"Your Comments Here"

Some of you may remember the incident at the Yale Women's Center where male students stood outside the Center with a sign saying, "We love Yale sluts" while chanting "dick dick dick" - apparently something they meant as a joke. When the school found the group not guilty of intimation and harassment, I wrote about my own experience and the less blatant, yet still present, sexism at Yale Divinity School.

A group of feminists and graphic artists have taken all the comments left on Yale Daily News articles about the incident and made an incredibly powerful poster that they put up around campus last week:


Reading the comments on this poster brought me to tears. The virulent words, hate and general disrespect for the Women's Center and by proxy, all women, makes me sick to my stomach. The supposed anonymity of the internet brings out the worst in people - or maybe the truth in people, but that they're too ashamed to say to someone's face.

To those people who don't think that sexism is pervasive through our culture, read the poster.

Here's a larger image in case you want to fully experience the poster.

BlogThings Doesn't Want to Get Some Coffee with Me After Class

You Are A Bad Date!

Sometimes it just seems like your heart isn't in it At least, not unless the guy is a dead ringer for Brad Pitt (with more money) You just don't spend enough time wondering if he's having fun... And newsflash - he probably isn't!

Do Men Think You're a Good Date?

Oh God, where to start? Of course my heart is not in a date if the man is not attractive. I see how BlogThings tried to assume that I was a bad girl for not being enthused about a man who undoubtedly spent far far less time on his appearance than I did.

For that matter, who walks around wondering if they are pleasing the person they are with? Women, that's who! Look, dude, if you don't like me, get up and leave. That's for you to decide. If you want me to bat my eyelashes and act like I think you're the hottest thing since the invention of the wheel, you are completely delusional. Honestly, I would be questioning someone's motives if they were so enthused about spending time with someone they hardly know that they are constantly second-guessing if the other person is having fun.

Also, thanks for the snarky newsflash (seriously, who the hell still uses such cliches outside of satire?), but if a guy can't have fun unless I am acting like he is some male Adonis and I am so insecure that I constantly cater his needs by wondering what I would possibly do to make him have fun, then I'm glad I'm raining on his egotistic parade.

So what did I do to BlogThings to make them assume I am such a craptastic date?

First, they asked me what would be a good spot for a first date. I would never want to see any sort of movie with Julia Roberts or Reese Witherspoon, so that option was out. Furthermore, I do not have the money to be spending it on a nice dinner and concert tickets for a guy I do not even know (shit, I can't even afford to do that with my best friends), so that option was crossed off. I figured that I liked lunches, and lunches at quiet spots, and lunches at quiet spots with views, so I picked that one. Sounded low-maintenance, friendly, and cheap.

Then we moved onto my pre-date beauty ritual. I was a bit stumped at this question. Honestly, it's not a "beauty ritual". I do not pray at any sort of altar for the gods of porn to bless me with a suitably fuckable face. I immediately knew that I did not spend an hour doing anything remotely like painting my nails and doing my hair, so that option was out. I do have minimum standards of hygiene, however, and I abhor being late, so I could not choose "you really don't have one - unless rushing to make the date on time counts," even as much as I wanted to out of spite for the stupidity of the idea of any sort of beauty "ritual". So I settled on a new shirt, some perfume, and refreshing my lipstick. Even though I don't wear lipstick.

Okay, now we finally get to things about men. Of course, it's things about how I react to men, rather then how men treat me. Because how a man would treat me on a date has no bearing on my behavior on that date. No sir 'ee. I am the picture of modesty and feminine grace no matter how much of a douchebag my potential paramour might happen to be. It's my duty as a woman to deal with the bullshit of men because "boys will be boys" and my lack of penis means I must suffer losers and misogynists by God's holy decree.

