Dear Gary,
You. Are. Awesome.
And by that, I mean completely awesome.
I think it's way too bad that people are censoring your Doonesbury series about the new restrictions on reproductive freedom. As a woman living day in and day out in this culture, I find it to be totally ridiculous that I and my sisters are expected to just sit back and put up with all these scary restrictions on our own healthcare that will affect our lives...but a cartoon disagreeing with this (and drawn by a man, no less!) has to be censored so as not to hurt the feelings of the males who came up with these scary restrictions. Where is the logic in this? People like me have to sit back and have a transvaginal sonogram if we are seeking an abortion or be called sluts if we are sexually active, but the men (who will not be pregnant) who created these laws are offended by a comic strip about this? I have had enough of this!
But you know what, Gary? As my way of saying thanks for your art, I'm going to be a friend for you. I'm going to do my little part in making sure more people see what you intended, rather than the censored strips. So Revel readers, make sure you take a look: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/03/13/new-media-rule-107-censorship-has-opposite-desired-effect. Today for me, tomorrow for you, as Angel from Rent would say.
So thanks, Gary. This revel is grateful. And I hope you don't have any more inspiration for similar strips, as all the restrictions on reproductive freedoms are really scaring me.
Your friend,
Revel
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
I want a fearless love, I won't settle for anything less
I figured that "Fearless Love" was as good of a title as any for this post. This is the title track off Melissa Etheridge's latest CD, not the similarly titled Taylor Swift one (not too much of a Swift fan). I've been listening to a lot of Melissa's bluesy heartland-rock groove lately, and she is absolutely spectacular.
But all music musings aside, I am going to discuss something a little different in this post. I'm writing to discuss the phenomenon of the mainstream dating book. I know these things are as old as it gets, but I really feel so bombarded with the messages from them. It really seems like a woman with her own mind and own interests and desires is somehow not welcome in these books and that their prevailing message is that we independent and successful women need to subsume our own identities into that of our significant other's. It really makes me wonder how far we have come as a society if books like those can still make the bestseller list (meaning somebody must be buying them) and people still repeat the ideas they promote!
I was curious about a few of them, so I put on an emotional hazmat suit, flipped through them, and immediately regretted it. You have The Rules, which encourages its female readers to play hard to get and let their man decide everything. By playing hard to get, its (divorced!!) authors explained, a woman would have to downplay her own accomplishments or desires and not look for much more than a pulse in a partner. You have books for teens, which are all geared towards pleasing a guy, lest he turn into a potential boyfriend. You have those paragons of ridiculosity Steve Harvey (Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man) and "Dr." Laura (The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands) who warn that men are "hardwired" to always want to control their wives. And you have what looks like more of the same in The Man Whisperers, which says that there's only room for one personality in the relationship and that personality sure isn't the woman's. I mean, what century are these authors even living in??? In a world where we women have made tremendous strides and most men have come to expect that we are not extensions of or mirrors for them, how is it that drivel like this still exists??? (Not to mention that not every woman wants a man, but in the dating books, gay men and lesbians don't seem to exist.) And how the heck is it that a new book is out almost every year, rehashing the same old thing?
Not only are the books sexist against both men and women (by making men seem as though they expect the world to revolve around them and making women seem like little more than marriage-minded extensions of men), heterosexist, and marriage-centric, they also make me wonder how a relationship they advise could ever be successful. Who would want a relationship that was built on deception and manipulation? Who wants a significant other who was only pretending to be a certain way? And who would really be happy with somebody who didn't care about her accomplishments or desires or anything else that made up who she was? I don't know about you, but those do not strike me as relationships that would make anybody happy or that would be all that successful if I was pretending to be something I wasn't (or following the rules, acting like a lady but thinking like a man, or man-whispering). Perhaps the relationship would work, but it does not seem like one that I would be all that happy to be in. I'm not a man, nor do I usually partner with women, but I can tell you that I would much rather be with someone who was her own person and brought her own personality to the relationship than someone who merely acted like an extension of me!
It also makes me wonder if those books aren't merely extensions of the authors' own prejudices and attitudes as well. Maybe with "Dr." Laura and Steve Harvey, it's a no-brainer, but I wonder about the others. Like, let's keep the ladies in their places by telling them that guys won't like them if they become too strong or successful. Gotta return to those good old days of being chattel. Which then really makes me wonder if the women who wrote the Rules or the Man Whisperers even follow their own guidelines and how that even works for them! Do they even practice what they preach, and if so, does that work? Or if they either don't do it or don't like it, then why in the world are they trying to make other people do it??
It's high time we heard a different voice. Isn't it time for some equality?
But all music musings aside, I am going to discuss something a little different in this post. I'm writing to discuss the phenomenon of the mainstream dating book. I know these things are as old as it gets, but I really feel so bombarded with the messages from them. It really seems like a woman with her own mind and own interests and desires is somehow not welcome in these books and that their prevailing message is that we independent and successful women need to subsume our own identities into that of our significant other's. It really makes me wonder how far we have come as a society if books like those can still make the bestseller list (meaning somebody must be buying them) and people still repeat the ideas they promote!
