Little Rant

So, basically, I'm pissed.

My roommate was flipping channels earlier, and she landed on the show Reaper, which is basically about a guy who sold his soul to the devil and has to do errands for him. So, on the episode today, there was this gem of a quote:

On seeing a supermodel, dead, because someone had thrown acid on her:
"Why would a woman do that to another woman?"
"Why else would a woman be this angry, the angriest? Jealousy."

Hardy Har Har.
Yeah, Reaper, because women don't get angry over politics, the environment, racism, abuse, religion, or, you know, sexism.

Aw, shit, I just did.

Amazing Feminism is Happening

A little feminist sunshine for your evening!

Girls Write Now is a mentoring program in New York City for low-income, first generation, and immigrant young women who are paired up with women writers in the city. They work together on writing and editing, but they also talk about education, goals, and family.

This is a wonderful program, and it brings to light an important feminist concern: mentoring. Women have been graduating from college at a higher rate than men for several years now, but men still hold nearly all of the high positions within most companies. One reason for this seems to be mentoring, or The Old Boys Club.

Women are less openly discriminated in the workplace and often even invited to after-work "bonding," such as drinks, but sexism is still present. The conversations during these "bonding" events often steers away from topics women can relate to; just because these drinks are not taking place in a strip club, does not mean sexism is not there. Older men often feel closer to younger men and, whether consciously or not, the older men will pass on advice or give recommendations for these younger men.

Older women are not exempt from this sexism. Older women may choose not to recognize the merit of younger women's work because of competition. Many women feel that there are only so many places for women are these companies, and for their own sake, choose to mentor young men.

Which is why Girls Write Now is such a great program and a reason why I am SO excited about it!

"my inner feminist weeps"

I like to peruse the PostSecret blog every Sunday. This is one of the postcards I found this week, and it made me wonder, Why?

Why should this feminist feel bad when her boyfriend does something to her that she clearly enjoys? If it was consensual, I say her feminist should just enjoy the experience without any hidden guilt.

I have heard people say, "I believe in women's rights, but I like to wear dresses, so I'm not really a feminist," or "I like guys and I want to get married, so I'm not a feminist."

The problem with these all-too-common (false) assumptions about feminists is that they assume that feminism only includes one type of woman, and that woman is a nonsexual, androgynous lesbian. Is that description true of some feminists? Absolutely. But that by no means implies that is the only kind of feminist. Feminism includes so many different women, all with different feminist concentrations, looks, and personal tastes that it is wrong to assume that someone is not a feminist because of one aspect of their life. The picture is much bigger than that.

In short, you can be a feminist even if you like being spanked, as long as you CHOOSE to be spanked. This person's secret makes it seem like she feels un-feminist because she enjoys being spanked, and I would have to heartily disagree with that idea.

"When a man agrees to pay $250 for 90 minutes with a woman, what do most men expect in that time?"

Slut shaming!

'D.C. Madam' sighs as jury finds her guilty

A federal jury convicted a woman Tuesday of running a prostitution service that catered to members of Washington's political elite.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, 52, sighed as the verdict was read.

She had repeatedly denied that the escort service engaged in prostitution, saying that if any of the women engaged in sex acts for money, they did so without her knowledge.

My favorite part of the article:

Three of Palfrey's clients testified during the weeklong trial in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, explaining how they found the service, how often they called, what they were hoping for and whether they got it during their visits.

"When a man agrees to pay $250 for 90 minutes with a woman, what do most men expect in that time?" prosecutor Daniel Butler asked during closing arguments Monday. "In that context, it's pretty clear. Most men want sex."

Well, if they pay for the time, expect and want sex, of course it's a prostitution service. And by all means, those whores should put out. They're getting paid after all! I mean, if you go on a date with a girl and pay for dinner, she owes you. [/sarcasm]'

Edit: I remembered someone recently had written something good about the trial recently and just found it.

Some highlights of the article about the trial from the Washington Post include how the prosecution asked irrelevant and invasive questions about the escort's sex lives such as "Did you specifically discuss what happened when you went in the shower?" and "What would happen if you were menstruating?" and from the article, "[The prosecutor] had her talk about when she was 'aggressive' with a client, when she was 'more submissive,' when she had a difficult client ('he tried to remove the condom') and how often she got 'intimate.'"

Also, the prosecution required the naming of all of the businesses escorts, over 100 women who used to work for the company. Included in this group are a navel officer who has been put on leave after being forced to testify at the trial.

