Nebraska banned affirmative action. Via Cara.
So while we worked very hard across America, not only for Barack Obama, but in my state for Christine Gregoire (the race hasn't been called yet, but we'll see how it goes -- I say she wins because Washingtonians know how bad it is in other states and how not-bad it is here); in North Carolina for Kay Hagen who unseated Liddy Dole; in South Dakota to once again defeat abortion-banning legislation; in California to defeat Prop 4, the parental consent law.
We did work hard and we did do a lot of good last night. But the work isn't over. So, while the Obamas pick out their puppy, we can rest and relax for a few minutes, but don't forget that once Obama is innaugurated, once congress is sworn in we have a lot of work still to do.
We still have men and women dying or being seriously injurred on the ground in Iraq.
Osama bin Laden is still at large.
Inequality still reigns in too many parts of the country -- racial, economic, gender, sexual-orientation. Now is the time to address these issues.
Our economy is still a mess and the Freidman Zombies aren't going anywhere.
But, for now, sit back and have a beer. Take our victories in stride and use those to continue to fight for justice. We've proven that we can organize a party of cats, so let's keep the structures in place and make sure that next time we defeat the bans on gay marriage -- or even, gasp, legalize marriage for all pairs of consenting adults. Next time, let's make sure that the peddlers of putrid prejudice lose every battle. Next time, let's make sure that we protect sex workers. Next time, we have to work even harder to make sure to keep the mandate we've established.
There's still a lot to be done, and while I may be protected as someone lucky enough to have brains and privilege, I'll be doing everything I can to help everyone else have the opportunities I do as a straight, mostly white, middle class woman.
There I go, getting all Jeffersonian again... if I had had more time, I would have written less.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
This says it all...
TheStranger is the local free paper in Seattle. This was their banner headline tonight. You can find more coverage of the election and its aftermath here.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Vote for Hope, Vote for Barack Obama
I've been wanting to say something important and lasting about this election, occurring tomorrow. 36 hours from now, we'll know who will be the next President.
Ladies and gentlemen of Generations X and Why, this is our time. For the last 30 years the Baby Boomer generation has been running the government, and while some has been good, for the most part the politics and economics of greed fostered by the self-centeredness of the "Me" generation has gotten us where we are. As children, we sat by and could only witness as unions were busted, jobs outsourced, others like us went without healthcare because their single-parents could barely afford to put a roof over their heads. Poverty has increased over the last 30 years and the American Dream has been either stolen or obscured from the views of too many Americans who work just as hard as their rich, or white, or male, or otherwise entitled fellow citizens.
We all want to take care of ourselves. We all want to work hard and succeed -- those characteristics are not limited to people born into privilege. We all deserve to be justly rewarded for our hard work with living wages, affordable healthcare, and the knowledge that we're not sending our tax dollars to bail out banks and other huge industries that didn't have the foresight to listen to Warren Buffet.
We all deserve this. We all deserve change that's going to benefit everyone.
Our planet deserves the kind of leadership that will not only take Global Climate Change seriously, but will also work with leaders of other nations to combat terrorism with food, shelter, and education rather than bombs which only create more terrorists than they kill.
We deserve leaders who take US serious. After 8 years of watching in horror as the Bush Crime FamilyTM has done whatever it wanted, whenever, and without considering the consequences to you, me, Joe the Plumber, or Myles the Soldier or any of our families. We, Americans, have not mattered at all (so long as we shopped and kept our mouths shut about the war) during the past 8 years and it shows.
Barack Obama knows, and you should too, that the work doesn't end tomorrow after all the votes are counted -- the vote BEGINS tomorrow after the votes are counted. Just because we have Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress and a Democratic President does NOT mean that we get to sit back and be satisfied with our work. There's too much left to do. We have to hold their feet to the fire (after they win, of course, we do need to keep focussed on that first) and make sure they do the things they promised to.