I was curious about a few of them, so I put on an emotional hazmat suit, flipped through them, and immediately regretted it. You have The Rules, which encourages its female readers to play hard to get and let their man decide everything. By playing hard to get, its (divorced!!) authors explained, a woman would have to downplay her own accomplishments or desires and not look for much more than a pulse in a partner. You have books for teens, which are all geared towards pleasing a guy, lest he turn into a potential boyfriend. You have those paragons of ridiculosity Steve Harvey (Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man) and "Dr." Laura (The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands) who warn that men are "hardwired" to always want to control their wives. And you have what looks like more of the same in The Man Whisperers, which says that there's only room for one personality in the relationship and that personality sure isn't the woman's. I mean, what century are these authors even living in??? In a world where we women have made tremendous strides and most men have come to expect that we are not extensions of or mirrors for them, how is it that drivel like this still exists??? (Not to mention that not every woman wants a man, but in the dating books, gay men and lesbians don't seem to exist.) And how the heck is it that a new book is out almost every year, rehashing the same old thing?
Not only are the books sexist against both men and women (by making men seem as though they expect the world to revolve around them and making women seem like little more than marriage-minded extensions of men), heterosexist, and marriage-centric, they also make me wonder how a relationship they advise could ever be successful. Who would want a relationship that was built on deception and manipulation? Who wants a significant other who was only pretending to be a certain way? And who would really be happy with somebody who didn't care about her accomplishments or desires or anything else that made up who she was? I don't know about you, but those do not strike me as relationships that would make anybody happy or that would be all that successful if I was pretending to be something I wasn't (or following the rules, acting like a lady but thinking like a man, or man-whispering). Perhaps the relationship would work, but it does not seem like one that I would be all that happy to be in. I'm not a man, nor do I usually partner with women, but I can tell you that I would much rather be with someone who was her own person and brought her own personality to the relationship than someone who merely acted like an extension of me!
It also makes me wonder if those books aren't merely extensions of the authors' own prejudices and attitudes as well. Maybe with "Dr." Laura and Steve Harvey, it's a no-brainer, but I wonder about the others. Like, let's keep the ladies in their places by telling them that guys won't like them if they become too strong or successful. Gotta return to those good old days of being chattel. Which then really makes me wonder if the women who wrote the Rules or the Man Whisperers even follow their own guidelines and how that even works for them! Do they even practice what they preach, and if so, does that work? Or if they either don't do it or don't like it, then why in the world are they trying to make other people do it??
It's high time we heard a different voice. Isn't it time for some equality?
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.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
For married folks only!
Truth is not only stronger and stranger than fiction, it's grosser than fiction.
Go here for something truly disgusting in the realm of women's health: http://www.mum.org/Lysol48.htm.
Who would use Lysol (that stuff you use to clean the bathroom and kitchen with the really malodorous smell) as a feminine hygiene product?? And how in the world could anyone say it's "safe" or think it's at all okay to put...well, down there?? Ick. Glad I don't live in that time. I'd rather "lose my romantic air" than put Lysol in me.
And check out that advertisement "for married folks only." Yeah...your husband will be real happy to have you do something that could possibly harm your health to maintain your, um, freshness.
Go here for something truly disgusting in the realm of women's health: http://www.mum.org/Lysol48.htm.
Who would use Lysol (that stuff you use to clean the bathroom and kitchen with the really malodorous smell) as a feminine hygiene product?? And how in the world could anyone say it's "safe" or think it's at all okay to put...well, down there?? Ick. Glad I don't live in that time. I'd rather "lose my romantic air" than put Lysol in me.
And check out that advertisement "for married folks only." Yeah...your husband will be real happy to have you do something that could possibly harm your health to maintain your, um, freshness.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Learning, living, and loving
Sex Out Loud was really great! I think this year's one was the smoothest one yet, and while I'm not meaning to brag, I am really happy with the groups and the visitors. Seems like there was always a constant stream of visitors (and it was a pretty good, responsive crowd), and they weren't all the stereotypical liberal, feministic type you'd expect to attend. Sure, we had a lot of the typical crowd (heck, I am one of them), but all that chalking/flyering/emailing totally paid off because we had a lot of people who normally wouldn't be expected to attend. (Much love to my feminists and womanist for the hours of publicizing on Monday!) Several attended it for class credit, some sororities and fraternities and dorm floors went over as groups, and others were just curious about what the fuss was all about!
The groups played off of each other well too. I think they were just great together. The Illini Arcade and Pure Romance booths were swamped...but is that a surprise?? Benita from NARAL was such a sweetie. She must have thanked me at least seven times during the day because it gave NARAL some publicity and exposure. And she got to talk with the folks from Students for Choice (when they finally finished making their display board) and Planned Parenthood. The ALA student chapter garnered a lot of compliments because they had a display of sexual health and women's/LGBT history books. (There's more to them than the "Sexy librarian" cliche.) MASV's display was really impressive, and their theme was "Are you man enough?" And the V-girls from the Vagina Monologues had a good time as well, even working out a Pure Romance party for the cast within minutes (now, that's what I call networking!). The health peer table was cute, with its I-SHAG theme and Superhero Kits. The YWCA was a good choice as well, and they (along with Students for Choice, Colors of PRIDE, and the librarians) made their debut at the fair. I loved the others as well, but these are the highlights.
I hope that I can come back next year for the Sex Out Loud fair and that Fem Maj is in good hands so it can live on. That group and event means the world to me.
The groups played off of each other well too. I think they were just great together. The Illini Arcade and Pure Romance booths were swamped...but is that a surprise?? Benita from NARAL was such a sweetie. She must have thanked me at least seven times during the day because it gave NARAL some publicity and exposure. And she got to talk with the folks from Students for Choice (when they finally finished making their display board) and Planned Parenthood. The ALA student chapter garnered a lot of compliments because they had a display of sexual health and women's/LGBT history books. (There's more to them than the "Sexy librarian" cliche.) MASV's display was really impressive, and their theme was "Are you man enough?" And the V-girls from the Vagina Monologues had a good time as well, even working out a Pure Romance party for the cast within minutes (now, that's what I call networking!). The health peer table was cute, with its I-SHAG theme and Superhero Kits. The YWCA was a good choice as well, and they (along with Students for Choice, Colors of PRIDE, and the librarians) made their debut at the fair. I loved the others as well, but these are the highlights.