So, question three: "What do you try to find out about a guy on the first date?" First, I do not "catch" men, and I am not interested in his suitability to being "caught". I would not bring up the topic of money and income on a first date, probably because I have neither and the issue is fairly touchy for me right at the moment. Also, Donald Trump is probably one of the biggest sexist pricks on the planet, so it's fairly obvious that income does not have much of a bearing on personality. I was tempted to pick "what he's like as a boyfriend... to see if you want to be with him", but then I thought better. Hi, earth to Jen: it's a first date. You don't plan cakes and wedding and moving in together on the first date. I don't even know what the guy likes to do, what kind of person he is, and whether or not I can stand him for a full evening, so I'm not about to question if I want to "be with him". That statement could also be taken as whether or not I was willing to sleep with him on the first date, and then my answer would be a resounding "check please!" coupled with a quick brush-off. So obviously I needed to pick the option that stated that I needed to see what he did for fun and if we had enough common ground to even be friends. Honestly, I don't fuck people I don't like as people. It's not a good situation all around.

Next, the quiz wondered what my reaction would be to a guy who claimed that he loved rollerblading (people still do that?) and that he used to do it every weekend with his last ex. My typical reaction would ask why he does not anymore, simply because I cannot fathom a world in which the prerequisite to exercising with someone is sleeping with them, and that this exercising must immediately cease upon the ending of the sex. So you only have fun with the people you're sleeping with? Check please! But that wasn't an option. Pity. I had to skip over the answer that I would tell him that that was "awesome". Really, rollerblading is not so exciting that I am going to lie about my opinion, because I do not have one, of it. I would also not tell him that his hobby was stupid because my ex-boyfriend used to take me on elaborate trips on the weekends. My ex-boyfriend's idea of a weekend get-away was pestering me to have sex on his roommate's bed. I would probably say something about how I used to love rollerblading, because I actually did, and ask him where he liked to rollerblade. It's always nice to keep tabs on places that are friendly to transportation devices other than cars.

So now my date asks me why I am single. If he was a bad date, I would probably respond that, "because I have had a series of really bad relationships. Also, I hate reruns. Check please!" If he was a good date, I would shrug and say that most dates do not go as well as this one did, and I must have standards. Of course, BlogThings is neither as witty, nor as intelligent as me, so neither of these options were available. First, the idea of "Mr.Right" coming along to make me happy with his shlong of manly awesomeness is pathetic, so that's a no. Complaining about my last relationships ("oh, the last one cheated on me with my now ex-best friend, the one before that was not a man--by the way I'm bisexual, and the one before that raped me") probably is not a good idea either. Thus, I'd tell him that I am busy and that I haven't "clicked with anyone yet".

Now I have to assume that my date is boring. Hardly a stretch. Then, it is revealed that my waiter is attractive, and single. What do I do? Well, I'm certainly not going to corner him, while still on my date, and ask for his number. Advertising my willingness to boy scout in entirely inappropriate moments is not prudent. Likewise, I would not slip him a note on the way out. Having standards, I would probably finish the date, keep my hands to myself, and then come back to the restaurant later, alone, because I'm not stupid.

To mix it up, now I have to assume my date is not boring. I might have to use some brainpower for this exercise. My phone rings, so what do I do? The idea of answering it and saying something to whoever is on the line about how great my date is would be stupid beyond words. Really, why should I have to act so coy? I didn't even bother to look at any other answer other than the one that included "this does not happen because I know where the off button my cell is". If I am in a one-on-one situation with another person, I turn my fucking cellphone off. I also expect the other person to do the same. Common courtesy, where art thou? I'm on a date with John Doe, not with my best friend and my potentially "just checking up" mother. Also, I really hate it when I suddenly become the third wheel to someone who is not even there, so I would never do that to someone. Phone is off.

Now my hypothetical date is over. My first option inspires the gag reflex: asking him to kiss me. Oh lord. If I want to kiss, then I ask him if I can kiss him. Look buddy, these are my lips, I want a kiss, and if you would be a willing participant in this kissing adventure, nod yes and off we go! Also, the idea of asking someone to do something to me, like I am some sort of object, is gross. No thanks. Furthermore, I will not ask someone to call me like I wait by the phone for his approval. Neither do I ask if I should call him. If I want to spend time with you, I'll call. If you want to spend time with me, you call. Why must I make dating into this bizarre "please do X to me because I am too helpless to do it myself"? So, if the date was good, I'd be likely to say, "that was so much fun. Thanks for taking me out!" Because it's nice to thank people for spending enjoyable time with you, and to express how much you enjoyed spending time with them. Hey, I'm blunt and honest.

