Readers, I've noticed a trend among a group of individuals I've been writing about recently. Have you ever had someone making a totally unsolicited remark about your personal life that shows sie doesn't know anything about your personal life? I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had this happen. Whether it's someone asking me for the umpteenth time why I don't have a significant other or are not longing to get married or don't really wish to have kids, I've found it really shows just how ignorant they are about me! It never ceases to amaze me when they ask me about things they know just aren't a priority or an interest for me. I mean, I make it a point to remember what they value, and it would be amazing if they could return the favor. (Why not ask me about my job? Or my thesis topic? Or the super-empowering American Historical Association conference I went to? I would be happy to discuss any of those!)
But then when I've politely rebuffed them and said that's not my focus at this time, the big fat kicker is unleashed:
"Well, I hope you change your mind someday. I just want you to be happy!"
That's why you want me to change a lifestyle that's already serving me well?
What makes them think I can't be or am not happy as I am? Is singlehood some sort of blight that they feel they need to fix?
And for the record, I am happy. As I am.
I just wish they believed me.
Showing posts with label gender roles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender roles. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Pink Prison
I'm a feminist in a career and educational path that can be best described as traditionally "feminine." Due to the nature of our work, most rape crisis workers are female. Most of the counselors are female, too, and our statewide policy dictates that all first contact with a rape survivor must be done by a female advocate. I don't necessarily see any problem with that. As most rape survivors are women, I can see how it might be frightening for a survivor to have an advocate who was the same gender as her attacker.
That doesn't mean that there aren't men in the field. Quite the opposite. In my 5 years in advocacy, I've seen them in all levels of my work. Primarily, I've seen them in administrative roles, but I've also seen male advocates and counselors who work with children and men. I couldn't say that they were any less dedicated than their sisters in the field. Two of the crisis centers in the state even have male directors. It will always been a female-dominated field, and for good reason, but I'm glad to see more men wanting to help.
What I find interesting is people's response to the male advocates and crisis workers. When I talk about the women I work with, most people are politely interested and friendly in their responses. However, when I describe any of the men in the field, it seems like everybody is all ears! Effusive compliments for them abound, and everybody seems to want to know all about how they do the work and what keeps them going. And sooner or later, I get the inevitable, "Oh that's sooo wonderful and noble for him!"
Now don't get me wrong. I am hugely grateful for my brothers in advocacy, and I see recruiting and retaining them as an important priority. (Most male survivors are pretty grateful for an advocate they feel they can relate to.) They are definitely performing important work. In my experience, I remember some of the older advocates telling me about when it was considered shocking for a man to be employed at a crisis center...and being grateful times have changed.
However, I don't think it's necessarily only noble when a man does it. Sure, crisis intervention advocacy is predominantly female, but it's difficult and emotionally draining work for anyone of any gender. When I went through the training five years ago, I remember when some sections of it really were difficult for me to get through, and some of the workshops I've attended for my CEU's have also been pretty emotionally challenging. I'm sure I'm not the only female advocate who thinks that way. But I am in no way any more prepared or less noble when I do this simply because I am female. It's hard work for anyone to do. So why not celebrate all the advocates (not just the male ones)? Why not laud all of their investment in the work?
This then got me thinking about other predominantly female occupations, typically called "pink collar" jobs, such as teaching, librarianship, nursing, and counseling. These occupations are not exactly what you would call easy--all require some sort of license or advanced degree--and they require a good deal of education, skills, and emotional labor. There's no shame in someone wanting one of those jobs and taking the steps necessary to do so. However, I've noticed the same attitude towards men in these jobs as I have for the male advocates. There's usually a lot of praise heaped on them for doing something that's typically "female." However, I don't see the same amount of praise for women in these jobs. And again, it's still important and still pretty challenging work for anyone. It's no more or less just because of the gender of the person involved in it!
Perhaps the goal is to respect these service-related institutions and to laud those who dedicate their lives to them--regardless of their gender. Perhaps what we need to do is really understand what it takes to be in them and salute our brothers and sisters doing the work. Because it's important for all of us to care and to get involved.
That doesn't mean that there aren't men in the field. Quite the opposite. In my 5 years in advocacy, I've seen them in all levels of my work. Primarily, I've seen them in administrative roles, but I've also seen male advocates and counselors who work with children and men. I couldn't say that they were any less dedicated than their sisters in the field. Two of the crisis centers in the state even have male directors. It will always been a female-dominated field, and for good reason, but I'm glad to see more men wanting to help.
What I find interesting is people's response to the male advocates and crisis workers. When I talk about the women I work with, most people are politely interested and friendly in their responses. However, when I describe any of the men in the field, it seems like everybody is all ears! Effusive compliments for them abound, and everybody seems to want to know all about how they do the work and what keeps them going. And sooner or later, I get the inevitable, "Oh that's sooo wonderful and noble for him!"
Now don't get me wrong. I am hugely grateful for my brothers in advocacy, and I see recruiting and retaining them as an important priority. (Most male survivors are pretty grateful for an advocate they feel they can relate to.) They are definitely performing important work. In my experience, I remember some of the older advocates telling me about when it was considered shocking for a man to be employed at a crisis center...and being grateful times have changed.
However, I don't think it's necessarily only noble when a man does it. Sure, crisis intervention advocacy is predominantly female, but it's difficult and emotionally draining work for anyone of any gender. When I went through the training five years ago, I remember when some sections of it really were difficult for me to get through, and some of the workshops I've attended for my CEU's have also been pretty emotionally challenging. I'm sure I'm not the only female advocate who thinks that way. But I am in no way any more prepared or less noble when I do this simply because I am female. It's hard work for anyone to do. So why not celebrate all the advocates (not just the male ones)? Why not laud all of their investment in the work?
This then got me thinking about other predominantly female occupations, typically called "pink collar" jobs, such as teaching, librarianship, nursing, and counseling. These occupations are not exactly what you would call easy--all require some sort of license or advanced degree--and they require a good deal of education, skills, and emotional labor. There's no shame in someone wanting one of those jobs and taking the steps necessary to do so. However, I've noticed the same attitude towards men in these jobs as I have for the male advocates. There's usually a lot of praise heaped on them for doing something that's typically "female." However, I don't see the same amount of praise for women in these jobs. And again, it's still important and still pretty challenging work for anyone. It's no more or less just because of the gender of the person involved in it!
Perhaps the goal is to respect these service-related institutions and to laud those who dedicate their lives to them--regardless of their gender. Perhaps what we need to do is really understand what it takes to be in them and salute our brothers and sisters doing the work. Because it's important for all of us to care and to get involved.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
I am not here to please you
Readers, I would like to draw your attention to a particular little issue that has really been annoying me for quite some time, only I wasn't quite sure about how to word it. Have you ever held a certain belief/preference for your life, only to find that others don't share that view? Of course, not everyone is inclined to agree with everyone! Then, when others find out that you don't share their views, they react with an unbelievably backhanded comment saying that you'd be "sooo good" at whatever it is they think you should be doing?
I really have found it so hard to answer that. Sure, I like to give and receive compliments. Who doesn't? However, it can be really tough to answer when someone is saying you'd be good at something you just do not want. It's almost as though they are justifying their disregard for your interests with a compliment.
Let's look at a few examples from my own life. I've been single and partnered at many instances of my life. During none of my single stages (including now) have I been unhappy in any way with being single. I'm actually pretty comfortable with myself no matter what. And I don't have any kids. I'm not sure if I want kids, but if I do, I'm leaning towards the adopting or fostering route. No problem with that. But whenever I get any questions about my personal life, it seems like people have absolutely no problem telling me what they think I should be doing, even if that's what I don't particularly want. And that really irks me. Some of the little gems I've received:
"Oh, that's too bad you're single. You're so pretty, you'd make someone a great girlfriend!"
"You don't want kids? Sounds like the words of a future mother!"
"But I'd love to see a little you running around! And you'd be so cute pregnant!"
Honestly, how do you even answer those?? It's like they're using their "compliments" to hide disregard for your feelings. And when you think about it, those aren't really compliments because they're judging me by what they want me to be and do, not what I already am and do. I mean, they're not going to get me wanting what I don't, so I don't understand their rationale. But how do I answer them? I've tried saying, "Thanks," but then I feel disingenuous, like I just validated their invasive comment. I've tried saying, "Thanks, but that's probably not going to happen," to get some pretty heated "I'm just being nice!" in response. (Note: That's not "nice.") Usually, I just change the subject.
But I really don't get it. That's a big part of why I try to remember things about people, things they already are proud of, and compliment them on that. Maybe it's best they tried to do the same.
I really have found it so hard to answer that. Sure, I like to give and receive compliments. Who doesn't? However, it can be really tough to answer when someone is saying you'd be good at something you just do not want. It's almost as though they are justifying their disregard for your interests with a compliment.
Let's look at a few examples from my own life. I've been single and partnered at many instances of my life. During none of my single stages (including now) have I been unhappy in any way with being single. I'm actually pretty comfortable with myself no matter what. And I don't have any kids. I'm not sure if I want kids, but if I do, I'm leaning towards the adopting or fostering route. No problem with that. But whenever I get any questions about my personal life, it seems like people have absolutely no problem telling me what they think I should be doing, even if that's what I don't particularly want. And that really irks me. Some of the little gems I've received:
"Oh, that's too bad you're single. You're so pretty, you'd make someone a great girlfriend!"
"You don't want kids? Sounds like the words of a future mother!"
"But I'd love to see a little you running around! And you'd be so cute pregnant!"