I hope that I can come back next year for the Sex Out Loud fair and that Fem Maj is in good hands so it can live on. That group and event means the world to me.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Whew
Well...I suppose I won't be missing the entire conference. One of my history friends was talking to me today and happened to ask, "Hey, are you going to that symposium this weekend?" I was all set to lament the unfairness that I wouldn't be able to, when he told me that there'd be some talks on Friday as well. So I will be going to a workshop called "The Sovereign Female," which is about women in monarchies (all too often, we hear about the kings of certain countries, so female rulers should be interesting) and another called "Envisioning the New Woman" which is about turn-of-the-century feminism.
So it's not so unfair after all.
I have just emailed every LAS department advisor/registered student organization/Greek organization/cooperative on this whole darn campus about Sex Out Loud. If that doesn't get the fair a lot of visitors, then I don't know what will. DoMonique has made a Facebook event, and the other Feminists have worked their magic on the classrooms. This had better bring in the visitors on Tuesday.
So it's not so unfair after all.
I have just emailed every LAS department advisor/registered student organization/Greek organization/cooperative on this whole darn campus about Sex Out Loud. If that doesn't get the fair a lot of visitors, then I don't know what will. DoMonique has made a Facebook event, and the other Feminists have worked their magic on the classrooms. This had better bring in the visitors on Tuesday.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Last laugh
I dance with you in the sparkling lights,
You say I'm pretty and we talk all night.
Your words and moves are smooth, but frankly,
You know nothing about me.
So what was it that made you act this way?
Anything in particular that made you say
That you liked the way I made you feel
And that you weren't going home without me.
You're not what I wanted that particular time.
But you're what I would have since you looked so sublime.
You were more familiar than that party was,
But would I forget you all the same?
Sentimental attachment is hardly for me.
When I want something, I want it immediately.
It doesn't matter if it's for a night or a year,
To me, it's only a game.
Well, there was something about the look on your face
That convinced me to spend the night at your place.
I made you scream, and you made me wonder
How so much trouble could look so damned fine.
The next morning I'm off and back to normal life.
You told me you'd call me as you kissed me goodbye.
You may have last night but I have the last laugh
Cause the number I gave wasn't mine.
You say I'm pretty and we talk all night.
Your words and moves are smooth, but frankly,
You know nothing about me.
So what was it that made you act this way?
Anything in particular that made you say
That you liked the way I made you feel
And that you weren't going home without me.
You're not what I wanted that particular time.
But you're what I would have since you looked so sublime.
You were more familiar than that party was,
But would I forget you all the same?
Sentimental attachment is hardly for me.
When I want something, I want it immediately.
It doesn't matter if it's for a night or a year,
To me, it's only a game.
Well, there was something about the look on your face
That convinced me to spend the night at your place.
I made you scream, and you made me wonder
How so much trouble could look so damned fine.
The next morning I'm off and back to normal life.
You told me you'd call me as you kissed me goodbye.
You may have last night but I have the last laugh
Cause the number I gave wasn't mine.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Yes!
Most of the tables are filled!
Most of the fabulous groups are confirmed (three of which are new this year), and the number TOPS, TOPS, TOPS my record from last year!
It's a month till the big day, and my ship is on the horizon!
AV material is rented.
Playlist is created.
Draft of flyers is on my computer.
And turnout at meetings is bigger and better than ever!
Now all we need are the visitors!
YES!!!!! I have got this president thing down to an ART! And I couldn't have done it without such a fantastic group! After all, a good leader goes nowhere without good people for leading.
Most of the fabulous groups are confirmed (three of which are new this year), and the number TOPS, TOPS, TOPS my record from last year!
It's a month till the big day, and my ship is on the horizon!
AV material is rented.
Playlist is created.
Draft of flyers is on my computer.
And turnout at meetings is bigger and better than ever!
Now all we need are the visitors!
YES!!!!! I have got this president thing down to an ART! And I couldn't have done it without such a fantastic group! After all, a good leader goes nowhere without good people for leading.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Searching for Sisterhood
Or, "How I Learned to Find the Power in Sisterhood and Cross This Bridge"
Here is some lovely feminist theory analysis courtesy of me!
Over break, I was reading two classics of feminist anthology. They are both wonderful books, and total must-reads for anyone who is interested in the great tradition of American activism and feminism. I would highly recommend them to anyone. One is Sisterhood is Powerful, and it is compiled by Robin Morgan. The other is This Bridge Called my Back, and its editor is Cherie Moraga. I liked them both, but I've noticed that they both have their own very distinct methods of promoting women's equality. My question is, which way is best? Or does an activist need to strike some sort of balance? (And yes, I am ultra-analyzing, but bear with me here.) Let me elaborate, as both do have their own backgrounds and quirks.
Sisterhood was published in the 1970s as "an anthology of writings from the women's liberation movement." It's considered one of the classics of that time, and it contains writings from both well-known and more obscure authors regarding what its editor, Robin Morgan, sees as the "women's experience." Morgan is the author of two other Sisterhood books, and they take their names from substituting "global" and "forever" for "powerful." My blog post "Sisterhood and Brotherhood Are Powerful, Global, and Forever" is actually based on the titles of the three Morgan books. She's also written about terrorism (Demon Lover) and politics (Anatomy of Freedom) and bills herself as a radical feminist.