But first, you gotta vote. If you've already voted, go to BarackObama.com and find a volunteer opportunity in your area. Make calls, drive people to the polls, go door-to-door reminding people to vote. There's so much at stake here, "we cannot afford to slow down or sit back; we cannot let up for one day or one minute or one second" Barack tells us. He's right.
What's most important is that he's not doing this for himself. He's doing it for all of us. We are all doing this for each other. We have to work together to make sure that we can become a leader in this world once again. That people will continue to have reason to look to the United States for Hope.
We're almost there. Just power forward... "We have to work like our future depends on it this week," Barack says. Because it does.
Yes we can, America. Yes we can.
Ladies and gentlemen of Generations X and Why, this is our time. For the last 30 years the Baby Boomer generation has been running the government, and while some has been good, for the most part the politics and economics of greed fostered by the self-centeredness of the "Me" generation has gotten us where we are. As children, we sat by and could only witness as unions were busted, jobs outsourced, others like us went without healthcare because their single-parents could barely afford to put a roof over their heads. Poverty has increased over the last 30 years and the American Dream has been either stolen or obscured from the views of too many Americans who work just as hard as their rich, or white, or male, or otherwise entitled fellow citizens.
We all want to take care of ourselves. We all want to work hard and succeed -- those characteristics are not limited to people born into privilege. We all deserve to be justly rewarded for our hard work with living wages, affordable healthcare, and the knowledge that we're not sending our tax dollars to bail out banks and other huge industries that didn't have the foresight to listen to Warren Buffet.
We all deserve this. We all deserve change that's going to benefit everyone.
Our planet deserves the kind of leadership that will not only take Global Climate Change seriously, but will also work with leaders of other nations to combat terrorism with food, shelter, and education rather than bombs which only create more terrorists than they kill.
We deserve leaders who take US serious. After 8 years of watching in horror as the Bush Crime FamilyTM has done whatever it wanted, whenever, and without considering the consequences to you, me, Joe the Plumber, or Myles the Soldier or any of our families. We, Americans, have not mattered at all (so long as we shopped and kept our mouths shut about the war) during the past 8 years and it shows.
Barack Obama knows, and you should too, that the work doesn't end tomorrow after all the votes are counted -- the vote BEGINS tomorrow after the votes are counted. Just because we have Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress and a Democratic President does NOT mean that we get to sit back and be satisfied with our work. There's too much left to do. We have to hold their feet to the fire (after they win, of course, we do need to keep focussed on that first) and make sure they do the things they promised to.
But first, you gotta vote. If you've already voted, go to BarackObama.com and find a volunteer opportunity in your area. Make calls, drive people to the polls, go door-to-door reminding people to vote. There's so much at stake here, "we cannot afford to slow down or sit back; we cannot let up for one day or one minute or one second" Barack tells us. He's right.
What's most important is that he's not doing this for himself. He's doing it for all of us. We are all doing this for each other. We have to work together to make sure that we can become a leader in this world once again. That people will continue to have reason to look to the United States for Hope.
We're almost there. Just power forward... "We have to work like our future depends on it this week," Barack says. Because it does.
Yes we can, America. Yes we can.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Boobs for Obama
I know, I know, this is so un-feminist of me... but I've got to use all of my talents to help elect Barack. So, if you weren't already voting for him, may the sight of my cleavage inspire you.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Sure, if you're a sexist, feminism has ruined your love life
One of my homies over at Feministing posted an article by Dr. Wendy Walsh, "How Feminism Hurt Our Love Lives". Oy. There's so much wrong with this article, but before I go into that, I had to do a little research on Dr. Wendy Walsh.
It turns out she's actually got a Ph.D in clinical psychology -- which means she's a therapist, well, actually, she's just overqualified to write self-help books because her undergraduate degree is in journalism. Although, I shouldn't criticize her credentials because I'm sure someday someone is going to criticize me for having my undergrad degree in art rather than something related to law. Bygones. Dr. Walsh has written two books The Girlfriend Test: A Quiz for Women who want to be a Better Date and a Better Mate and The Boyfriend Test: How to Evaluate his Potential Before You Lose Your Heart. I'm not going to go into these books, but suffice it to say, Dr. Walsh writes from a perspective of maintaining heteronormative dating standards, especially the ones that say you're not worth anything, as a woman, if you don't have a man. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but in my opinion anyone who asks "are you girlfriend material?" is going to place a value judgment on the answer.