So, I submitted my test on a lark. And BlogThings told me I was a shitty date. I'm going to assume that this is because I date like a person trying to discover if I like someone rather then dating like a coy flirty "chick" trying to manipulate a egomanic into wanting to do dirty degrading things to me.

Oh how bad am I? I date under the assumption that (a) I like you as a person and (b) I am attracted to you. If either are false, then I'm not dating you. Thus, a first date is an experiment of how I feel. I could really give a shit about pleasing someone else by being something I am not.

Then my results tell me: Newsflash, Jen! Men don't want to date women with standards for themselves and others, and they certainly don't want to date someone more interested in how a woman feels about a guy as person then how much that woman would like to them to fuck her. Because if I have standards, and I want you as a person, that means that you have to behave and meet me somewhere in the middle.

In this crazy world, however, dating isn't about my happiness or your charm, it's about how much I can fake liking men for their enjoyment. Thanks for the update BlogThings!

(Cross-posted)

Women aren't Human

As much as I would like to deny it, some people really do think that women aren't human.

Really.

Consider the Humanist. He or she says that they are opposed to Feminism. They object to the "raising of one gender above another" and would rather spend time crusading for human rights. Among those that profess such lofty sentiments are MRAs, intellectuals, liberal dudez, anti-feminist women, and control-troll writers.

So how do I know that they think women aren't human?

Simple! If they profess those who are for women's rights are against or not for human rights, they are operating under the premise that the movement for women's full agency is somehow in opposition or contrary to the movement for full human rights. The only way that an ideology that speaks for the female gender, or 51% of the global population, is not for human rights is if women are not human.

So next time someone tells you that they think feminism is anti-human rights, or that it is too myopic, tell them that you don't associate with morons who think the prerequisite for humanity is a penis.

(Cross-posted)

A Feminist Tour of Cosmopolitan: July Issue 2008

I recently received the July 2008 edition of Cosmopolitan as a joke for my birthday, and I thought that it would be interesting to examine it from a feminist perspective. This is what I found:

The Cover:
Carrie Underwood. Well, at least she’s dressed. Better than most covers, where the women look like they are "dressed" for men’s magazines. Also the cover says “man” “he” or “guy” seven times but “women” or “she” only once.

After the credits, we have the “Cosmo Beauty Coupons!” OMGZ!

Then we have a couple of pages of ads: make-up, soap, face cream, shoes.

Next the “Why Don’t You…” section. “Why don’t you get a killer bikini butt, make sangria, seduce a dude with soft skin, treat him to a chilly thrill, stay on your guy’s mind 24/7?” Well, I think it’s become obvious that this is a heteronormative magazine. And we haven’t even gotten to the articles yet.

Then comes the “Hot Sheet: 10 Things Being Buzzed About Right Now”. I think my favorites are number 3, 5, and 7.
3. “Decoding Dude Dates” informs the reader how to determine if two guys out together are dating or just friends. If they are gay, Cosmo writer Molly Fahner explains, they may: whisper, share an armrest, eat from the same popcorn, or sit with their feet on the floor. But, if they are just friends, they will talk loudly, keep their spaces separate, and eat from individual bags.
5. “56: The percentage of women who would rather be thinner than smarter.”
7. “Saving Men” Yep. Cosmo wrote about the book “Save the Males.” And gave it merit.

The Carrie Underwood interview comes next. It’s a pretty standard celebrity interview detailing her love life and asking if she considers herself a “good girl” or a “bad girl”.

“Why You May Be Avoiding Love” explains that women are putting off marriage longer and longer, which it encourages. Okay, that’s good. 1 Point for Cosmo.

Well, minus that point. I flipped the page to find the question and accompanying photos “Cheek Peek vs. Bare Butt”. And I got to ask myself the immortal question: Do I prefer Kate Hudson in a regular bikini or a thong bikini? Almost as thought provoking as “To be or not to be”?

Another make-up ad and then the regular feature, “Sexy vs. Skanky”; keeping it classy every month, Cosmo, with this column.

Then the “Confessions” and “Guy Confessions” feature with a several anecdotes about embarrassing moments and silly stories. Pretty standard magazine fare.