Vanessa over at Feministing has it right: We all know who should really be ashamed here.

Male + clothes = female?

This is a point I made in the comments of the last post, but I thought it warranted its own discussion.

What's the difference between Bugs Bunny and Bugs Bunny in drag?


Shoes, clothing, eyelashes, feminine accessories. In other words, the physical markings of femininity.

So, to stand without shoes or clothing or feminine accessories inherently makes Bugs Bunny male. It implies that the only way you can tell if someone is female is by the physical additions to their appearance and that the default sex is male. To be female means that first you have to start out as male, and then add the dress. There's a whole lot of psychoanalysis and penis envy theories that circle around this idea, but without Bugs Bunny.

I'm not endorsing psychoanalysis by any means, but just pointing out the similarities between this and the whore/man-whore language a commenter used.

Props to outcrazyophelia and Amelia for jumping on the whore/man-whore dichotomy language issue right away.


Look! A ponytail and a t-shirt! That one's a girl!

Props to my film professor for pointing this out.

All the naked ladies

I think that the human body is beautiful in its many shapes and forms, and I think that it should be respected. I think it's great that people can love their bodies enough to want to take photos. Even nude photos. But I wonder if Hollywood feels the same.

The ABC website featured this slide show of women who have taken off their clothes for magazine covers, and it really makes me wonder: In Hollywood, do women really have a choice about whether or not to keep their clothes on?

I sort of touched on this issue in my post about Miley Cyrus, but I will admit, I don't know Hollywood that well. But all these pictures of young, nude, female stars make it seem to me that it might not be so much of a choice after all.

I know that there are women who love their bodies and would be excited to do a nude cover shoot. I also know that taking one's clothes off in front of other people could possibly be a liberating experience. But when we look at all these magazine covers in context, do we really see these nude women as being empowered?

In American society, I would say, it is rather common to see famous young women dressed provocatively, and covers like the ones I linked to are not uncommon at all. The reason that these covers are so commonplace is that they help sell magazines. It's true. So if a a naked young female star's body on a magazine means that a magazine will sell more copies, doesn't it also mean that if a female star wants the most exposure to the most people, she should take off her clothes?

Women in Hollywood are not dumb. Many of them know what will sell easily, and that happens to be, very often, at least near-nudity. And when things sell with their bodies associated with them, it means that they will make more money. So is it really a choice, then, for women to take their clothes off? Perhaps. But it seems to me like it may be one of only a few choices that Hollywood allows these women to make if they want to make money.

As a side note: It bothers me that women's bodies are what people focus on in Hollywood, because it means that a lot of times we only see perfection, not reality, and that does not send healthy messages to girls who look real (click on the porfolio link at the top - thanks to Shakesville).

Tilly and the Wall

Tilly and the Wall - Not only is it good music, their percussion is tap dancing. Awesome? Yes.

Carl's Jr doesn't match up to my mom

Because eating right and exercising more means eating a bacon cheeseburger on a mechanical bull.

I don't really consider Carl's Jr. to be any sort of authority on a healthy lifestyle*. I do, however, listen to my mom about pretty much anything. You really want advice on living a healthy lifestyle? Check out my mom's blog for information on healthy eating habits that don't include mechanical bulls. She's got tips and recipes and all sorts of motherly goodness.




*When I use the phrase "healthy living," I mean eating your fruits and veggies, knowing what a portion of food really is, getting an adequate amount of exercise, washing behind your ears... Not an anorexic, workoutaholic, dirty-ears living.

Reusable Menstrual Products = Awesome

For my birthday, my sister-in-law got me The Keeper, which I absolutely love. If you don't know what The Keeper is, it's a reusable feminine hygiene product (aka a latex cup. super cool).

It's environmentally and economically friendly. At $35, they're supposed to last for 10 years. I'd say that's a lot better than buying a $5 box of tampons every month. Not only are you saving money, you're saving the environment by decreasing amount of waste produced. Additionally, there's no chance of Toxic Shock Syndrome like there is with tampons. How can The Keeper be a bad idea? They also make Moon Cups, which are latex free, for people with allergies. Another company makes latex free Diva Cups.

I love my Keeper and I want to give one to every woman I know. Plus, they come in a cute bag! But seriously. Good for the environment, good for your wallet, good for you.

Radio Show Tomorrow!

Amelia and I are SO excited because tomorrow is our first radio show of the term!

Any topics that you would like to hear discussed?

Any song requests?

Listen in at 4pm CST.