Now, getting to why feminism ruins people's love lives. At the beginning of the article, Dr. Walsh makes it clear that she is indebted to feminism and she knows it. Good. Perhaps she should have done a little research about feminism, however, rather than just spouting off all of the misconceptions about feminism like...
Let's go back to the femininity thing, in fact, let's go all the way back to sexism.
Weakness is a sexual epithet. If you are weak, either physically or emotionally -- that is, if you show any sort of discomfort at physical or emotional trials -- then you are weak, no matter your gender. That is a societal stigma that feminism strives to defeat. Feminists like myself want to erase the idea that being emotional is a sign of weakness and thereby a sign of being less-than. Weakness leads to vulnerability, and while being vulnerable in the arms of one's lover is a good thing, while meeting new lovers it can be very dangerous. What feminism has done in dating is level the playing field (although, not wholly because women do tend toward showing vulnerability before men do), and taught women to be on their guard because some men are abusive assholes who will take advantage of you. Never forget, of course, that anti-feminism has done the opposite and taught men that any woman is to be taken advantage of because they're all going to use you for your money, trick you into getting married, and blah blah blah. While this could be considered a backlash, it's just misogyny making an attempt to take feminism down with it.
Mary Kay couldn't, even if she had wanted to, just resigned herself to being a middle class housewife, and by claiming that feminism has ruined it for middle class housewives is completely bogus because the majority of feminism's history has been all about the straight, white, middle class, housewife. Up until recently feminism has all but ignored women who didn't fit this mould, so don't tell me that feminism ruined everything for the wife and mother because she is now uncomfortable with the knowledge she has the privilege to be a stay at home mom.
The detriment to relationships and the sacred love-life is not that feminism has allowed women to display their logical sides, it's that sexism and misogyny continue to force the idea on us that women are only emotional and "hold the keys to the emotional locker" and that men are not allowed to do this for themselves. So, yeah, I guess if you're a sexist, feminism has ruined your love life.
"In short, love has become a mystery. Relationships have an arcane quality that puzzles both genders. I personally think that most single men keep hoping that the right woman will come along with the keys to his emotional locker."
In which case he needs to grow up. Being in a relationship is not about replacing your opposite-sex parental figure with a spouse -- that's creepy. I'm not my boyfriend's mother, he's not my father. It's not my job to unlock his "emotional locker" (what the hell is that, by the way?), that's his job. Feminism, and more generally, pluralism, has taught us that we are all individuals (we are all individuals) and the life of each person is that person's responsibility. Having a pluralistic, and specifically feminist, view of the world and the self enhances one's ability to be a good mate. You can't be in an emotionally mature and satisfying relationship if all you're doing is parroting the gender roles that were prescribed to you upon your birth and classification as male or female. It's not possible.
There are a lot of people who find these prescribed gender roles comfortable, but the will do nothing but benefit from the self-searching that questioning gender roles provides. Why do I cook dinner for my boyfriend? Because I'm a good cook. Because I like it. Because he gets home later than I do, and feeding him is just as easy as feeding myself. Why do I do other domestic chores? Because they need to be done, and I have the opportunity. Asking ourselves why we do certain things helps us to be mature, better people. If you're doing something because society tells you to, not because you want or need to do it for your own personal reasons, you're going to be unhappy.
Feminism teaches women and men to question societal gender roles. Do I have to lift weights? Do I have to knit? Do I have to do these things that are prescribed for my gender in order to be happy? No. You don't. You can do things that aren't prescribed for your gender, and no matter which gender stereotypes you conform to, you're no less of a person for it. That's the point. Feminism doesn't just make women more masculine, it also makes men more feminine -- if they WANT to be. I mean, hey, just look at Martha Stewart.