A few more ads, including an Axe ad.

“The Man Report” attempts to help women understand men (because men all think and act the same).

Next Cosmo helps its readers understand their man by the position he sleeps in. Nothing like avoiding actual communication with your partner.

Another section on understanding the men comes next. Nothing too shocking.

More ads.

Then the “Guy without his shirt”, this month featuring 24 year old, Brett Novek from Florida and his very chiseled chest.

Then there’s an interview with Usher and a few more ads.

Then a couple of “stories” on clothing, which are really ads.
Followed by a few “stories” on makeup, which are really ads.
Then a few “stories” on hair, perfume, skin, and hair, which are really ads.

An interview with Vanessa Hudgens, and more ads.

Then an article on having “Extra-Naughty Sex.” I am all for exploring your body and having any kind of sex you like, but this article encourages women to try new kinds of sex for their partner’s pleasure, not their own. (There is one line about how adventurous sex affects adrenaline and dopamine in the brain will affect the reader’s pleasure, but the vast majority of the article focuses on the benefits for the man) Of course, partner’s pleasure is important, but with only 30% of women having an orgasm every time and 74% of men having orgasms every time they have sex, being a little selfish in bed is acceptable.

Next Cosmos readers will discover “50 Tiny Gestures That Make Him Love You More”. Many of the tips are sweet, but some are just silly: “Buy him a big, manly flashlight (a “manly flashlight” seriously?!).”

An article about masturbation is featured next. Yay for masturbation! But, seriously, good for Cosmo for encouraging women to explore their bodies and discover what gives them pleasure.

“Advice Guy Pals Want to Give You” is basically another article written to help women understand men.

Then “The Hottest Words to Say During Sex” tells women what to say when they orgasm, so men will know they’ve done a good job. Okay…

“Ask Him Anything” is a sex advice column, followed by the fictional “Bedroom Blog”.

“The Cosmo Post” features stories about real women such as “Running On Hope” about a running club for the homeless and “My Dad Was a Sperm Donor.”

More ads.

Then “Summer Dangers You Don’t Think About” includes “Road Hazards”, “Hiking Trails”, “Biking and Jogging Paths” and “Anywhere After Dark.” That’s nice, Cosmo, make women afraid to go anywhere after dark.

Another ad posing as a “story”.

Then the “Bitch It Out” section, featuring women’s stories about what is pissing them off this month. Sigh. I really hate the word “bitch”.

A few more standard magazine articles.

Oh, wonderful. “10 Signs You’re Being Too Bitchy” it’s a satire article, but the use of the word “bitch” again makes me very uncomfortable.

Then, “Fascinating Facts About Rich Guys”. This blog has gotten comments calling all women golddiggers, and I’ve often wondered where they come from. None of my friends plan on marrying a guy for his money. But, I think we’ve found the source of these rumors.

“Caught Butt Naked” is a collection of anecdotes about being caught having sex.

A fashion spread featuring a white model.
Another fashion spread featuring a white model.

Some more standard magazine articles.

Then, Cosmo has an article on STDs. Okay, cool.

An astrology page is next. Pretty standard.

Next is Cosmo’s “Red-Hot Reads” which features an excerpt from an “erotic novel.”

A few pages of ads.

A quiz: “Do Guys See You As Girlfriend Material?”

Cosmo is a magazine. Its meant to be light and silly. But, the tone of the magazine is decidedly regressive. Between the pages and pages of ads, Cosmo re-inforces some pretty sorry ideas and sets the standard for other women's magazines.

I think my dream women's magazine would be radically different. It would feature an awesome female blogger on the cover (Jessica from Feministing, maybe) and have articles about travel, news, food and stories about friendship and lasting love (between people of all races, genders, religions, and economic classes). What would your ideal magazine look like?

Smash that patriarchy!

I would like to thank those of you who are being brought to this blog from CounterFem, Misandryreview, and Antimisandry because...

...a hit on this blog is a hit against the patriarchy!*

Have a lovely day!





*Quote by Kate.