What Morgan promotes is a focus on the "women's experience." She notices the way that history has often been written from the point of view of men, and she seeks to compile writings by and about women in order to pay attention to a much-overlooked "female experience." By pointing out what women have gone through, she hopes to foster a sense of solidarity and to prevent female voices from getting lost in the writing of history. Morgan is devoted to fostering a sense of "sisterhood."
The other book, This Bridge, is considered the seminal text that ushered in the third wave of feminism, and it's billed as "writings by radical women of color." The third wave is marked, among other things, by an expansion of feminism's outreach and an attention to the interlocking problems that women have faced (i.e. they also focus on racism, classism, faithism, and homophobia as well as sexism). Moraga, its editor, is adament about blurring the boundaries between groups and striking up alliances between social justice groups. She has written that one cannot be focused on ending sexism if one is not also willing to take on the problems of racism and homophobia, among others as well. Sure, she implies, sisterhood may be powerful, but forming alliances and expanding that definition of sisterhood is even more so.
Now these two views, promoting a "women's experience"/sisterhood and fostering alliances and expanding outreach, are equally valid and have their share of problems.
Morgan sees solidarity as based on a shared experience, a sisterhood, something women can all claim as their own. By having an experience that women can relate to, feminism becomes an "everywoman" sort of movement. Moraga, on the other hand, sees alliances as the way to go and that feminism should take a more active role in other social movements as well.
However, the trouble with sisterhood is that it leaves a ton of people out. Sisterhood is Powerful is a radical anthology, but most of the contributors identify as White and were fairly well-educated. None of the essays are by male allies, and only a handful are written by or about lesbians. Sisterhood certainly can be powerful, but according to whose terms? For every woman who complained about a feminine mystique (with no disrespect intended to Ms. Betty) and dissatisfaction as a domestic wife, there was another woman who was upset over having to work incredibly hard and have no time for her family. Or a woman who loved another woman and was feeling like her relationship was being ignored by the media and by a supposedly progressive social movement. If a "woman's experience" is promoted, any woman whose life did not measure up to those terms would feel left out.
But how much better is forming "this bridge" between groups? Moraga and her coeditor Gloria Anzaldua see the formation of alliances between groups and expanding feminist politics to include anti-racist and anti-homophobic activities. All of the writings in This Bridge are by minority writers. By focusing on ending racism and other social ills as well as sexism, women can then be truly empowered. The book does make a lot of sense, as many women, in particular lesbians and minority women do face interlocking forms of oppression. By being women in a patriarchal society and women of color/of a lower class/in relationships with other women in a white-preferential/materialist/heterosexist society, their burdens are even more augmented. However, the problem that Moraga runs into is the loss of a unique voice of a group. If one takes on the views and problems of others, one's voice is co-opted and expanded to include that of others. The issues that are unique to one group can become lost in the quest for alliances.
I am not entirely sure of which activist's way is best. Maybe I am overanalyzing it, because they are both legendary anthologies and should be treated as such. However, I personally think that the best way would be a delicate balance between them. Know your group and the issues that make it unique and different. But don't be afraid to reach out to other groups to gain allies and to help them in their struggles as well.
Here is some lovely feminist theory analysis courtesy of me!
Over break, I was reading two classics of feminist anthology. They are both wonderful books, and total must-reads for anyone who is interested in the great tradition of American activism and feminism. I would highly recommend them to anyone. One is Sisterhood is Powerful, and it is compiled by Robin Morgan. The other is This Bridge Called my Back, and its editor is Cherie Moraga. I liked them both, but I've noticed that they both have their own very distinct methods of promoting women's equality. My question is, which way is best? Or does an activist need to strike some sort of balance? (And yes, I am ultra-analyzing, but bear with me here.) Let me elaborate, as both do have their own backgrounds and quirks.
Sisterhood was published in the 1970s as "an anthology of writings from the women's liberation movement." It's considered one of the classics of that time, and it contains writings from both well-known and more obscure authors regarding what its editor, Robin Morgan, sees as the "women's experience." Morgan is the author of two other Sisterhood books, and they take their names from substituting "global" and "forever" for "powerful." My blog post "Sisterhood and Brotherhood Are Powerful, Global, and Forever" is actually based on the titles of the three Morgan books. She's also written about terrorism (Demon Lover) and politics (Anatomy of Freedom) and bills herself as a radical feminist.
What Morgan promotes is a focus on the "women's experience." She notices the way that history has often been written from the point of view of men, and she seeks to compile writings by and about women in order to pay attention to a much-overlooked "female experience." By pointing out what women have gone through, she hopes to foster a sense of solidarity and to prevent female voices from getting lost in the writing of history. Morgan is devoted to fostering a sense of "sisterhood."
The other book, This Bridge, is considered the seminal text that ushered in the third wave of feminism, and it's billed as "writings by radical women of color." The third wave is marked, among other things, by an expansion of feminism's outreach and an attention to the interlocking problems that women have faced (i.e. they also focus on racism, classism, faithism, and homophobia as well as sexism). Moraga, its editor, is adament about blurring the boundaries between groups and striking up alliances between social justice groups. She has written that one cannot be focused on ending sexism if one is not also willing to take on the problems of racism and homophobia, among others as well. Sure, she implies, sisterhood may be powerful, but forming alliances and expanding that definition of sisterhood is even more so.
Now these two views, promoting a "women's experience"/sisterhood and fostering alliances and expanding outreach, are equally valid and have their share of problems.