Honestly, how do you even answer those?? It's like they're using their "compliments" to hide disregard for your feelings. And when you think about it, those aren't really compliments because they're judging me by what they want me to be and do, not what I already am and do. I mean, they're not going to get me wanting what I don't, so I don't understand their rationale. But how do I answer them? I've tried saying, "Thanks," but then I feel disingenuous, like I just validated their invasive comment. I've tried saying, "Thanks, but that's probably not going to happen," to get some pretty heated "I'm just being nice!" in response. (Note: That's not "nice.") Usually, I just change the subject.
But I really don't get it. That's a big part of why I try to remember things about people, things they already are proud of, and compliment them on that. Maybe it's best they tried to do the same.
Friday, April 22, 2011
An Open Letter to Rich Santos
Yep, Revel's in letter-writing mode this month! I'm having fun letting 'em have it!!
Yo Richey!
As a disclaimer, I don't often read Marie Claire unless I'm in the waiting room at Super Cuts or my dentist's office. But since your recent article about "innocent girls" versus "bad girls" has gotten a thorough kicking around by everyone in the feminist/pro-feminist community, I figured, why not belatedly join in the fun? I am not going to link to your puerile article since it doesn't need any more traffic than it already is getting.
I noticed you pointed out that "guys like innocent girls." Uhm, Richey, I would sincerely hope that since you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law, you and your dudes would be more interested in women than girls. I also sincerely hope that the main time you care about somebody's "innocence" would be when you are doing jury duty. Otherwise, you sound like the perfect candidate for How To Catch a Predator. I'm not sure that's the kind of notoriety you're after.
Another thing, Rich. Do you know how utterly asinine you sound when you say a partner's inexperience is like "white fresh snow versus the snow that's turning black on the side of the road in under the haze of car exhaust"? Women are people, not snow! And besides, what does that make you? The car exhaust? Well, at least we're something natural and not the carcinogenic environmental pollutant! Although if you must classify us females into weather conditions, I'll have you know, Richey, that I am a big scary tornado that mows down anything in her path.
I also noticed, Rich, that you really seem to think that all women fit into two little tiny categories and never the twain shall meet: either inexperienced, wholesome "girls" or women who are bad to the bone. Well, I have yet to meet an adult woman who fits perfectly into either category. Considering that my friends are 65-70% female, that's saying quite a lot. Do you know why this is, Rich? This is because we are HUMAN! People are much more nuanced and much more complex than two tiny categories are. All you are doing is setting up another false binary...and setting yourself up for disappointment when you find that no one outside your imagination fits it. I find it interesting that you opine, "We hate to admit it, we usually like to be in control. A bad girl is tough to control — we never know what she's going to do next." Well, by your standards, every woman is "bad" since we all have free will and our own decisions and the ability to control them.
And another thing, Rich. Not every woman wants a man, and for those of us who do, we know to steer clear of you and your ilk who are so superficial and judgmental. So perhaps, as odious as your article and your other pieces are, they serve as the perfect signs and red flags of what to steer clear of in a man.
So thanks for this primer about what to AVOID when looking for a man.
No love,
Revel
PS Rich, I noticed your column is called "Sex and the Single Guy." If you're wondering why you're still a single guy and why all the ladies are headed for the hills when you're around, you might just want to re-read your odious columns.
Yo Richey!
As a disclaimer, I don't often read Marie Claire unless I'm in the waiting room at Super Cuts or my dentist's office. But since your recent article about "innocent girls" versus "bad girls" has gotten a thorough kicking around by everyone in the feminist/pro-feminist community, I figured, why not belatedly join in the fun? I am not going to link to your puerile article since it doesn't need any more traffic than it already is getting.
I noticed you pointed out that "guys like innocent girls." Uhm, Richey, I would sincerely hope that since you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law, you and your dudes would be more interested in women than girls. I also sincerely hope that the main time you care about somebody's "innocence" would be when you are doing jury duty. Otherwise, you sound like the perfect candidate for How To Catch a Predator. I'm not sure that's the kind of notoriety you're after.
Another thing, Rich. Do you know how utterly asinine you sound when you say a partner's inexperience is like "white fresh snow versus the snow that's turning black on the side of the road in under the haze of car exhaust"? Women are people, not snow! And besides, what does that make you? The car exhaust? Well, at least we're something natural and not the carcinogenic environmental pollutant! Although if you must classify us females into weather conditions, I'll have you know, Richey, that I am a big scary tornado that mows down anything in her path.
I also noticed, Rich, that you really seem to think that all women fit into two little tiny categories and never the twain shall meet: either inexperienced, wholesome "girls" or women who are bad to the bone. Well, I have yet to meet an adult woman who fits perfectly into either category. Considering that my friends are 65-70% female, that's saying quite a lot. Do you know why this is, Rich? This is because we are HUMAN! People are much more nuanced and much more complex than two tiny categories are. All you are doing is setting up another false binary...and setting yourself up for disappointment when you find that no one outside your imagination fits it. I find it interesting that you opine, "We hate to admit it, we usually like to be in control. A bad girl is tough to control — we never know what she's going to do next." Well, by your standards, every woman is "bad" since we all have free will and our own decisions and the ability to control them.
And another thing, Rich. Not every woman wants a man, and for those of us who do, we know to steer clear of you and your ilk who are so superficial and judgmental. So perhaps, as odious as your article and your other pieces are, they serve as the perfect signs and red flags of what to steer clear of in a man.
So thanks for this primer about what to AVOID when looking for a man.
No love,
Revel
PS Rich, I noticed your column is called "Sex and the Single Guy." If you're wondering why you're still a single guy and why all the ladies are headed for the hills when you're around, you might just want to re-read your odious columns.
Monday, April 4, 2011
An Open Letter to Kaye Hymowitz
Ms. Hymowitz:
I noticed you wondered, "Where Have the Good Men Gone?" in your Wall Street Journal article, so I felt compelled to offer some revel-licious help for a sister in need. Then I read through your article, and I noticed that you seem less concerned with where the good men are than with chastising women who dare to be successful and who dare to seek more in a man than simply a pulse.
So, because I am a charitable sort, I figure I'd like to offer my help to a poor misguided soul.
A few things, Ms. Hymowitz...
No love,
Revel
PS You want to know where the good men have gone? For starters, I'd suggest you check groups like Men Against Sexual Violence, National Organization of Men Against Sexism, and The Takeback. They're there.
I noticed you wondered, "Where Have the Good Men Gone?" in your Wall Street Journal article, so I felt compelled to offer some revel-licious help for a sister in need. Then I read through your article, and I noticed that you seem less concerned with where the good men are than with chastising women who dare to be successful and who dare to seek more in a man than simply a pulse.
So, because I am a charitable sort, I figure I'd like to offer my help to a poor misguided soul.
A few things, Ms. Hymowitz...
- A twentysomething is not a "pre-adult." In the US, the age of majority is 18 (and the census says so as well). It doesn't matter if the person in question has not married or bought a house or subscribes to the same notions of adulthood as you do. If s/he is over 18, s/he is an adult. Period.
- What the heck is a "major demographic event"? The presence of a group doesn't strike me as an "event." Perhaps the actions of said group, like mass migration or diaspora, could be a demographic event, but the group itself is not an event.
- Did I lose you at "diaspora"? Because your article is so badly written, I didn't know if I should tone down my language or try to keep it at a third grade reading level.
- Women's choices and increased rights have NOT turned men into boys. If a man is mature and not threatened by strong women, he's likely to be comfortable in himself and completely fine with women who can keep pace with him academically or in the career world.
- Likewise, if a man is insecure and easily threatened by not being in charge all the time, then of course he's going to act immaturely. But not all men are immature, and in fact, it's immature of you to assume that women are the cause of it.
- And although women are supposedly more successful than before, in most places, white women typically still only earn $0.80 on every dollar that men do. Women of color unfortunately are even more discriminated against in the job market. If women's rise has really eclipsed men, why are our pay rates STILL different?
- Definitions of adulthood vary by person. Before the recession, buying a house and getting a job was very much a marker of adulthood. But in a time when many are laid off from their jobs or evicted from their homes, you need to be realistic about which definitions of adulthood are still applicable.
- Gender roles also change and vary by person. The fact that they are so individualistic and based on personal choices is, I would have to say, a triumph of 20th century feminism. Feminists taught us that it was okay to have choices and not to worry about what others thought. Thank goodness I do not have to rely on a man for protection and providing for me, while I rear the next generation within a picket-fenced house. I'm willing to say thank goodness that you, Ms. Hymowitz, were not told you couldn't receive an education or be published because you're female. However, I don't think that differing from a "traditional" life script is necessarily a sign of failure.
- And finally, if you are really so worried that many young people are not settling down and getting married, I would advise you to support full marriage equality for our brothers and sisters in the LGBT community. Because I'm sure that there are a lot of couples who would love to be married but cannot because their state won't allow it.
No love,
Revel
PS You want to know where the good men have gone? For starters, I'd suggest you check groups like Men Against Sexual Violence, National Organization of Men Against Sexism, and The Takeback. They're there.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Crazy Little Thing Called Love
Well, with all those posts that were on the angry side, I figured that the best thing to do would be to write about something completely and totally different. So you will get a lesson from me about the wonderful Magic of Love! Yes, that's right! Loooove! So put away your Cosmopolitan magazine and ditch your old novels because the revel's gonna learn ya better than school in the arts of love.