*We do a feminist radio show, so keep that in mind.

Feminist Film: Ma Vie En Rose

What did you want to be when you grew up? I hoped to be a doctor, a ballerina, and a teacher.

Ludovic, a seven year old boy and main character of the French film, "Ma Vie en Rose," dreams of being a girl. Believing that God simply misplaced his Y chromosome, Ludovic begins to dress in a feminine way and much to the horror of his parents and suburban neighbors talks about marrying a fellow male classmate.

The most jarring moments of "Ma Vie en Rose" or "My Life in Pink" are those that depict Ludovic's parents' reactions to his innocent belief. They slap him, beat him, blame him, and even after he tries to end his small life, refuse to allow him to wear a skirt. A reviewer of the film commented, "[In "Ma Vie en Rose,"] people around Ludovic are incapable of explaining to him why it's wrong for a boy to want to be a girl. They can only respond by blaming and persecuting him."

To watch this young child's journey is heartwrenching. To see him stripped of his innocence because of others' fear of difference caused my eyes to well. This movie depicts the pain of a young transgendered child and places the blame on his neighbors and family, symbolically us, the viewers, and our misconceptions, exclusion, fear, and hatred of Ludovic. To see such pain embodied in a beautiful seven year old child, who is just waiting for a mistake to be corrected, will break your heart.

I highly recommend this movie to the readers and commentors of this blog, especially in light of recent debates on some postings. It is subtitled, but it is worth the extra effort. Interestingly, the film is rated R although it depicts no extreme violence, sex, nudity, or profane language.

NY Times Magazine on Chris Matthews

There's an article this weekend in the New York Times Magazine about Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews is one of those tv pundits who drives me crazy because he's not aware of his own prejudices, his own interpretive lens.

Matthews has been critiqued as sexist and unfair in his coverage of Hilary Clinton (a critique I agree with), but he doesn't seem to understand why he's getting flack for it.

The conversation moved to what Matthews calls “the sexist thing,” or what Media Matters calls Matthews’s “history of degrading comments about women, in which he focuses on the physical appearances of his female guests and of other women discussed on his program.” This would include Matthews loudly admiring the conservative radio host Laura Ingraham (“You’re great looking, obviously — one of God’s gifts to men in this country”), Elizabeth Edwards(“You’ve got a great face”), Jane Fonda (“You also dazzle us with your beauty and all the good things”), CNBC’s Margaret Brennan (“You’re gorgeous”) and Erin Burnett (“You’re beautiful. . . . You’re a knockout”), among others. The Burnett episode was especially remarked upon. In the video Matthews instructed Burnett to “get a little closer to the camera.” As Burnett became confused, Matthews persisted: “Come on in closer. No, come in — come in further — come in closer. Really close.” It was, at the minimum, uncomfortable to watch.

Matthews says the notion that he is sexist has been pushed unfairly by blogs, women’s groups and, to some degree, the Clinton campaign. His remark that Clinton benefitted because her husband “messed around” triggered much outrage from the Clinton team. Matthews eventually apologized in a rambling on-air explanation, but he hardly sounds contrite now. “I was tonally inaccurate but factually true,” he told me. I had asked him earlier if he was forced into the apology. “Oh, yeah, of course I was forced into that,” he said, laughing. “No, no, no . . . Phil [Griffin] asked me to do that.”

"Tonally inaccurate but factually true"? My parents taught me that if I apologize about something, I had better be damn sure that I meant it. Otherwise it's a moot point. Why apologize if you're not standing behind the apology?

Matthews can't seem to understand the sexism in inviting a person to share their opinions about something and then spending the entire time discussing how beautiful they are. The mere obliviousness is almost unbelieveable, and puts the rest of his opinions in jeopardy. If he can't see the sexism in his behavior, how can his viewers expect him to muddle through the day-to-day nuances of politics, or even life?

“I guess the bottom line is, What does it show?” [Matthew's wife] Kathleen said. “Is it disrespect for women? Objectifying women?”

“It’s a show,” Chris replied.

“Or does it show appreciation for a pretty woman?” Kathleen said. “I think that’s the question.”

Where's the line between objectification and appreciation? And, is Kathleen Matthews right in that the question is over objectification and appreciation?

While the issue of objectification and appreciation is one that won't be settled by Matthews (or even settled at all), I think what Matthews needs to realize is that his television show is not an appropriate place to gush over someone's looks. If you invite someone on your show to discuss politics or the economy, let their presence reflect that fact, as opposed to you babbling on about beauty.

via Shakesville.