Morgan sees solidarity as based on a shared experience, a sisterhood, something women can all claim as their own. By having an experience that women can relate to, feminism becomes an "everywoman" sort of movement. Moraga, on the other hand, sees alliances as the way to go and that feminism should take a more active role in other social movements as well.
However, the trouble with sisterhood is that it leaves a ton of people out. Sisterhood is Powerful is a radical anthology, but most of the contributors identify as White and were fairly well-educated. None of the essays are by male allies, and only a handful are written by or about lesbians. Sisterhood certainly can be powerful, but according to whose terms? For every woman who complained about a feminine mystique (with no disrespect intended to Ms. Betty) and dissatisfaction as a domestic wife, there was another woman who was upset over having to work incredibly hard and have no time for her family. Or a woman who loved another woman and was feeling like her relationship was being ignored by the media and by a supposedly progressive social movement. If a "woman's experience" is promoted, any woman whose life did not measure up to those terms would feel left out.
But how much better is forming "this bridge" between groups? Moraga and her coeditor Gloria Anzaldua see the formation of alliances between groups and expanding feminist politics to include anti-racist and anti-homophobic activities. All of the writings in This Bridge are by minority writers. By focusing on ending racism and other social ills as well as sexism, women can then be truly empowered. The book does make a lot of sense, as many women, in particular lesbians and minority women do face interlocking forms of oppression. By being women in a patriarchal society and women of color/of a lower class/in relationships with other women in a white-preferential/materialist/heterosexist society, their burdens are even more augmented. However, the problem that Moraga runs into is the loss of a unique voice of a group. If one takes on the views and problems of others, one's voice is co-opted and expanded to include that of others. The issues that are unique to one group can become lost in the quest for alliances.
I am not entirely sure of which activist's way is best. Maybe I am overanalyzing it, because they are both legendary anthologies and should be treated as such. However, I personally think that the best way would be a delicate balance between them. Know your group and the issues that make it unique and different. But don't be afraid to reach out to other groups to gain allies and to help them in their struggles as well.
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Shirts, shoes, and the shield laws
And now ANOTHER ridiculous fashion article for you!
Apparently that love-a-ly (note my sarcasm) rag Men's Health has an article called "You Might be Dressed for Sex and Not even Know it." Hmmm....I could've sworn people knew when they wanted someone, as opposed to a hookup just happening all out of the blue and all. When someone tells you, "It just happened," well, it sounds just as pathetic no matter who says it. That article's title is pretty dumb, as it sounds like a really creepy rape myth or something like that (ever hear of the shield laws, that said that what you wear is not a reason for people to attack you? If I could hug the shield laws, I so would).
But take a gander at these examples of what women could be wearing and the messages they "are sending:" (This is not their exact wording but rather my interpretation of it.)
A belted dress or skirt
I'm totally old-fashioned and ladylike, and I don't mind having you make all the decisions for me or support what you think I should do. I'd be more than happy to do your bidding as long as you wore the pants and won the bread and brought home the bacon in this relationship.
A soft, snug sweater
I'm cute and cuddly and am totally up for you talking to me like I'm two years old. After all, I need a big strong man to put me in my place, and hopefully you're up for the job.
High heels
Hey you! Yes, you! Over there! I'm totally screaming for attention without saying a word. And of course, my shoes have to do the talking for me because I am in so much blistering pain that I can't possibly walk over to talk to you myself.
Something red
I'm a dirty little girl who just wants attention. It doesn't matter who it's from. After all, aren't guys like bulls, attracted to the color red?
Revealing v-neck
Don't blame me, blame my skanky ovaries. When it's that time of the month, I'm supposed to show off some more. Lucky you, huh?
A top that reveals a bra strap
I'm such a clever little girl that I'm putting subliminal messages into your head. You can see my bra? Good, now try and imagine what I look like in it...and with it off.
Now, how ri-damn-diculous is this? What about the real reasons why women wear these?
A belted dress or skirt
If I don't wear a belt with the skirt, it will fall down, and frankly, you didn't pay to see that show. Plus, this is a formal occaision and wearing anything else will look totally out of place.
A soft, snug sweater
It's, like, a million degrees below zero and if I don't wear a sweater, I will freeze to death.
High heels
I'm wearing the heels to go with that belted dress or skirt I mentioned earlier. It's more formal and looks more professional than if I had on athletic shoes or flip flops.
Something red
It's my favorite color, and it came in my size. Deal with it.
Revealing v-neck
The tank top I usually wear with it is in the wash right now. And I like the way it looks.
A top that reveals a bra strap
When I found this top in the clearance rack, I didn't know how badly it fit until I put it on. I'm burning it when I get home. No, actually, I'm spraying you with my pepper spray first because you're ogling me. Then I will take it home and burn it.
And what about men's clothes? Let's try and make a men's variation of it. After all, women have hormones and desires too. Are the men unknowingly dressed for a woman to have her way with them?
A polo shirt and khakis
I'm incredibly traditional and preppy and will make all the money and decisions for this family. You don't have to worry your pretty little head about voting or working or going outside the home. I've got that all taken care of.
Jeans so low that they reveal boxers
I'm such a clever little boy that I'm putting subliminal messages into your head. You can see my boxers? Good, now try and imagine what I look like in them...and with them off.
A tailored suit
I'm really hot. And damn it, I know I'm so hot that you've just got to look at me. And come over to me in your high heels. And come home with me...