Okay, you're probably wondering, "But why are you doing this?" or "What could an old, cold cynic like yourself know about love?" Good question! You're absolutely right, I have for the longest time been the biggest old cynic around. But now I will turn my act around and dedicate this post in all its entirety to LOVE. And that's not all! Any good academic (or grant manager) knows, you must absolutely cite your sources, so I will tell you the font of wisdom from whence I quaffed to get these pearls of wisdom.
So this is the revel's post about Love. As taught to me by the countless chick flicks and romantic comedies I have been forced to sit through by my friends and accomplices.
Revel's Guide to Finding Love
1. If someone creepy is stalking you, don't give him a restraining order, give him a chance at a relationship with you!
Think stalkers are scary and creepy? Think again! It's not stalking, it's romantic! That creeper is only so concerned about your well-being, so give the poor thing a chance. Never mind that it might be bad for your well-being to worry about being stalked. Look at Twilight. The pasty vampire dude with the fwoopy hair is always stalking his human love interest, Bella. And look where that gets him! Tons of teen girls thinking he's like the greatest thing ever, not to mention the love of Bella. So if you find yourself in that situation, consider yourself lucky!
2. You must be a middle-to-upper-class white, heterosexual female. Your wisecracking sidekicks don't have to be, though.
Look at all the leads in the chick flicks that have come out over the last five years. You'd be hard-pressed to find a minority woman as the lead role. You'd be even harder-pressed to find one that was either underemployed or had another woman as her love interest. It's all the same old, boy-meets-white-straight-girl story. Then take a look at the secondary roles. Wondering where all the gals who don't fit that category get to go?
3. You must also be conventionally thin and beautiful. If you're not, then you must become that way.
Observe how all the middle-to-upper class, white, hetero ladies who are cast as the leads are all conventionally attractive. Consider yourself average or geeky-looking? Well, don't worry, you can always get a makeover to show people that your outer beauty matches your inner beauty! Observe how the protagonists in The Princess Diaries, The Devil Wears Prada, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding all shed their geeky image and wind up getting the love of their lives. Romance is for the pretty! Don't feel like going the distance? Don't worry, I hear that they might still have open slots for the wisecracking sidekick role.
4. There are only two kinds of guys that matter. The guy you are dating who turns out to be totally icky and the icky guy you wind up dating. The guy friend does not exist. Observe the countless films made with a sharp, motivated female lead and a total dunderhead of a date for her: Knocked Up, The Ugly Truth, and The Proposal. Think your guy is great for you? Don't be an idiot! He will soon will wind up having some awful personality flaw, and you can't have that! Now think about that icky guy who gave you some lame pickup line in the dive bar. THAT is your future husband. Go find him now before he passes out in his own vomit at the dive bar.
5. "Career Women" are total harpies.
Note how all the women in the films mentioned in #4 are strong and motivated and have jobs they like. Well, that's why they can't find a man and are thus utterly pathetic excuses for females! They might as well turn in their second X-chromosome! Oh wait, that's why there's the icky guys they must fall in love with to keep from turning into and staying total monsters! Don't believe me? Well, you don't have to read this post to hear it! See my 2008 post, "Why You Should Marry a Doormat" for added info.
6. You must be tamed. By that icky guy who can rescue you from the harpyness you are becoming.
This one goes without saying. And there are many ways to tame you, too! You can learn to love his ickiness and realize that he truly is, deep down, an icky guy worth loving. Or you can wind up accidentally getting pregnant by him and learning to love that. After all, isn't that what happens in these tales, otherwise there'd be no story. But hey, it's what people in love do, right?
That is all. Revel has spoken. Now follow those rules and you will have the mens eating out of your manicured hands! (And you might just find a ring on the left one in due time...)
Okay, you're probably wondering, "But why are you doing this?" or "What could an old, cold cynic like yourself know about love?" Good question! You're absolutely right, I have for the longest time been the biggest old cynic around. But now I will turn my act around and dedicate this post in all its entirety to LOVE. And that's not all! Any good academic (or grant manager) knows, you must absolutely cite your sources, so I will tell you the font of wisdom from whence I quaffed to get these pearls of wisdom.
So this is the revel's post about Love. As taught to me by the countless chick flicks and romantic comedies I have been forced to sit through by my friends and accomplices.
Revel's Guide to Finding Love
1. If someone creepy is stalking you, don't give him a restraining order, give him a chance at a relationship with you!
Think stalkers are scary and creepy? Think again! It's not stalking, it's romantic! That creeper is only so concerned about your well-being, so give the poor thing a chance. Never mind that it might be bad for your well-being to worry about being stalked. Look at Twilight. The pasty vampire dude with the fwoopy hair is always stalking his human love interest, Bella. And look where that gets him! Tons of teen girls thinking he's like the greatest thing ever, not to mention the love of Bella. So if you find yourself in that situation, consider yourself lucky!
2. You must be a middle-to-upper-class white, heterosexual female. Your wisecracking sidekicks don't have to be, though.
Look at all the leads in the chick flicks that have come out over the last five years. You'd be hard-pressed to find a minority woman as the lead role. You'd be even harder-pressed to find one that was either underemployed or had another woman as her love interest. It's all the same old, boy-meets-white-straight-girl story. Then take a look at the secondary roles. Wondering where all the gals who don't fit that category get to go?
3. You must also be conventionally thin and beautiful. If you're not, then you must become that way.
Observe how all the middle-to-upper class, white, hetero ladies who are cast as the leads are all conventionally attractive. Consider yourself average or geeky-looking? Well, don't worry, you can always get a makeover to show people that your outer beauty matches your inner beauty! Observe how the protagonists in The Princess Diaries, The Devil Wears Prada, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding all shed their geeky image and wind up getting the love of their lives. Romance is for the pretty! Don't feel like going the distance? Don't worry, I hear that they might still have open slots for the wisecracking sidekick role.
4. There are only two kinds of guys that matter. The guy you are dating who turns out to be totally icky and the icky guy you wind up dating. The guy friend does not exist. Observe the countless films made with a sharp, motivated female lead and a total dunderhead of a date for her: Knocked Up, The Ugly Truth, and The Proposal. Think your guy is great for you? Don't be an idiot! He will soon will wind up having some awful personality flaw, and you can't have that! Now think about that icky guy who gave you some lame pickup line in the dive bar. THAT is your future husband. Go find him now before he passes out in his own vomit at the dive bar.
5. "Career Women" are total harpies.
Note how all the women in the films mentioned in #4 are strong and motivated and have jobs they like. Well, that's why they can't find a man and are thus utterly pathetic excuses for females! They might as well turn in their second X-chromosome! Oh wait, that's why there's the icky guys they must fall in love with to keep from turning into and staying total monsters! Don't believe me? Well, you don't have to read this post to hear it! See my 2008 post, "Why You Should Marry a Doormat" for added info.
6. You must be tamed. By that icky guy who can rescue you from the harpyness you are becoming.
This one goes without saying. And there are many ways to tame you, too! You can learn to love his ickiness and realize that he truly is, deep down, an icky guy worth loving. Or you can wind up accidentally getting pregnant by him and learning to love that. After all, isn't that what happens in these tales, otherwise there'd be no story. But hey, it's what people in love do, right?
That is all. Revel has spoken. Now follow those rules and you will have the mens eating out of your manicured hands! (And you might just find a ring on the left one in due time...)
Friday, April 9, 2010
Same old song and dance
So, by now I'm sure you've all heard the story about the fake prom that was held in Mississippi. After Constance McMillen, a senior at the Itawamba County High School, wanted to bring her girlfriend to the prom, the school cancelled the prom altogether. She later was invited to a private prom with her girlfriend...and discovered that there were less than 10 students there (and some of those students had learning disabilities). The rest of the school went to a prom that was held in secret by the parents, and that the 10 students at the "fake prom" were not invited to.
The story's gone viral all over the blog community, and for good reason. Most people seem to get it for what it is--a really blatant and incredibly ugly display of discrimination. What really bothers me especially is that this fake prom was created to keep all the people who didn't fit in with the school's desired image out, like a way to remove anyone they didn't see as "worthy." (The original prom was cancelled on the grounds that a same-sex couple would be "distracting and disruptive"--but with a couple hundred kids at a prom, who's really going to be distracted by one couple??) Which is just so disgusting.
People may say that we as a nation may have come far, but in matters of civil rights, we still have a long way to go. As most of you know, I identify as mostly hetero (I use the term mostly because I don't think that anyone is exclusively one orientation or another but that we all fall into a continuum of sorts, like the Kinsey scale), but I am a HUGE ally. That's because I think freedom means freedom for everybody, not just a few.
And I am a huge history buff, especially with the history of social movements. What I have noticed, though, is that many of the same old excuses and the same old hate just keeps getting recycled. It's the same old prejudice, just in different hands. Think about how, as recently as the early twentieth century, interracial relationships were considered societally unacceptable. Many of you would find that archaic, and rightly so. Some states even had "racial integrity acts" (don't believe me? google it) that CRIMINALIZED an interracial marriage or relationsip on the grounds that it would lead to problems with the couple's children and later on, the entire human race. It wasn't until the 1960s, in a case called Loving Vs. Virginia that such laws were struck down once and for all. That's less than fifty years ago! Now imagine some of the opposition to marriage equality. A lot of folks who don't support same-sex marriage use the grounds that it will be harmful to their kids, and later on, to the entire human race. Same old excuses. (Although I know a LOT of same-sex couples with kids, and their kids seem fine to me. That's because it's more about how the couple parents than what gender the couple is.) Same old prejudice.