Anonymity, Internet Enable Sexism

Cross-posted at XXBlaze

Anonymity gives people the gall to do and say what they would never think of doing if it had their real face and name attached to it. I suppose I am as guilty as many; I usually avoid frontal head shots in profile pictures or using my very distinctive surname. I like to use this anonymity to say things that I do not have the courage to say, or to say the things that I feel I have no real audience for. After all, no one in my Jewish family really wants to hear any negative thoughts about Palestine, do they? More importantly, anonymity allows me to act the way I wish, instead of how I think that others expect me to act. I am free to share my same-sex relationships here, away from people that know me, because of the judgment that I fear will follow me in my professional pursuits.

This anonymity has allowed me to grow as a person. I can be who I feel like I need to be, and say what I want to say without a fear of consequence. I can stand up for what I believe and what I think and not be just another cog in the machine. I have taken this opportunity to be anonymous with open arms, embraced it, and turned it into a marvelous experience of self-awakening and growth.

However, I increasingly find that this use of anonymity is fairly rare on the internet. In my public face-to-face feminist protests and meetings, very little negativity is said to my face. Most people have tact so instilled in them that they will not say something sexist to a very vocal feminist's face. I am increasingly aware that this does not mean that they do not hold their misogyny very close to their hearts, and perhaps talk about that "bitch of a cunt at that Vagina Monologues table on Senior Lawn" to their friends. Most of all, I am very aware that if given the opportunity of anonymity, the expression of their patriarchy socialization knows no tact.

Anonymous message board postings have ruined my chance at an elected position in our large campus Democratic organization by references to my "feminazi adherence to Hillary Clinton" and the worry that I will "vote with my vagina" in university matters as well.

Myspace bulletins helped drive a high school classmate of mine to a suicide attempt when it was leaked that she was about to prosecute a high school teacher, the coach of the nationally placed soccer team, for sexual assault. Messages like "whore", and "stupid slut, ruining an the life of an important part of our community" were commonplace. The case was dropped, the man who tried to rape an ex-student after plying her with alcohol goes free, and the combination of the injustice, betrayal, and shame land someone I brushed elbows with in Pre-Calculus in the hospital with charcoal and aspirin being bumped out of her stomach.

A political forum I frequent claims that I "give feminists a bad name", urges that I "lighten up and remove that stick from your vagina", or that I should "listen up you cunt". JAP (Jewish American Princess), slut, attention whore, feminazi, Daddy's girl are common slurs and double as argumentative tactics. A large group of seemingly liberal and educated politically-minded people find no fault with attacking a woman for daring to be a feminist in a public space, for having the gall to accuse them and their society of misogyny.

These are only my personal experiences. I do not doubt that most of you have had similar, and perhaps even more serious instances of shaming, assault, insult, harassment, and sabotage by expressing your adherence to women's issues, by not having a penis, or any combination of the above. Once respectable communication outlets and blogs like DailyKos is overrun with bigots and trolls that harass female bloggers. TIME magazine mocks the feminist movement. The lowest of the low, 4chan.org's random image board (very NSFW), is populated by anonymous users that share rape porn, inform women "[show us your] tits, [or] get the fuck out", and circulate pictures of underage girls with cries to "stick it in her pooper"!

Meanwhile, new studies are showing that sexist jokes, the very kind of low-brow excuse that sexist pigs use when called out on their bigotry, foster discrimination towards women and higher toleration of sexism. Our days are littered with the corpses of thousands objectified and mocked women, and still it seems that nobody seems to grasp that there is some sort of negative consequence for the defense of the patriarchy that masks itself in humor and anonymity.

We have known for a long time that the streets are not safe for women. Public forums do not welcome those that do not adhere to their feminine socialization and titter appealingly at sexist slurs and demeaning groping. Even in our own homes, we are not safe. Not only are women at risk of being assaulted by their brothers, fathers, and husbands, they are verbally assaulted every day under the excuse of the First Amendment and humor and enabled by anonymity in chatrooms, by email, and in social websites.

The internet has allowed me to be who I truly am. However, the internet has also allowed many others the same opportunity, and it seems that they truly are sexist pigs.

Feminism shall smite thee, Mother Earth!