Now doesn't this sound dumb....it does, as much as the women's one sounds! Seriously, are we as women considered to have so little agency or ability to express ourselves that apparantly have our clothes do the talking? And did you notice that up until my little post about the menfolk, that no one ever thinks a guy is sending a message that he might not be intending to. Heck, I'm pretty sure most guys don't even think this way or feel they have to justify what they have on.
Apparently that love-a-ly (note my sarcasm) rag Men's Health has an article called "You Might be Dressed for Sex and Not even Know it." Hmmm....I could've sworn people knew when they wanted someone, as opposed to a hookup just happening all out of the blue and all. When someone tells you, "It just happened," well, it sounds just as pathetic no matter who says it. That article's title is pretty dumb, as it sounds like a really creepy rape myth or something like that (ever hear of the shield laws, that said that what you wear is not a reason for people to attack you? If I could hug the shield laws, I so would).
But take a gander at these examples of what women could be wearing and the messages they "are sending:" (This is not their exact wording but rather my interpretation of it.)
A belted dress or skirt
I'm totally old-fashioned and ladylike, and I don't mind having you make all the decisions for me or support what you think I should do. I'd be more than happy to do your bidding as long as you wore the pants and won the bread and brought home the bacon in this relationship.
A soft, snug sweater
I'm cute and cuddly and am totally up for you talking to me like I'm two years old. After all, I need a big strong man to put me in my place, and hopefully you're up for the job.
High heels
Hey you! Yes, you! Over there! I'm totally screaming for attention without saying a word. And of course, my shoes have to do the talking for me because I am in so much blistering pain that I can't possibly walk over to talk to you myself.
Something red
I'm a dirty little girl who just wants attention. It doesn't matter who it's from. After all, aren't guys like bulls, attracted to the color red?
Revealing v-neck
Don't blame me, blame my skanky ovaries. When it's that time of the month, I'm supposed to show off some more. Lucky you, huh?
A top that reveals a bra strap
I'm such a clever little girl that I'm putting subliminal messages into your head. You can see my bra? Good, now try and imagine what I look like in it...and with it off.
Now, how ri-damn-diculous is this? What about the real reasons why women wear these?
A belted dress or skirt
If I don't wear a belt with the skirt, it will fall down, and frankly, you didn't pay to see that show. Plus, this is a formal occaision and wearing anything else will look totally out of place.
A soft, snug sweater
It's, like, a million degrees below zero and if I don't wear a sweater, I will freeze to death.
High heels
I'm wearing the heels to go with that belted dress or skirt I mentioned earlier. It's more formal and looks more professional than if I had on athletic shoes or flip flops.
Something red
It's my favorite color, and it came in my size. Deal with it.
Revealing v-neck
The tank top I usually wear with it is in the wash right now. And I like the way it looks.
A top that reveals a bra strap
When I found this top in the clearance rack, I didn't know how badly it fit until I put it on. I'm burning it when I get home. No, actually, I'm spraying you with my pepper spray first because you're ogling me. Then I will take it home and burn it.
And what about men's clothes? Let's try and make a men's variation of it. After all, women have hormones and desires too. Are the men unknowingly dressed for a woman to have her way with them?
A polo shirt and khakis
I'm incredibly traditional and preppy and will make all the money and decisions for this family. You don't have to worry your pretty little head about voting or working or going outside the home. I've got that all taken care of.
Jeans so low that they reveal boxers
I'm such a clever little boy that I'm putting subliminal messages into your head. You can see my boxers? Good, now try and imagine what I look like in them...and with them off.
A tailored suit
I'm really hot. And damn it, I know I'm so hot that you've just got to look at me. And come over to me in your high heels. And come home with me...
Now doesn't this sound dumb....it does, as much as the women's one sounds! Seriously, are we as women considered to have so little agency or ability to express ourselves that apparantly have our clothes do the talking? And did you notice that up until my little post about the menfolk, that no one ever thinks a guy is sending a message that he might not be intending to. Heck, I'm pretty sure most guys don't even think this way or feel they have to justify what they have on.
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.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Not your baby
"Hey hey baby, what's your name?
You come by yourself, or are you with a friend?
Would it be okay if I buy you a drink?
And let's go back to my place when the night ends."
So I'm the grl to get down to the heart of the matter,
You say I flirt, but what's your problem?
Would it really be better if I said nothing at all?
Do you really have to ogle my sparkly getup?
I'm not the kind of girl at your beck and call.
And your pedestal's not where I wanna be.
It's really tall, and this time I don't like heights.
And if I catch you looking up my micro-mini,
I'm jumping right down and startin a fight.
Am I really so tempting you can't help but seduce me?
Will it make you feel better to say that you tried?
And once the night is over, who you gonna brag to?
Do you think they're so stupid they won't know that you lied?
I can be forward, but do you have to respond?
Or are you just hard-wired to play my game?
You think you're so cool you can have me anytime,
But I've seen your kind before, and you're all the same.
You come by yourself, or are you with a friend?
Would it be okay if I buy you a drink?
And let's go back to my place when the night ends."
So I'm the grl to get down to the heart of the matter,
I'm walkin through this door like I own this joint,
Does that really make me a maneater?
Well, let's get right down and straight to the point.
You say I flirt, but what's your problem?
Would it really be better if I said nothing at all?
Do you really have to ogle my sparkly getup?
I'm not the kind of girl at your beck and call.
And your pedestal's not where I wanna be.
It's really tall, and this time I don't like heights.
And if I catch you looking up my micro-mini,
I'm jumping right down and startin a fight.
Am I really so tempting you can't help but seduce me?
Will it make you feel better to say that you tried?
And once the night is over, who you gonna brag to?