Some might say a prom might not mean a whole lot, since it's something that happens in high school, but this kind of exclusion is nothing less than discrimination and creating nothing less than a hostile educational environment. If a student is noticeably excluded from something because of their identity, what message does that send? What kind of environment does that create? Really, this kind of exclusion is just the cousin of that institutionalized prejudice I was discussing. Both should have no place in this world. At. All.
Well, I am hoping for the best for Ms. McMillen and for the other kids that apparantly weren't good enough to be at Itawamba County's "real" prom. My heart goes out to them.
The story's gone viral all over the blog community, and for good reason. Most people seem to get it for what it is--a really blatant and incredibly ugly display of discrimination. What really bothers me especially is that this fake prom was created to keep all the people who didn't fit in with the school's desired image out, like a way to remove anyone they didn't see as "worthy." (The original prom was cancelled on the grounds that a same-sex couple would be "distracting and disruptive"--but with a couple hundred kids at a prom, who's really going to be distracted by one couple??) Which is just so disgusting.
People may say that we as a nation may have come far, but in matters of civil rights, we still have a long way to go. As most of you know, I identify as mostly hetero (I use the term mostly because I don't think that anyone is exclusively one orientation or another but that we all fall into a continuum of sorts, like the Kinsey scale), but I am a HUGE ally. That's because I think freedom means freedom for everybody, not just a few.
And I am a huge history buff, especially with the history of social movements. What I have noticed, though, is that many of the same old excuses and the same old hate just keeps getting recycled. It's the same old prejudice, just in different hands. Think about how, as recently as the early twentieth century, interracial relationships were considered societally unacceptable. Many of you would find that archaic, and rightly so. Some states even had "racial integrity acts" (don't believe me? google it) that CRIMINALIZED an interracial marriage or relationsip on the grounds that it would lead to problems with the couple's children and later on, the entire human race. It wasn't until the 1960s, in a case called Loving Vs. Virginia that such laws were struck down once and for all. That's less than fifty years ago! Now imagine some of the opposition to marriage equality. A lot of folks who don't support same-sex marriage use the grounds that it will be harmful to their kids, and later on, to the entire human race. Same old excuses. (Although I know a LOT of same-sex couples with kids, and their kids seem fine to me. That's because it's more about how the couple parents than what gender the couple is.) Same old prejudice.
Some might say a prom might not mean a whole lot, since it's something that happens in high school, but this kind of exclusion is nothing less than discrimination and creating nothing less than a hostile educational environment. If a student is noticeably excluded from something because of their identity, what message does that send? What kind of environment does that create? Really, this kind of exclusion is just the cousin of that institutionalized prejudice I was discussing. Both should have no place in this world. At. All.
Well, I am hoping for the best for Ms. McMillen and for the other kids that apparantly weren't good enough to be at Itawamba County's "real" prom. My heart goes out to them.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
I think I just threw up in my mouth...
Oh dear lord, I seriously need some ass-kicking radical feminist articles RIGHT NOW. Not material (though I identify as such), not liberal, not womanist, not eco. Radical. NOW. You heard me. I need the hardest stuff I can to get this yucky taste out of my mouth and mind!!
What is the matter?
I discovered this site purely by accident. It's the headquarters of the DABA Girls (Dating A Banker Anonymously),. They say they are a support group for women whose relationships have "tanked with the economy" because they're all involved with finance guys. The title page claims that this page is "free from the scrutiny of feminists." Well, too bad for you, DABAs. Apparantly you haven't met me because this feminist is gonna scrutinize you so bad you better be shaking in your Manolos.
So I've read many of the articles on your blog. Seems like you're all whining and moaning because your finance guy can't provide you with as generous an allowance as before. My favorite is the 24-year-old who's boyfriend is married. She's whining that he doesn't have time or money to lavish on her because his wife is checking up on their finances. Another lady, a beauty editor, brings up how her job is to keep her man sane during the recession and to live according to what he wants. Another article describes how DABA ladies used to be "admired for their class" and style. Well, I might not have much of it myself, but really, whining about that stuff shows that they have no class whatsoever. Did they ever think that they might be doing better than a whole lot of other people? Do they have lives aside of being some rich guy's arm candy? And do any of these ladies work? I don't know for sure, but something in me tells me not.
I could vent on and on, but I'd suggest you see what I'm talking about. Be sure you haven't just eaten because this will make you SICK. I don't know about you, but people like this make me want to sentence them to a couple thousand mandated hours at CWIT (Center for Women in Transition, the homeless shelter for women). Or A Woman's Place. You know, if the situations don't kick your butt, then the domestics surely will.
What is the matter?
I discovered this site purely by accident. It's the headquarters of the DABA Girls (Dating A Banker Anonymously),
So I've read many of the articles on your blog. Seems like you're all whining and moaning because your finance guy can't provide you with as generous an allowance as before. My favorite is the 24-year-old who's boyfriend is married. She's whining that he doesn't have time or money to lavish on her because his wife is checking up on their finances. Another lady, a beauty editor, brings up how her job is to keep her man sane during the recession and to live according to what he wants. Another article describes how DABA ladies used to be "admired for their class" and style. Well, I might not have much of it myself, but really, whining about that stuff shows that they have no class whatsoever. Did they ever think that they might be doing better than a whole lot of other people? Do they have lives aside of being some rich guy's arm candy? And do any of these ladies work? I don't know for sure, but something in me tells me not.
I could vent on and on, but I'd suggest you see what I'm talking about. Be sure you haven't just eaten because this will make you SICK. I don't know about you, but people like this make me want to sentence them to a couple thousand mandated hours at CWIT (Center for Women in Transition, the homeless shelter for women). Or A Woman's Place. You know, if the situations don't kick your butt, then the domestics surely will.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Why you should marry a doormat
Hey guys! This post is all for you!
From my title, I just wanted to expand on my special message for you and let you know that if you're intending to marry a strong, capable, talented woman who can be your equal in almost every regard, snap out of it right away. Get that stupid pipe dream out of your head. You will be destined to live a crappy life if you do. Go and find yourself a demure, submissive little thing who will be more than happy to do your bidding instead of a high-powered career grl partner. I mean it! Does your girlfriend live up to that submissive ideal? No? Then drop her and get a new one! You heard me! NOW!!
So apparantly the esteemed magazine, Forbes, has published a list called "Careers and Marriage: Don't Marry Career Women." This article (by a guy, of course) claims that women, work, and family just don't mix. One of them has got to go if you would like your lady to be a good wife for you. And this is according to big strong social scientists. I mean, after all, how can SCIENCE be wrong?? This article delves into the classic problem of mixing a family with work (as one of my personal favorites, Gloria Steinem, put it, "I have yet to hear a man ask me how to combine work with a family.")
Don't believe me? Well, here are the major points, with my annotation in italics.
1. If they quit their jobs and stay at home with the kids, they'll be unhappy.
Well, if you are controlling and bossy and make your wife quit a job she enjoyed, then of course she'd be unhappy. No one likes men who are bossy and mean.
Well, if you are controlling and bossy and make your wife quit a job she enjoyed, then of course she'd be unhappy. No one likes men who are bossy and mean.
2. They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do.
How is this the case? I think that the only time she'll be unhappy about money is if you two don't have any or enough!
How is this the case? I think that the only time she'll be unhappy about money is if you two don't have any or enough!
3. You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do.
Then you need to either get over yourself or get a promotion. Is your sense of self-worth so fragile that it's attached to a number on a paycheck?
Then you need to either get over yourself or get a promotion. Is your sense of self-worth so fragile that it's attached to a number on a paycheck?
4. You will be more likely to fall ill.
Um, doesn't everyone get sick at some point or another? Career women and their partners get sick, just like unemployed women and their partners.
Um, doesn't everyone get sick at some point or another? Career women and their partners get sick, just like unemployed women and their partners.
5. Even your house will be dirtier.
Then I have a solution. If you and your wage-earning wife are concerned about the home, hire a housekeeper! With your wife outearning you, you guys can afford one. Or teach your kids the importance of chores and give them an allowance for cleaning up after themselves.
Then I have a solution. If you and your wage-earning wife are concerned about the home, hire a housekeeper! With your wife outearning you, you guys can afford one. Or teach your kids the importance of chores and give them an allowance for cleaning up after themselves.
6. Professional women are less likely to have children.
Yeah, but we're all different, aren't we? Some of us want kids, and some of us do not. And there are some of us, myself included, that think adoption is the way to go. Maybe we just want to make our careers secure before having a family. There are so many of us that you can't just generalize like that.
Yeah, but we're all different, aren't we? Some of us want kids, and some of us do not. And there are some of us, myself included, that think adoption is the way to go. Maybe we just want to make our careers secure before having a family. There are so many of us that you can't just generalize like that.
7. Professional women are more likely to get divorced.
Well, if we're married to a mean and chauvinistic pig like the writer of this article, then sure we'll serve him with a big fat divorce. Because no one likes being with someone like that! And a statement like that only shows that professional women are just like the rest of the American population--because over half the MARRIAGES in general wind up in divorce!
Did you hear that, guys? So if you're worried about how your partner acts and how it will impact your family (and if you have less than one working brain cell), then drop her now and marry your Welcome mat. You might look funny saying your wedding vows to it at the altar or the courthouse, but the mat is not going to steal your precious manhood! But if you think Forbes is being silly with these rules, then keep that partner and enjoy having someone you can be equal to and who can hold her own with you!
Well, if we're married to a mean and chauvinistic pig like the writer of this article, then sure we'll serve him with a big fat divorce. Because no one likes being with someone like that! And a statement like that only shows that professional women are just like the rest of the American population--because over half the MARRIAGES in general wind up in divorce!