It turns out she's actually got a Ph.D in clinical psychology -- which means she's a therapist, well, actually, she's just overqualified to write self-help books because her undergraduate degree is in journalism. Although, I shouldn't criticize her credentials because I'm sure someday someone is going to criticize me for having my undergrad degree in art rather than something related to law. Bygones. Dr. Walsh has written two books The Girlfriend Test: A Quiz for Women who want to be a Better Date and a Better Mate and The Boyfriend Test: How to Evaluate his Potential Before You Lose Your Heart. I'm not going to go into these books, but suffice it to say, Dr. Walsh writes from a perspective of maintaining heteronormative dating standards, especially the ones that say you're not worth anything, as a woman, if you don't have a man. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but in my opinion anyone who asks "are you girlfriend material?" is going to place a value judgment on the answer.
Now, getting to why feminism ruins people's love lives. At the beginning of the article, Dr. Walsh makes it clear that she is indebted to feminism and she knows it. Good. Perhaps she should have done a little research about feminism, however, rather than just spouting off all of the misconceptions about feminism like...
"I think the whole feminist movement is a bit of a misnomer anyway -- feminism didn't liberate femininity. Feminism liberated masculine energy in women. It was a masculinist movement. This is a good thing. Because of masculism, er, I mean feminism, we can now procure income in the male dominated marketplace and buy ourselves any kind of life we want."Feminism didn't liberate femininity. Funny, that. Before I go into how wrong she is on this point, let's look at the fallacy that is "we can... buy ourselves any kind of life we want", which in her mind does not include the so-called traditional lives that many, many women still live, even in a so-called liberated society. That's not to say that a great deal of the feminist movement hasn't disappointed women who prefer to be housewives, but "any kind of life we want" does not happen to preclude being a wife and mother -- you can even ask Gloria Steinem. But that's just a semantics argument, the real issue here is her insistence that feminism only liberated masculinity in women, but did nothing for femininity.
Let's go back to the femininity thing, in fact, let's go all the way back to sexism.
"Remember the chick you once broke down in tears in the office? How embarrassing, you thought. You vowed then, to never, ever act like a "girl" at work, right? By the way, I was that girl and made an even stronger vow that day. I swore that no one would ever see me as weak again. And, so I trashed my authentic self -- the girl who used to be vulnerable, honest, and aware of my feelings -- and I even began to distrust my own intuition. Intuition, a primal gift to women, now somehow seemed illogical in the workplace."Feminism tells that woman that she's not weak because she cries. Feminism attacks this sexist principal (that women are weak and illogical because they are emotional) and attempts to slit its throat, but people like Dr. Walsh here keep applying first aid to the idea that woman=emotional=illogical=weak. Moreover, it applies the opposite standard to men: that masculinity is anything but these things, ergo the stigma around emotionality as a feminine trait persists to the detriment of individuals and relationships. This is exactly the opposite of what Dr. Walsh claims, that women becoming feminists, becoming strong, ruins relationships because now no one is crying, emotional, illogical, and weak.
Weakness is a sexual epithet. If you are weak, either physically or emotionally -- that is, if you show any sort of discomfort at physical or emotional trials -- then you are weak, no matter your gender. That is a societal stigma that feminism strives to defeat. Feminists like myself want to erase the idea that being emotional is a sign of weakness and thereby a sign of being less-than. Weakness leads to vulnerability, and while being vulnerable in the arms of one's lover is a good thing, while meeting new lovers it can be very dangerous. What feminism has done in dating is level the playing field (although, not wholly because women do tend toward showing vulnerability before men do), and taught women to be on their guard because some men are abusive assholes who will take advantage of you. Never forget, of course, that anti-feminism has done the opposite and taught men that any woman is to be taken advantage of because they're all going to use you for your money, trick you into getting married, and blah blah blah. While this could be considered a backlash, it's just misogyny making an attempt to take feminism down with it.