Do you think they're so stupid they won't know that you lied?
I can be forward, but do you have to respond?
Or are you just hard-wired to play my game?
You think you're so cool you can have me anytime,
But I've seen your kind before, and you're all the same.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Recap!
Sex Out Loud was a huge success, and I am eternally happy that my feminists got so into it as they did. It sure did create an atmosphere of discussion, as the participants were visiting each other's displays and talking to each other. (Although I am still curious as to what the legal and the Focus guy were arguing about, before Ross came in and calmed them down.) Everyone loved the Post Secret project the Office of Women's Programs set up, and Pure Romance and Illini Arcade made sure to spice things up with their free giveaways! PRIDE and MASV generated a ton of interest with their recent events, and everybody was psyched that NARAL came all the way from Chicago to talk about being pro-choice. (If I had a penny for every time someone said, "Ohmygod, you got NARAL to come?? That's so cool!," I could build a women's center for my campus and fully staff it!) The feminists were outside screaming, "Sex out Loud! Get wild, get crazy, get educated!" and inside selling merch. I think we got a couple hundred people to come, because many of the groups that were doing petitions proudly told me that they got over a hundred signatures.
I have an internship for the summer, and better yet, it's in something I have an affinity for. When I interviewed for it, I asked the woman in charge of hiring when I would know if I had it. She just gave me a weird look and said, "Alex, we usually don't turn down undergrads with your credentials. If you want it, it's yours." Of course I wanted it. So the internship is mine, and I am home for the summer helping my clients and doing legal training.
Thursday is the multicultural committee, and Friday is the Joan Jett/Cheap Trick concert. I am so on top of the world right now.
I have an internship for the summer, and better yet, it's in something I have an affinity for. When I interviewed for it, I asked the woman in charge of hiring when I would know if I had it. She just gave me a weird look and said, "Alex, we usually don't turn down undergrads with your credentials. If you want it, it's yours." Of course I wanted it. So the internship is mine, and I am home for the summer helping my clients and doing legal training.
Thursday is the multicultural committee, and Friday is the Joan Jett/Cheap Trick concert. I am so on top of the world right now.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Tease! Squeeze! Please!
Let's talk about sex, baby, let's talk about you and me...
It's far too bad that this is not the case.
Mind you, I am not encouraging everyone to share every little detail of their private lives. That's not what I'm talking about. It's been on my mind that although people say we live in a hyper-sexualized culture, there is still a lot of shame and secrecy regarding sex and not nearly enough information for easy access. There are not nearly enough outlets for one to express oneself and explore what one prefers.
As a woman, it's even more difficult to bring those issues to light and engage in any kind of a frank discussion about it (which is why I seriously considered becoming a health peer next year). We're encouraged to be sensuous and sexy--but not too much so, or else we're called sluts/whores/hos/bimbos/insert-your-favorite-term-here. We're encouraged to keep it quiet--but not too much so, or else we're labeled frigid and prudes. So where does educated or informed come into the picture? It's not even on the spectrum, as that can get us dumped into one category or another.
I myself have had this happen, as I am sure many of you ladies have as well. One time, I went and got some Plan B. I always carry Plan B in case something happens, and lucky for me, my workplace gives the stuff out for free. When I was telling a mixed group about it, many of the people seemed disgusted that I would even think about that stuff. The first response? "Well, I don't use that, I'm not promiscuous or anything." This seemed to imply that knowing or using it would make one promiscuous. I didn't know whether I should tell my friend that many of my clients needed or used Plan B in order to avoid a pregnancy that wouldn't have been their fault. Would anyone call them promiscuous? I sure hope not. When I was telling a male friend about the Vagina Monologues a couple years back, I told him that he and his girlfriend should come to it. His response was, "Well, I'll come but I don't know if she will. She's a good girl...she's not into stuff like that." I don't think I need to tell you what a good girl is or does.
My Feminist Majority group is putting on a sexual health fair called Sex Out Loud. Sex Out Loud is, and has always been a collaborative effort between campus and community organizations promoting a healthy sexuality. This year we have: us, NOW, Men Against Sexual Violence, Pride, PAVE, NARAL, the Office of Women's Programs, the Gender Studies Program, Campus Acquaintance Rape Education, Planned Parenthood, Rape Crisis Services, Pure Romance, Illini Arcade, the Vagina Monologues, Focus, and the health peers. Great list, isn't it? All of these express a different preference, pleasure, and aspect of one's sexuality, and they are diverse enough that if you don't like what one has to say, you're bound to find another you do agree with. All about options. That's exactly the climate I want to create.
The event is not without its fair share of controversy. Many of the articles I have read about it seem to deem it as a den of debauchery and nothing more. When in reality, this is so not the case. We try to provide an open atmosphere of dialog and discussion, as opposed to keeping sexuality something quiet and shameful. Most of these articles seemed to zero in on that group, Focus. Focus is a large group that does a display about chastity and abstinence. I like Focus. I think they do a good job and that they're very tolerant of different views. And because chastity is one option regarding a healthy sexuality, I figured they must be included as well as the others. The articles I've read, though, show them as the one "moral" group in this fair, and they gloss over all the others by saying they're all out to shock and provoke. While I like that group, I find it highly unfair that they're promoted as the bastion of morality in the sea of suggestiveness. When in reality, they're an option among all the others. If you're into saving yourself for marriage, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine too. Who am I to judge? And I'm sure that the Focus people could very easily agree with the missions of the other groups. (The girl who contacted me asked specifically if PAVE, MASV, and the health peers were going to be there because she liked what they had to say! Go figure.)