Did you hear that, guys? So if you're worried about how your partner acts and how it will impact your family (and if you have less than one working brain cell), then drop her now and marry your Welcome mat. You might look funny saying your wedding vows to it at the altar or the courthouse, but the mat is not going to steal your precious manhood! But if you think Forbes is being silly with these rules, then keep that partner and enjoy having someone you can be equal to and who can hold her own with you!
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Have a happy period!
I really wonder who gets hired to work in marketing for certain companies and how they get those jobs. I mean, if I had half a mind, I could do it too. And by half a mind, I mean exactly half a mind.
First there's the Always feminine products. Okay, I will say it. I'm female, I've used Always at some point in my life. Their stuff is inexpensive, and let's face it, using some form of protection is better than the much messier alternative. But what is with their ad campaign? For their advertising message is, "Have a happy period." I mean, what the hell? Most women (myself included) really see nothing "happy" about it. Does anything about cramping, clots, and casting up everything you've eaten sound "happy"? I think not. But on the Always website (you can find it at www.beinggirl.com), you can find that asinine message, as well as some truly patronizing e-cards about menstruating. I'm serious. E-cards! You know, the one thing worse than that combination of nausea, cramps, and clots is having some bright little card telling you to cheer up and be happy.
The second thing just cracks me up in a very twisted sort of way. On the polar opposite end of the Always ads and their bright, happy, in-your-face messages about periods, is the complete silence about them. I mean, for goodness sake, it's just a period. While it's not the most pleasant thing in the world, menstruation is natural. If something exists, it is natural. And for most women ages 9 and up (or earlier, there are some who get it early), it is a fact of life. Or was a fact of life. Or will be a fact of life. That's all. But when I was at Walgreens today to pick up some stuff, I saw some tampon carrying cases and some tiny little tampons in a box saying "No one will know it's that time." So apparantly they think that it's shameful to just go through a natural female occurrence? Let's get this straight. What is so shameful about doing what 51% of the world does at some time or another in their life? It doesn't change anything about the person you are. I've heard some ridiculous sexist drivel, that women are irrational when they menstruate, but surely we all know that this isn't the case. Maybe somewhat emotional, but that's because cramping hurts like hell. If males were going through that every month, I can assure you that we wouldn't be hearing any of that. And you know what, tampons would probably be free.
Well, after I've just dedicated a post to menstruating, I figure the smart thing is to treat the issue like what it is, something normal and natural. If it exists, it is natural. It's no special cause for celebration like the Always campaign says, and it's no cause for shame. It just is there. That's all. Really.
And a message to Always: You want to make this time more tolerable? Lose the damn e-cards and Pad-O-Meter. They won't do anything for us. Make your products free! I can assure you, that will make many women a lot happier than some asinine card.
First there's the Always feminine products. Okay, I will say it. I'm female, I've used Always at some point in my life. Their stuff is inexpensive, and let's face it, using some form of protection is better than the much messier alternative. But what is with their ad campaign? For their advertising message is, "Have a happy period." I mean, what the hell? Most women (myself included) really see nothing "happy" about it. Does anything about cramping, clots, and casting up everything you've eaten sound "happy"? I think not. But on the Always website (you can find it at www.beinggirl.com), you can find that asinine message, as well as some truly patronizing e-cards about menstruating. I'm serious. E-cards! You know, the one thing worse than that combination of nausea, cramps, and clots is having some bright little card telling you to cheer up and be happy.
The second thing just cracks me up in a very twisted sort of way. On the polar opposite end of the Always ads and their bright, happy, in-your-face messages about periods, is the complete silence about them. I mean, for goodness sake, it's just a period. While it's not the most pleasant thing in the world, menstruation is natural. If something exists, it is natural. And for most women ages 9 and up (or earlier, there are some who get it early), it is a fact of life. Or was a fact of life. Or will be a fact of life. That's all. But when I was at Walgreens today to pick up some stuff, I saw some tampon carrying cases and some tiny little tampons in a box saying "No one will know it's that time." So apparantly they think that it's shameful to just go through a natural female occurrence? Let's get this straight. What is so shameful about doing what 51% of the world does at some time or another in their life? It doesn't change anything about the person you are. I've heard some ridiculous sexist drivel, that women are irrational when they menstruate, but surely we all know that this isn't the case. Maybe somewhat emotional, but that's because cramping hurts like hell. If males were going through that every month, I can assure you that we wouldn't be hearing any of that. And you know what, tampons would probably be free.
Well, after I've just dedicated a post to menstruating, I figure the smart thing is to treat the issue like what it is, something normal and natural. If it exists, it is natural. It's no special cause for celebration like the Always campaign says, and it's no cause for shame. It just is there. That's all. Really.
And a message to Always: You want to make this time more tolerable? Lose the damn e-cards and Pad-O-Meter. They won't do anything for us. Make your products free! I can assure you, that will make many women a lot happier than some asinine card.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Walk this way! Walk this way! Just gimme a kiss!
Got your attention, didn't I?
One thing I love doing is taking some of my guilty pleasure songs and re-working them to fit my point of view. By guilty pleasure, I mean the ones that I could rarely, if ever, relate to. Take any testosterone-fueled sausagefest male-oriented rock number, be it AC/DC or Aerosmith or Nine Inch Nails or even some Led Zeppelin and you know what I mean. Then I rework them from my hetero female perspective, as a "let me do this to a man" sort of thing.
When I saw Heart back in 2006 at Summerfest (see them if you get the chance, they just keep getting better), their encores were a pair of Led Zeppelin songs. Now they sound a lot like Zep does already, but these two songs were something of a surprise. For they were ones clearly from a guy's point of view, "Black Dog" and "Whole Lotta Love." As I was wondering how they were going to pull it off, Ann Wilson (the lead singer) showed her creative side and added these lyrics to the former--"I don't know what you've been told-- you think a pretty woman ain't got no soul" and "Now all I ask for when I pray, that a lovin' little woman won't come your way. Don't you need a woman to hold your hand, tell you no lies, make you a happy man?" The audience roared, and I have to say I liked that as an encore. It paid homage and talked back, which I think is awesome. The three times I saw Joan Jett and her lovely Blackhearts, they took a lot of songs previously associated with guy singers and did them. Which totally worked, especially when sandwiched in with songs like "Androgynous" and "ACDC (She Got Some Other Lover As Well As Me)." Even the more raucous acts nowadays wouldn't have the nerve to cover "Do You Wanna Touch Me?" or "Star Star," let alone rework them from a female standpoint ("you know you're my man, I'm doin' all I can, my temperature is runnin' high") AND pull it off!
It is incredibly fun entertainment.
I like the whole gender-bending (or blending?) nature of it. It's only fair for a woman to take a song and make it her own, as opposed to imagining herself being the girl the male singer is talking about (and I'm sorry, but much as I like their songs, I would rather NOT be the female in NIN's "Closer," for starters!). Take some of the control and the artistic expression and make it one's own. Plus, it just makes it more fun for the female audiophile.
One thing I love doing is taking some of my guilty pleasure songs and re-working them to fit my point of view. By guilty pleasure, I mean the ones that I could rarely, if ever, relate to. Take any testosterone-fueled sausagefest male-oriented rock number, be it AC/DC or Aerosmith or Nine Inch Nails or even some Led Zeppelin and you know what I mean. Then I rework them from my hetero female perspective, as a "let me do this to a man" sort of thing.
When I saw Heart back in 2006 at Summerfest (see them if you get the chance, they just keep getting better), their encores were a pair of Led Zeppelin songs. Now they sound a lot like Zep does already, but these two songs were something of a surprise. For they were ones clearly from a guy's point of view, "Black Dog" and "Whole Lotta Love." As I was wondering how they were going to pull it off, Ann Wilson (the lead singer) showed her creative side and added these lyrics to the former--"I don't know what you've been told-- you think a pretty woman ain't got no soul" and "Now all I ask for when I pray, that a lovin' little woman won't come your way. Don't you need a woman to hold your hand, tell you no lies, make you a happy man?" The audience roared, and I have to say I liked that as an encore. It paid homage and talked back, which I think is awesome. The three times I saw Joan Jett and her lovely Blackhearts, they took a lot of songs previously associated with guy singers and did them. Which totally worked, especially when sandwiched in with songs like "Androgynous" and "ACDC (She Got Some Other Lover As Well As Me)." Even the more raucous acts nowadays wouldn't have the nerve to cover "Do You Wanna Touch Me?" or "Star Star," let alone rework them from a female standpoint ("you know you're my man, I'm doin' all I can, my temperature is runnin' high") AND pull it off!
It is incredibly fun entertainment.
I like the whole gender-bending (or blending?) nature of it. It's only fair for a woman to take a song and make it her own, as opposed to imagining herself being the girl the male singer is talking about (and I'm sorry, but much as I like their songs, I would rather NOT be the female in NIN's "Closer," for starters!). Take some of the control and the artistic expression and make it one's own. Plus, it just makes it more fun for the female audiophile.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Strong alone, fearless together
Anyone who insists on using archaic old gender roles or sentiments such as "weaker sex" has obviously never met me or any of the women I associate with. (*Note to my boys, this article is about female activists, but I like y'all too.*)
And anyone who thinks feminism is dead will have a lot to learn.
Meet the feminists of today. We're alpha females, and we are about as weak and fragile as steel. Strong alone, fearless together, we know what we want and stop at nothing to get it. Just take a look at any of the Fem Maj events of this year. Or take a gander at a Take Back The Night march (read my post "Let me Empower You" for a full account). Weaker sex, my ass. With all this evidence to the contrary, it's still a wonder that anyone would cling to those outdated gender norms. And why? Cause we happen to be the owners of two X chromosomes or ovaries? Give me a break!