Oh, Jack Cashill. Oh, WorldNetDaily. This is just great. I don't think I've heard the claim that feminists are bad for the environment before (although young feminists as "wild" and "pole dancers" is an idea that seems to be going around).

I know that there are at least some occasional readers of this blog who identify as both feminist and some sort of environmentalist. Well, Jack Cashill has found you guys out: He knows you really just want to destroy the environment by not relying on men for your livelihood. You can stop pretending now.

"Equal pay for equal work also means equal commutes. In California, it is not at all unusual in two-income families for the two jobs to be an hour or more apart.

With only one parent in the workforce, the family has the ability to live closer to the breadwinner's place of employment, and most do.

Indeed, stay-at-homes moms save the state's highway infrastructure from meltdown, especially since a "nanny" often drives to the working mom's house, putting three cars on the road where otherwise one would do.

Homeschooling moms further ease the strain on the ecosystem by keeping their kids off the road."

Mr. Jack Cashill, I think, deserves some sort of acknowledgment for this absurd attempt at discrediting feminism without really addressing, you know, any of the true aims of the movement (which has nothing to do with environmental degradation). And I'm not talking about giving him positive reinforcement.

P.S. Happy Earth Day!

Via Feministing.

Reaction to Charlotte Allen Op-Ed: Live Q&A!

I had to miss the "live" part because I was in my calculus class being dim.

But here's a link that shows some questions submitted by readers, and Charlotte Allen's responses to them. In case you're new to the story, read this to see why she made readers of The Washington Post so mad.

"Washington: You write that you doubt women's representation in such fields as law (the Supreme Court) and medicine (brain surgeons) will rise much in the 21st century. However more women than men currently are graduating from law school and medical school. Could you please comment on this apparent contradiction?

Charlotte Allen: That's absolutely true, but the proportion of women at the highest levels of these fields is going to remain relatively small, I predict."

Hmm, Charlotte. You could be right, there. But honestly...I wonder why that might be (and I'm kind of guessing that it's not because women are stupid).

And just so you know, the moderators at washingtonpost had complete editorial power to decide which questions got asked in the first place.

It just keeps getting better...

Just read this update on Feministing:

Apparently that Charlotte Allen editorial that I blogged about yesterday provoked a large backlash among readers because The Washington Post changed its headline from the assertive "Women Aren't Very Bright" to the questioning "Why Do Women Act So Dumb?"

Now we only act dumb.

EDIT: On Politico: Washington Post Outlook editor, John Pomfret, said that Allen's article was supposed to be "tongue-in-cheek."

I don't care. What did publishing her editorial accomplish besides pissing off a lot of would-be readers? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion (and let's face it, Allen's opinion is probably hugely profitable for her), but why publish something that is only going to hurt people? What was the merit in publishing her opinion? It advanced nothing but the ludicrous idea that women are inferior. It made sweeping generalizations, and that is NOT a basis for sound argument, and personally, I believe that ONLY sound arguments should be allowed to be printed. It shouldn't have been published, and The Washington Post should just own up to their grievous error.

AGAIN: In case you missed it, Charlotte Allen annoys me [thanks to Dark Matter for showing me the way to a concise listing of why Charlotte will never be on my good list].

Women, let's focus on what's important, like homemaking.

The Washington Post published a riveting editorial today that was written by Charlotte Allen, an anti-feminist member of the Independent Women's Forum. Golly, there was so much I didn't know about being a woman until I read this! For example, women are stupid. You should really read it for yourself.

About women's reactions to some of Sen. Barack Obama's rallies, Allen had this to say (emphasis mine):

"…I can't help it, but reading about such episodes of screaming, gushing and swooning makes me wonder whether women -- I should say, "we women," of course -- aren't the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial."

Oh, and this on the proper role of women!:

"…So I don't understand why more women don't relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home…Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts' content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are . . . kind of dim."

Yeah…good point. Why am I spending thousands of dollars on a college education when I could take care of people (like babies!) and focus on being a homemaker? That would suit my innate stupidity. Wait, I’m not fond of children, and I can’t even keep my room clean. And I guess graduating as valedictorian was just some kind of fluke, right?

Write a letter to the editor of The Washington Post here.

EDIT: Along those same, stupid lines.