"Finally, feminism did a disservice to many women who weren't (and aren't) unhappy with traditional gender roles."Really? Is that why all the sexism in the media has disappeared in the last 30 years? Is that why there are no dating websites dedicated to "traditional gender roles"? Is that why the population has gone down so dramatically, and the rate of reproduction since the Women's Lib movement of the 70s has decreased so much? Is that enough sarcasm?
"Feminism robbed them of their identities by devaluing their job description. Millions of women whose self esteem was derived from their role as a great mother or supportive wife were suddenly left with a low-ranking title. There are still many women, (indeed, the backbone of our country) who cringe at a cocktail party when that inevitable small-talk query pops up, "And, what do you do?"No dear, that was unfettered, unregulated Freidmanite Free Market CapitalismTM. Because while many women seek to be more than just wombs and caregivers, there are a lot of women who enjoy being mothers and wives, but their families can't be supported on a single income like they could during the golden age of the middle class in the 50s. It wasn't feminism that destroyed this, it was deregulation of markets, outsourcing of jobs, and wages not keeping up with the cost of living. For centuries lower class women, who didn't have the luxury to remain housewives worked to support their families, and feminism allowed them to demand equal wages and equal opportunities. One of my heros, Mary Kay Ash, began her own feminism movement by starting the Mary Kay Cosmetics company, not because she wanted to be more than a housewife, but because she had worked all her life to support her family and saw men she had trained advancing far and ahead of her.
Somehow it seems awkward to say, "I take pride in my soufflé, kiss plenty of boo boos, find joy in my garden, and I spend a lot of time helping my family with their emotional struggles." No, instead, the woman who does those very things everyday is forced, in public, to extol the merits of the part-time office job that brings her income and not much more."
Mary Kay couldn't, even if she had wanted to, just resigned herself to being a middle class housewife, and by claiming that feminism has ruined it for middle class housewives is completely bogus because the majority of feminism's history has been all about the straight, white, middle class, housewife. Up until recently feminism has all but ignored women who didn't fit this mould, so don't tell me that feminism ruined everything for the wife and mother because she is now uncomfortable with the knowledge she has the privilege to be a stay at home mom.
"And, if you think that a married woman who is in touch with her femininity is a pariah in public, imagine a single woman who is developing hers: "Well, I read a lot of parenting and self-help books. I'm currently dating and hoping to encourage emotional intimacy in a man so that we can form a warm union and grow together." That statement just wouldn't fly, would it? Yet, I think this is what many of us are secreting hoping for."If feminism has taught me anything it's that, as a woman, I should never be ashamed to ask for what I want. If I wanted to be a middle class housewife who takes care of children and is taken care of by my husband, I would have gone to a dating site that caters to people who desire those things. I would have had to marry rich, however, because like most American women, I wasn't born into privilege and I still have to work for a living, just like my boyfriend does. Women who are "secretly hoping" for someone to take care of us, who long for the Cinderella story, basically ignore the fact that in our capitalist society you don't just get a living wage because you have a 40-hour a week job. Middle class is miles away for many of us and that's what you have to be to have the luxury to be a stay-at-home mom. Your beef isn't with feminism, Doc, it's with unfettered capitalism which has destroyed a family's ability to survive on one income.
"It seemed with all the effort to conform and succeed in a male world we unknowingly threw out a crucial, feminine skill -- the ability to be the emotional conduit for a logic-locked man. For centuries, women have held the keys to the emotional locker in relationships."If I wasn't certain Dr. Walsh was absolutely serious about this, I would be laughing my ass off right now. The notion that all men are logical is another of sexism's core principals. Let me offer a little anecdote here: my boyfriend is not logical unless he's programming. He's extremely emotional, and in the right company he's not afraid to let you know that. I, on the other hand, operating under the assumption that all women are emotional messes, am the opposite. My nature is to be very logical, his nature is to be very emotional. This particular gender-role is reversed, and it's not a detriment to our relationship. What would be detrimental to both our individual and relational well-beings would be to pretend that I am not logical and that he isn't emotional.