And anyone who thinks feminism is dead will have a lot to learn.
Meet the feminists of today. We're alpha females, and we are about as weak and fragile as steel. Strong alone, fearless together, we know what we want and stop at nothing to get it. Just take a look at any of the Fem Maj events of this year. Or take a gander at a Take Back The Night march (read my post "Let me Empower You" for a full account). Weaker sex, my ass. With all this evidence to the contrary, it's still a wonder that anyone would cling to those outdated gender norms. And why? Cause we happen to be the owners of two X chromosomes or ovaries? Give me a break!
Thursday, November 13, 2008
That's sooo last century!
I was looking through a magazine to find some more jewelry ideas so I could make some new designs when I went home (need to bring some to 40 North to see if they'll include me in the Boneyard). And what did I find? Not too much in the way of jewelry (sadly!), but I did find a ridiculous fashion spread. Yes, I'm a fashionista, but this is beyond silly. It featured a ton of ladies in sweaters and softer clothes, but it also included these archaic quotes in there...
"It is assumed that the woman must wait motionless until she is wooed. That is how the spider waits for the fly." --George Bernard Shaw
"A woman can say more in a sigh than a man can say in a sermon." --Arnold Haultain
"I have a feeling that the phrase 'weaker sex' was created by some woman to disarm a man she was preparing to overwhelm." --Ogden Nash
Maybe I'm a little biased because about half my wardrobe is secondhand or revel stuff, and I could probably never afford the duds in the magazine. I don't know about you, though, but all of these quotes would more likely make me not want to buy these clothes. The thought of being motionless and sighing (as opposed to talking) kind of scares me. And did you notice that they're all by men?? It's so obvious that they're about how an idealized woman would act as opposed to how she actually does. Hmmmm.....
"It is assumed that the woman must wait motionless until she is wooed. That is how the spider waits for the fly." --George Bernard Shaw
"A woman can say more in a sigh than a man can say in a sermon." --Arnold Haultain
"I have a feeling that the phrase 'weaker sex' was created by some woman to disarm a man she was preparing to overwhelm." --Ogden Nash
Maybe I'm a little biased because about half my wardrobe is secondhand or revel stuff, and I could probably never afford the duds in the magazine. I don't know about you, though, but all of these quotes would more likely make me not want to buy these clothes. The thought of being motionless and sighing (as opposed to talking) kind of scares me. And did you notice that they're all by men?? It's so obvious that they're about how an idealized woman would act as opposed to how she actually does. Hmmmm.....
Sunday, November 9, 2008
And if your policies aren't good enough, whip up a batch of cookies!
(Hey, I'm sorry if I'm boring you readers with tons of rantings in one night. The thing is, I'm writing a thirty-page paper about a rather disconcerting subject, and if I don't take little breaks from it, I may just be in serious need of Prozac tonight.)
With all the strides we as women have made, why is the "Presidential Cookie Contest" (which pits the wives of Presidential candidates against each other in baking cookies) still around?
I think it originated during the middle of the 20th century. But really, most first ladies are intelligent and successful enough in their own right. They don't need to re-assert their "values" by playing the happy housewife heroine. Plus, you are voting for the presidential candidate, not their spouses. If a woman were the nominee, would her husband have to make cookies? I don't know, but something in me tells me not.
I remember in fourth grade when Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole were in that contest, and I remember feeling really put off by it. Both women, regardless of which side you're on, are very strong and intelligent and wildly successful (they're both Senators and have had long careers in government, regardless of their famous husbands). While I have nothing against knowing how to cook, I remember thinking that I would never want to bake anything to placate a bunch of sexist pigs (unless it was their dead brain matter). Sounds harsh, but I am not here for proving my womanhood in outdated ways. Plus, knowing me, I'd more likely be the candidate myself and my partner would have to make the cookies. Or the two of us would skip 'em all together, and once I won the election, we'd whip up a batch to celebrate (and NOT share them with any sexist pigs and have 'em all to ourselves!).
With all the strides we as women have made, why is the "Presidential Cookie Contest" (which pits the wives of Presidential candidates against each other in baking cookies) still around?
I think it originated during the middle of the 20th century. But really, most first ladies are intelligent and successful enough in their own right. They don't need to re-assert their "values" by playing the happy housewife heroine. Plus, you are voting for the presidential candidate, not their spouses. If a woman were the nominee, would her husband have to make cookies? I don't know, but something in me tells me not.
I remember in fourth grade when Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Dole were in that contest, and I remember feeling really put off by it. Both women, regardless of which side you're on, are very strong and intelligent and wildly successful (they're both Senators and have had long careers in government, regardless of their famous husbands). While I have nothing against knowing how to cook, I remember thinking that I would never want to bake anything to placate a bunch of sexist pigs (unless it was their dead brain matter). Sounds harsh, but I am not here for proving my womanhood in outdated ways. Plus, knowing me, I'd more likely be the candidate myself and my partner would have to make the cookies. Or the two of us would skip 'em all together, and once I won the election, we'd whip up a batch to celebrate (and NOT share them with any sexist pigs and have 'em all to ourselves!).
Sunday, November 2, 2008
You don't really wanna mess with me tonight.
I always found this situation to be ironic, yet highly annoying. Over the summer, I would get off of work at La Casa, feeling all fired up and ready to save the whole world. I'd have finished a database, a court watch, or some development work, and I would be feeling like I just rode into town with my sh*tkicking boots (or in this case, dress flats to fit the La Casa dress code) on, all ready to save the world. Then, as I'd walk to the local library where my sister was working, I'd invariably pass some construction site or other group of guys, and I'd hear the shouts of "Hey baby!" or whistles or some related bullshit like that. I've never found that stuff flattering, and usually I'd just ignore it or outright tell them to shut up if I got really annoyed. I usually don't have qualms about putting someone (particularly a man) in their place.
I love going out now that I'm back at school. I pride myself on always knowing someone whenever I go to an event, and I almost always have someone to go with. It's fun and the perfect way to spend my weekends. This October, I saw two big-name acts, kd lang and Amy Ray, and I picked up some of the basics of Latin dance at Distinto Y Diferente (Latin nights at Cowboy Monkey and Great Impasta--loads of fun with really energetic music). I'm totally loving the whole "see and be seen" aspect of it. Plus, who doesn't love salsa music??
My main issue is with the rest of the crowd, especially the guys there. Granted, I love my guy friends and many of the males I meet are perfectly okay. It's just a few that really bother me, but unfortunately they're so persistant and downright annoying that I have a hard time just ignoring them. I'm no prude--I am definitely as forward as they come, I'm rather frank about most things, and I'm usually pretty friendly to most. It's just...that too many people take it in the wrong direction or misinterpret it or think that I'll be more than happy to go home with them (when in reality, it's usually the contrary!). And that bothers me. What is it that makes those guys feel that they're so entitled? Is it the fact that I just happen to be the proud owner of two ovaries and just happen to be there? Is it because I am (shock*gasp) a woman who happens to have left her place for the night and ventured out into the big mean world? Is it because they can? What is it?
One time when I went dancing at the Canopy during a Zmick show (I like Zmick, especially when they dedicate a song to me! never knew I'd grow to love such a schmaltzy song like "Sexy Crazy"!). And like always, I was my sparkly self. (I can put any self-respecting glam rocker to shame with the amount of glitter I have and wear when I'm out. Maybe I was a female glam rocker in another life. Who knows? That's totally my musical and fashion guilty pleasure!) So I was dancing around to "Interrogation," and like always, it was really crowded. The guy behind me just grabs one of my hips to get me closer and to start grinding against me. Now that was just plain gross! I don't have anything against grinding, but to have someone you can't even see just grabbing you and rubbing his cock up against you like that is pretty darn creepy! So I snatched his hand and yanked it off my hip and then darted right up close to the stage where he wouldn't fit. Then at Latin night, I saw a guy who happens to run in many of the same circles as me (scenester, artistic, even knows some monologists and advocates). So I made some small talk with him, and within minutes he was trying to get me to go home with him. IN FRONT OF MY FRIENDS. This is a guy who (1) knows I have a boyfriend, (2) is twelve, twelve, TWELVE (12) years older than me, (3) turned out to be incredibly arrogant. Any of those is a bad thing on its own, but combine 'em and you've got a nasty case on your hands. I told him I was staying at the club with my friends (thanks guys!) and not going with him. So he backed off, but whenever I see him, he says "My offer still stands." What part of no don't you understand??? Do you really have so little self-control that you can't keep your mouth shut and stay away when someone is clearly trying to avoid you? One time, he came up to me when I was with two of my feminists, one male and one female, and they automatically flanked me. Like they could sense what a man-slut he was. But really, what makes him think he is so entitled?
Flirtation isn't the problem. I know I'm an extrovert and will talk to anyone and everyone. And I will dance with almost anyone. It just bothers me because it seems as though I just can't get them off of my case. I feel like I'm being punished, that I always have to be on my guard because (a) I'm female and (2) I am in a public place and not hidden away from view. I am both seen AND heard. I'm not going to stop going out. That's the last thing I would want to do. I suppose I could lay off the glitter and the revealing clothes and dress like a stereotypical frumpy female nerd and not go out. But then I wouldn't be happy. I'd be so miserable I wouldn't know what to do with myself! Scenesters need the scene! So what should change?