And for good measure, Sweet Jesus, I Hate Chris Matthews.

You've Got To Be Kidding Me

If you type in "weaker" into Thesaurus.com, you get this.
Again, in case it gets taken down.
Seriously?!?!

Via Feministing

Also, I was just typing things into the same website researching for a comment, and I found that the synonyms for "black man" include, but are not limited to: "SOB, bad egg, bad news, cheater, conman, lowlife, villian."
Offended yet?

Introduction!

Hi, I'm Lindsay and it's been 30 minutes since my last post.

I'm new here and I thought I'd let you know a bit about me and my particular interests before I start rambling.

Right now I'm finishing up my first year as a Master's student at Yale Divinity School. I'm in the Religion and the Visual Arts concentration, hoping after YDS to get a PhD. My academic interests focus mostly on the intersections of film, religion and gender, but I'm also concerned with visual and material culture and thanatology (because the best conversation starter is "When you put on your clothes this morning, did you ever stop to wonder if you might die today? Are you ok having that be the last outfit you wore?").

I also run Overheard at Yale Divinity School. If you're into cheesy religious humor, check it out. Or just cheesy humor in general.

My favorite director is Martin Scorsese and if I had to choose one thing to take with me to a deserted island, it would be Q-tips.

In Our War on Drugs, Women and People of Color Lose

In response to questions about my previous post, I decided to address problems of racism and sexism in the United States', "War on Drugs."

The "War" began in 1969 with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act and the term the "War on Drugs" was coined in 1972. Since then, drug use of every kind has increased, as has the prison population. This increase in the incarcerated has been extremely racially disproportional. Although only 12% of the US population is black, black citizens account for 45% of imprisoned drug offenders. The US Hispanic population also accounts for 12% of the total population, but makes up 20% of imprisoned drug offenders. Maybe black and Hispanic citizens use drugs more frequently? Actually, 72% of drug users in the US are white.

It is racist drug policies that cause these discrepancies. One example: crack cocaine and powder cocaine. These two drugs are derived from the same material and have very similar effects on the brain, both in the short and long term. However, there is a large sentencing disparity between these two substances. The distribution of five grams of crack cocaine yields a minimum five year sentence. Distributing five hundred grams of powder cocaine yields the same sentence. How does this help to account for racism in drug policy? Crack cocaine is more frequently distributed in lower income areas and use is more widespread in communities of color. However, powder cocaine is much more expensive to purchase and often sold and used in wealthy, white communities. These two drugs have the same effect on users, why are the sentences so different?

In ten US states, felony convictions, which include these drug convictions, lead to permanent disenfranchisement, meaning the lose of the right to vote, to inform legislators, to have a voice in your own government.

Women, too, have been affected by this "War on Drugs." Women often play minor roles in the drug trade, but when they are convicted they are sentenced to longer sentences than their male counterparts. Marsha Cunningham is an incarcerated African American women serving time for possession with intent to distribute. She was arrested at age 26 when DEA agents found her live-in boyfriend's drugs in her home.

In her words, "Then they arrested me because they found drugs in the storage compartment in the bottom of the stove. I was taken to the FBI office and questioned about the drugs. I told them that I didn't know anything about the drugs and that they were not mine. The agent told me that he knew that the drugs were not mine and that my boyfriend told him that the drugs were his. However, the agent felt like I knew where my boyfriend got the drugs. But I didn't and still don't. From lack of knowledge and having a boyfriend that I could not keep my eyes on 24 hours a day, the government punished me with a sentence of 15 years in prison."

She is currently still in jail. In fact, women are the fastest growing group of prison inmates. Marsha is a victim of a "War on Drugs" that has not curbed drug use but has incarcerated and disenfranchised a population of already struggling Americas, in addition, to harming the innocent elsewhere in the world.

More on "I was raped"

Adding a bit to Amelia's post concerning the "I was raped" t-shirt, I'm struck by the fact that an "I was raped" t-shirt will lead to national media coverage, but a "No Means No (Well... maybe if I'm drunk)" shirt won't.

In fact, getting upset about the shirt and writing to express your anger will make you a bitch.

I guess I'm just going to have to get used to the fact that only bitches get angry*. I'll be a bitch, then.




*I recently switched concentrations from Women's, Gender and Sexuality studies to a visual arts concentration and my friend said, "I never thought you were angry enough for feminist studies." Guess that doesn't mean I'm a bitch, though. I think I'd rather be a bitch than not.