The detriment to relationships and the sacred love-life is not that feminism has allowed women to display their logical sides, it's that sexism and misogyny continue to force the idea on us that women are only emotional and "hold the keys to the emotional locker" and that men are not allowed to do this for themselves. So, yeah, I guess if you're a sexist, feminism has ruined your love life.
"In relationships, our retreat from any behavior that might be deemed submissive has caused us to throw out the baby with the bath water. We are so afraid of submission that we have forgotten how to be supportive."Submission=!=support, for the record. I'm plenty supportive (and in some private instances submissive) in my relationship, but I'm not dumb enough to confuse or be afraid of either of them. My nurturing of the Mister is not subverting my will, and any emotionally mature adult knows the same.
"Indeed many of our Mothers, so inspired by the feminist ideal, deliberately forgot to teach us about love, relationships, nurturing, or -- God forbid! -- the power and creativity derived from running a loving household."Once again, Doc, your beef isn't with feminism, it's with capitalism. Wanna know why my mom didn't have the opportunity to teach me about running a loving household? Cause she was working. She had to work, and she worked her ass off just to keep a roof over my head. It wasn't that she was inspired by the feminist ideal, it was that she didn't have the luxury of being born into privilege and therefore not having to focus all of her energy on paying the bills. She didn't forget: she was busy making sure I had food. I suspect that that is the case for most of these "Mothers" who "deliberately forgot". They didn't forget dick, working for a living sucks.
"Martha Stewart reminds us of what's missing in our lives, as we manage our hectic schedules, eating from take-out boxes, in our immaculate granite kitchens, wearing our own purchases, and juggling would-be suitors who don't happen to suit us this week."Martha fucking Stewart. One of the most successful women in America. A woman so successful that she was punished for her success under the guise of "insider trading" and sent to jail. A woman so successful that her prison sentence was minimized when the federal facility was called "Camp Cupcake". Martha Stewart is not someone whose visage you want to conjure while demonizing feminism. Martha Stewart is a pioneer for feminists, even if she does support her empire doing traditionally feminine things, like crafts and baked goods. Good! She's doing what she loves and making a fantastic living at it! She's a perfect role model for capitalists and feminists! By the way, Martha is a divorced single mother. She doesn't exactly have the luxury not to be a brilliant business woman.
"In short, love has become a mystery. Relationships have an arcane quality that puzzles both genders. I personally think that most single men keep hoping that the right woman will come along with the keys to his emotional locker."
In which case he needs to grow up. Being in a relationship is not about replacing your opposite-sex parental figure with a spouse -- that's creepy. I'm not my boyfriend's mother, he's not my father. It's not my job to unlock his "emotional locker" (what the hell is that, by the way?), that's his job. Feminism, and more generally, pluralism, has taught us that we are all individuals (we are all individuals) and the life of each person is that person's responsibility. Having a pluralistic, and specifically feminist, view of the world and the self enhances one's ability to be a good mate. You can't be in an emotionally mature and satisfying relationship if all you're doing is parroting the gender roles that were prescribed to you upon your birth and classification as male or female. It's not possible.
There are a lot of people who find these prescribed gender roles comfortable, but the will do nothing but benefit from the self-searching that questioning gender roles provides. Why do I cook dinner for my boyfriend? Because I'm a good cook. Because I like it. Because he gets home later than I do, and feeding him is just as easy as feeding myself. Why do I do other domestic chores? Because they need to be done, and I have the opportunity. Asking ourselves why we do certain things helps us to be mature, better people. If you're doing something because society tells you to, not because you want or need to do it for your own personal reasons, you're going to be unhappy.
Feminism teaches women and men to question societal gender roles. Do I have to lift weights? Do I have to knit? Do I have to do these things that are prescribed for my gender in order to be happy? No. You don't. You can do things that aren't prescribed for your gender, and no matter which gender stereotypes you conform to, you're no less of a person for it. That's the point. Feminism doesn't just make women more masculine, it also makes men more feminine -- if they WANT to be. I mean, hey, just look at Martha Stewart.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)