I have talked about this to some of my friends, but it seems as though we all can't figure out the reason for it. But they do have some funny remedies for it! My friend DoMonique suggested bringing a dagger along (and she has a Facebook group about it. She calls it a rape dagger if it is used on an attacker). But really, I need to be serious here. What is the issue? Is it me? Or is it the men? My parents tell me that if I know guys will be doing that, then maybe I should do something else that night. But I don't want to let other people make me afraid. I'm a lot stronger and tougher, and as we all know, I don't stay down and in easily. My roommate tells me to "be careful" when I'm in any group that might just include males. But I have a lot of guy friends, I see them almost every day, and I can assure you that most of them respect me and don't pull that shit on me. Then some folks just take it to the extreme! For one example, when I saw my MASV friends at a club once, I went over to talk to them. And right away, one of my other friends (you know who you are!) thought they were ALL hitting on me (it was really just an animated conversation) and rushed over to butt in ask me if I wanted to dance. While we were out on the floor, he was asking me, "So Alex, about those five guys who were hitting on you...It sure is a good thing I came in and bailed you out" to which I replied, "They weren't hitting on me. They're my MASV guys; I'm friends with them all. That's it, really." Of course it doesn't help that that acronym is pronounced like "massive," because then it sounded REALLY wrong! But they weren't hitting on me, and I certainly wouldn't want to alienate people who are my friends just because they own a Y chromosome and are friendly towards me.
But where do you draw the line? Does one avoid guys altogether and only spend time with one's female friends and/or partner? Or do the guys have to change? Or am I really too flamboyant and forward for my own good? Is it a combination of it all? And in that case, what's a revel grl to do? Personally, I think that while I can do my best to combat those actions and mindsets, the real change has to be with the men. Start thinking with your other head for once. Would you want your mother or sister to be grabbed or propositioned by some drunk college guys with bad B.O.? I'm not against being friendly or flirtatious or anything like that, but sometimes enough is...well, enough.
I love going out now that I'm back at school. I pride myself on always knowing someone whenever I go to an event, and I almost always have someone to go with. It's fun and the perfect way to spend my weekends. This October, I saw two big-name acts, kd lang and Amy Ray, and I picked up some of the basics of Latin dance at Distinto Y Diferente (Latin nights at Cowboy Monkey and Great Impasta--loads of fun with really energetic music). I'm totally loving the whole "see and be seen" aspect of it. Plus, who doesn't love salsa music??
My main issue is with the rest of the crowd, especially the guys there. Granted, I love my guy friends and many of the males I meet are perfectly okay. It's just a few that really bother me, but unfortunately they're so persistant and downright annoying that I have a hard time just ignoring them. I'm no prude--I am definitely as forward as they come, I'm rather frank about most things, and I'm usually pretty friendly to most. It's just...that too many people take it in the wrong direction or misinterpret it or think that I'll be more than happy to go home with them (when in reality, it's usually the contrary!). And that bothers me. What is it that makes those guys feel that they're so entitled? Is it the fact that I just happen to be the proud owner of two ovaries and just happen to be there? Is it because I am (shock*gasp) a woman who happens to have left her place for the night and ventured out into the big mean world? Is it because they can? What is it?
One time when I went dancing at the Canopy during a Zmick show (I like Zmick, especially when they dedicate a song to me! never knew I'd grow to love such a schmaltzy song like "Sexy Crazy"!). And like always, I was my sparkly self. (I can put any self-respecting glam rocker to shame with the amount of glitter I have and wear when I'm out. Maybe I was a female glam rocker in another life. Who knows? That's totally my musical and fashion guilty pleasure!) So I was dancing around to "Interrogation," and like always, it was really crowded. The guy behind me just grabs one of my hips to get me closer and to start grinding against me. Now that was just plain gross! I don't have anything against grinding, but to have someone you can't even see just grabbing you and rubbing his cock up against you like that is pretty darn creepy! So I snatched his hand and yanked it off my hip and then darted right up close to the stage where he wouldn't fit. Then at Latin night, I saw a guy who happens to run in many of the same circles as me (scenester, artistic, even knows some monologists and advocates). So I made some small talk with him, and within minutes he was trying to get me to go home with him. IN FRONT OF MY FRIENDS. This is a guy who (1) knows I have a boyfriend, (2) is twelve, twelve, TWELVE (12) years older than me, (3) turned out to be incredibly arrogant. Any of those is a bad thing on its own, but combine 'em and you've got a nasty case on your hands. I told him I was staying at the club with my friends (thanks guys!) and not going with him. So he backed off, but whenever I see him, he says "My offer still stands." What part of no don't you understand??? Do you really have so little self-control that you can't keep your mouth shut and stay away when someone is clearly trying to avoid you? One time, he came up to me when I was with two of my feminists, one male and one female, and they automatically flanked me. Like they could sense what a man-slut he was. But really, what makes him think he is so entitled?
Flirtation isn't the problem. I know I'm an extrovert and will talk to anyone and everyone. And I will dance with almost anyone. It just bothers me because it seems as though I just can't get them off of my case. I feel like I'm being punished, that I always have to be on my guard because (a) I'm female and (2) I am in a public place and not hidden away from view. I am both seen AND heard. I'm not going to stop going out. That's the last thing I would want to do. I suppose I could lay off the glitter and the revealing clothes and dress like a stereotypical frumpy female nerd and not go out. But then I wouldn't be happy. I'd be so miserable I wouldn't know what to do with myself! Scenesters need the scene! So what should change?
I have talked about this to some of my friends, but it seems as though we all can't figure out the reason for it. But they do have some funny remedies for it! My friend DoMonique suggested bringing a dagger along (and she has a Facebook group about it. She calls it a rape dagger if it is used on an attacker). But really, I need to be serious here. What is the issue? Is it me? Or is it the men? My parents tell me that if I know guys will be doing that, then maybe I should do something else that night. But I don't want to let other people make me afraid. I'm a lot stronger and tougher, and as we all know, I don't stay down and in easily. My roommate tells me to "be careful" when I'm in any group that might just include males. But I have a lot of guy friends, I see them almost every day, and I can assure you that most of them respect me and don't pull that shit on me. Then some folks just take it to the extreme! For one example, when I saw my MASV friends at a club once, I went over to talk to them. And right away, one of my other friends (you know who you are!) thought they were ALL hitting on me (it was really just an animated conversation) and rushed over to butt in ask me if I wanted to dance. While we were out on the floor, he was asking me, "So Alex, about those five guys who were hitting on you...It sure is a good thing I came in and bailed you out" to which I replied, "They weren't hitting on me. They're my MASV guys; I'm friends with them all. That's it, really." Of course it doesn't help that that acronym is pronounced like "massive," because then it sounded REALLY wrong! But they weren't hitting on me, and I certainly wouldn't want to alienate people who are my friends just because they own a Y chromosome and are friendly towards me.
But where do you draw the line? Does one avoid guys altogether and only spend time with one's female friends and/or partner? Or do the guys have to change? Or am I really too flamboyant and forward for my own good? Is it a combination of it all? And in that case, what's a revel grl to do? Personally, I think that while I can do my best to combat those actions and mindsets, the real change has to be with the men. Start thinking with your other head for once. Would you want your mother or sister to be grabbed or propositioned by some drunk college guys with bad B.O.? I'm not against being friendly or flirtatious or anything like that, but sometimes enough is...well, enough.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Oh baby!
Well, here is yet another piece of news to add to Alex's Top Rantings. I swear, I've been on a feminist roll this whole day. First with unexpectedly playing Alex The Advocate in my first class (Ross asked me minutes before class started if I wouldn't mind handling disclosures during a presentation--which is fine by me, but I would've preferred advance notice), then ripping into Restoration-era sexual mores, and now this.
Apparantly there are some recent federal guidelines out regarding women's health. These guidelines instruct doctors to treat all women as either "pregnant" or "pre-pregnant" and to work with them accordingly. You can go here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html) to find the whole story about it, but this is truly a strange set of rules.
While I am totally in favor of making prenatal care more affordable and accessible for everyone (something that's especially needed in poorer and more racially diverse communities), I think that this is a little much. It seems to be taking that need and trying to "fix" it by using a snow shovel where a trowel is needed. The regulations require doctors to tell all women to stay away from certain things that could endanger the fetus or prospective fetus, but they don't really do much in terms of taking care of a pregnancy that's already there. That is where the need lies, since for nine months out of the year, a woman who's expecting needs to keep herself extra healthy. By telling a woman who isn't pregant and might not even be considering it what she can and can't do, there is little that gets accomplished. It's more or less reducing women to wombs and not much else. While I agree that childbirth is pretty important to many women, I think that this is simply assuming that all women are geared for that and not much else and treating them like baby incubators. What about women who physically cannot procreate? Can they be "pre" anything their bodies simply cannot do? Does that make sense? Can a lesbian be pre-pregnant? (And yes, I know several same-sex couples who have children, but they can't get each other pregnant.) And what about women who aren't planning to have children or who would like to adopt instead? Or women who have miscarried? I highly doubt a woman who has endured a miscarriage would like to hear about how she can protect another prospective fetus after that loss.
Can you imagine what would happen if the roles were reversed? It would be ridiculous! But sadly, this is pretty normal for a society that seems to be ignoring the pretty basic need for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education (read my March post "Tease Squeeze Please" for more). The necessity lies in affordable health care and comprehensive education, not a one-size-fits-all public service announcement.
Apparantly there are some recent federal guidelines out regarding women's health. These guidelines instruct doctors to treat all women as either "pregnant" or "pre-pregnant" and to work with them accordingly. You can go here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html) to find the whole story about it, but this is truly a strange set of rules.
While I am totally in favor of making prenatal care more affordable and accessible for everyone (something that's especially needed in poorer and more racially diverse communities), I think that this is a little much. It seems to be taking that need and trying to "fix" it by using a snow shovel where a trowel is needed. The regulations require doctors to tell all women to stay away from certain things that could endanger the fetus or prospective fetus, but they don't really do much in terms of taking care of a pregnancy that's already there. That is where the need lies, since for nine months out of the year, a woman who's expecting needs to keep herself extra healthy. By telling a woman who isn't pregant and might not even be considering it what she can and can't do, there is little that gets accomplished. It's more or less reducing women to wombs and not much else. While I agree that childbirth is pretty important to many women, I think that this is simply assuming that all women are geared for that and not much else and treating them like baby incubators. What about women who physically cannot procreate? Can they be "pre" anything their bodies simply cannot do? Does that make sense? Can a lesbian be pre-pregnant? (And yes, I know several same-sex couples who have children, but they can't get each other pregnant.) And what about women who aren't planning to have children or who would like to adopt instead? Or women who have miscarried? I highly doubt a woman who has endured a miscarriage would like to hear about how she can protect another prospective fetus after that loss.
Can you imagine what would happen if the roles were reversed? It would be ridiculous! But sadly, this is pretty normal for a society that seems to be ignoring the pretty basic need for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education (read my March post "Tease Squeeze Please" for more). The necessity lies in affordable health care and comprehensive education, not a one-size-fits-all public service announcement.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
And all I gotta do is...act naturally
I am taking this one class that I particularly love. It's called "Bodies and Technologies in Popular Culture," and it is great fun. We take all of this pop-psychology/biology stuff and then rip its logic into a billion little bits and prove it as wrong as wearing socks with sandals or raising a fuss over Y2K.
This class could not have come at a better time for me. It has always fascinated (as well as annoyed!) me when I hear people talking about how certain groups act this way and other groups act that way because "it's in their nature." From listening to folks like these, you'd think all humans consisted of were animalistic, base instincts and uncontrollable urges...and nothing more. All nature. No culture. And if anything, the 21st century has a combination of the most amazing cultures the world has ever seen; yet we still have some pretty darn vocal voices saying that people only behave in the way "their nature" dictates they should. Even more ridiculous is when folks start using examples from nature to illustrate why certain things are the way they are.
Phrases like those are not limited to today. Throughout history, we have seen discrimination unfold just because the dominant group (read: heterosexual, well-off, middle-aged white males) saw it as each of the minority groups' "natural place" to be below them. The folks who opposed abolition back in the 1800s used the disgusting argument that it was simply in the nature of the blacks to toil for long hours without any recompensation or humane treatment. And the disgusting practice continued until it was formally outlawed at the federal level. Women were first considered the property of either their husbands or their fathers, and they were encouraged to limit their life goals to "wife and mother" because (big surprise) they were told it was natural. (While there is nothing wrong with getting married and having kids, there is everything wrong with pushing that on everyone and not allowing them to have any dreams that happen to be different.)
The above historical examples sound horrendously antiquated, don't they? Then why do we still hear cr*p like that nowadays? Ladies' mags churn out new "scientific findings" justifying all kinds of BS: that men are "hard-wired" to cheat because it's in their instincts to produce as many offspring as possible (which is a little insulting to men, don't you think?), that women can sense when things are going wrong from the onset of something, that bad boys get more action because women are hard-wired not to resist them, etc. etc. Stuff like this is patronizing at best (by saying that basically we're just a bunch of raging hormones/instincts and not much else) and gross at worst. That first example, about how people are "instinctively" wired to want to procreate as much as possible has been used to justify a ton of hideous and completely untrue claims. At Sex Out Loud, the chastity group told Planned Parenthood (what were they thinking saying this to Planned Parenthood???) that contraceptives interfered with women's innate desire to be sexually pure (funny, I don't see anyone having a relationship with the actual pill) and yet also interfered with their "natural" role to bear children. Hmmm. I would have thought thinking and making one's own decisions was "natural" (including knowing when/if you wanted to reproduce). Then, at an RCS-sponsored event, one of the male advocates and I were fielding questions from the audience, and this one idiot stood up and was telling us that our rape victim advocacy work was conflicting with men's "biological nature" to father as many children as possible, even if it was by force. I was all set to let that guy have it, but before I could do anything, my cohort verbally eviscerated the sexist pig, saying that his views were really unfair to men as well as women! (I think it meant more coming from another guy, and Jack did one heckuva job as always.) I've also heard from well-meaning (I think?) individuals that because something existed in the animal kingdom, it was true for humans. Statements about how male animals are the aggressive and strong ones and that female ones are the nurturing ones. It makes me wonder if they have confused the species, because last time I checked, people are quite different from wild animals.
My response has usually been, "Okay, I think we've all evolved since then." I honestly don't think humanity is in a stagnant state that never changes, and if you know anything about history, you know that it is simply full of changes (good lord, that's a lot of change--I must be sounding like Barack Obama or something!). Or I say that I think we have more than just a bundle of instincts and hormones. In response to the animal thing, I've usually counter it with some witty (and sometimes crass) remarks that are just as true. You wanna talk about how males are dominant in nature? Let me tell you about nature! With lions, the lionesses do the hunting and are the stronger and fiercer ones. And with some kinds of bugs the female mates with the male and then eats him! (You should see the look I get for that one!)
Maybe people like those could be right in a way. By being so unenlightened, maybe they're the ones who haven't evolved and who haven't used much more than their instincts and big mouths. But really, you'd think statements like those would be deemed as the ridiculosity they are and not accepted at face value.
This class could not have come at a better time for me. It has always fascinated (as well as annoyed!) me when I hear people talking about how certain groups act this way and other groups act that way because "it's in their nature." From listening to folks like these, you'd think all humans consisted of were animalistic, base instincts and uncontrollable urges...and nothing more. All nature. No culture. And if anything, the 21st century has a combination of the most amazing cultures the world has ever seen; yet we still have some pretty darn vocal voices saying that people only behave in the way "their nature" dictates they should. Even more ridiculous is when folks start using examples from nature to illustrate why certain things are the way they are.
Phrases like those are not limited to today. Throughout history, we have seen discrimination unfold just because the dominant group (read: heterosexual, well-off, middle-aged white males) saw it as each of the minority groups' "natural place" to be below them. The folks who opposed abolition back in the 1800s used the disgusting argument that it was simply in the nature of the blacks to toil for long hours without any recompensation or humane treatment. And the disgusting practice continued until it was formally outlawed at the federal level. Women were first considered the property of either their husbands or their fathers, and they were encouraged to limit their life goals to "wife and mother" because (big surprise) they were told it was natural. (While there is nothing wrong with getting married and having kids, there is everything wrong with pushing that on everyone and not allowing them to have any dreams that happen to be different.)
The above historical examples sound horrendously antiquated, don't they? Then why do we still hear cr*p like that nowadays? Ladies' mags churn out new "scientific findings" justifying all kinds of BS: that men are "hard-wired" to cheat because it's in their instincts to produce as many offspring as possible (which is a little insulting to men, don't you think?), that women can sense when things are going wrong from the onset of something, that bad boys get more action because women are hard-wired not to resist them, etc. etc. Stuff like this is patronizing at best (by saying that basically we're just a bunch of raging hormones/instincts and not much else) and gross at worst. That first example, about how people are "instinctively" wired to want to procreate as much as possible has been used to justify a ton of hideous and completely untrue claims. At Sex Out Loud, the chastity group told Planned Parenthood (what were they thinking saying this to Planned Parenthood???) that contraceptives interfered with women's innate desire to be sexually pure (funny, I don't see anyone having a relationship with the actual pill) and yet also interfered with their "natural" role to bear children. Hmmm. I would have thought thinking and making one's own decisions was "natural" (including knowing when/if you wanted to reproduce). Then, at an RCS-sponsored event, one of the male advocates and I were fielding questions from the audience, and this one idiot stood up and was telling us that our rape victim advocacy work was conflicting with men's "biological nature" to father as many children as possible, even if it was by force. I was all set to let that guy have it, but before I could do anything, my cohort verbally eviscerated the sexist pig, saying that his views were really unfair to men as well as women! (I think it meant more coming from another guy, and Jack did one heckuva job as always.) I've also heard from well-meaning (I think?) individuals that because something existed in the animal kingdom, it was true for humans. Statements about how male animals are the aggressive and strong ones and that female ones are the nurturing ones. It makes me wonder if they have confused the species, because last time I checked, people are quite different from wild animals.
My response has usually been, "Okay, I think we've all evolved since then." I honestly don't think humanity is in a stagnant state that never changes, and if you know anything about history, you know that it is simply full of changes (good lord, that's a lot of change--I must be sounding like Barack Obama or something!). Or I say that I think we have more than just a bundle of instincts and hormones. In response to the animal thing, I've usually counter it with some witty (and sometimes crass) remarks that are just as true. You wanna talk about how males are dominant in nature? Let me tell you about nature! With lions, the lionesses do the hunting and are the stronger and fiercer ones. And with some kinds of bugs the female mates with the male and then eats him! (You should see the look I get for that one!)
Maybe people like those could be right in a way. By being so unenlightened, maybe they're the ones who haven't evolved and who haven't used much more than their instincts and big mouths. But really, you'd think statements like those would be deemed as the ridiculosity they are and not accepted at face value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