The one thing I have to judge, though, is keeping something quiet. I recently read a pundit who posed the question regarding the health peers, Vagina Monologues, and advocates: "Aren't some things better kept veiled and mysterious?" And here is where I have the problem. If you can't name something, you cannot talk about it, and if you cannot talk about it, you cannot own it. You must be able to own something that was always yours. If you're into the whole chastity thing, like the Focus people, that's fine (as long as you're doing it for yourself and not because you fear being called a "slut"). If you're not, that's fine too (as long, again, as it's for you and not because you fear being the only twenty-something-year-old virgin). Veiled and mysterious is just another term for shut-up. Groups like the advocates and Vagina Monologues actresses also deal with ending violence against women. If they were to keep THAT veiled, then nothing would get done in trying to end the violence. (Actually, there is a term for that issue, and it is called masking.) If you're more quiet and private and mysterious, that's fine, but there is no excuse for not even wanting to educate yourself. You don't have to tell about every little detail of your private life, but you do owe it to yourself to educate yourself. We're not about debauchery so much as we are about discussion, dialog, and development.
It's far too bad that this is not the case.
Mind you, I am not encouraging everyone to share every little detail of their private lives. That's not what I'm talking about. It's been on my mind that although people say we live in a hyper-sexualized culture, there is still a lot of shame and secrecy regarding sex and not nearly enough information for easy access. There are not nearly enough outlets for one to express oneself and explore what one prefers.
As a woman, it's even more difficult to bring those issues to light and engage in any kind of a frank discussion about it (which is why I seriously considered becoming a health peer next year). We're encouraged to be sensuous and sexy--but not too much so, or else we're called sluts/whores/hos/bimbos/insert-your-favorite-term-here. We're encouraged to keep it quiet--but not too much so, or else we're labeled frigid and prudes. So where does educated or informed come into the picture? It's not even on the spectrum, as that can get us dumped into one category or another.
I myself have had this happen, as I am sure many of you ladies have as well. One time, I went and got some Plan B. I always carry Plan B in case something happens, and lucky for me, my workplace gives the stuff out for free. When I was telling a mixed group about it, many of the people seemed disgusted that I would even think about that stuff. The first response? "Well, I don't use that, I'm not promiscuous or anything." This seemed to imply that knowing or using it would make one promiscuous. I didn't know whether I should tell my friend that many of my clients needed or used Plan B in order to avoid a pregnancy that wouldn't have been their fault. Would anyone call them promiscuous? I sure hope not. When I was telling a male friend about the Vagina Monologues a couple years back, I told him that he and his girlfriend should come to it. His response was, "Well, I'll come but I don't know if she will. She's a good girl...she's not into stuff like that." I don't think I need to tell you what a good girl is or does.
My Feminist Majority group is putting on a sexual health fair called Sex Out Loud. Sex Out Loud is, and has always been a collaborative effort between campus and community organizations promoting a healthy sexuality. This year we have: us, NOW, Men Against Sexual Violence, Pride, PAVE, NARAL, the Office of Women's Programs, the Gender Studies Program, Campus Acquaintance Rape Education, Planned Parenthood, Rape Crisis Services, Pure Romance, Illini Arcade, the Vagina Monologues, Focus, and the health peers. Great list, isn't it? All of these express a different preference, pleasure, and aspect of one's sexuality, and they are diverse enough that if you don't like what one has to say, you're bound to find another you do agree with. All about options. That's exactly the climate I want to create.
The event is not without its fair share of controversy. Many of the articles I have read about it seem to deem it as a den of debauchery and nothing more. When in reality, this is so not the case. We try to provide an open atmosphere of dialog and discussion, as opposed to keeping sexuality something quiet and shameful. Most of these articles seemed to zero in on that group, Focus. Focus is a large group that does a display about chastity and abstinence. I like Focus. I think they do a good job and that they're very tolerant of different views. And because chastity is one option regarding a healthy sexuality, I figured they must be included as well as the others. The articles I've read, though, show them as the one "moral" group in this fair, and they gloss over all the others by saying they're all out to shock and provoke. While I like that group, I find it highly unfair that they're promoted as the bastion of morality in the sea of suggestiveness. When in reality, they're an option among all the others. If you're into saving yourself for marriage, that's fine. If you're not, that's fine too. Who am I to judge? And I'm sure that the Focus people could very easily agree with the missions of the other groups. (The girl who contacted me asked specifically if PAVE, MASV, and the health peers were going to be there because she liked what they had to say! Go figure.)
The one thing I have to judge, though, is keeping something quiet. I recently read a pundit who posed the question regarding the health peers, Vagina Monologues, and advocates: "Aren't some things better kept veiled and mysterious?" And here is where I have the problem. If you can't name something, you cannot talk about it, and if you cannot talk about it, you cannot own it. You must be able to own something that was always yours. If you're into the whole chastity thing, like the Focus people, that's fine (as long as you're doing it for yourself and not because you fear being called a "slut"). If you're not, that's fine too (as long, again, as it's for you and not because you fear being the only twenty-something-year-old virgin). Veiled and mysterious is just another term for shut-up. Groups like the advocates and Vagina Monologues actresses also deal with ending violence against women. If they were to keep THAT veiled, then nothing would get done in trying to end the violence. (Actually, there is a term for that issue, and it is called masking.) If you're more quiet and private and mysterious, that's fine, but there is no excuse for not even wanting to educate yourself. You don't have to tell about every little detail of your private life, but you do owe it to yourself to educate yourself. We're not about debauchery so much as we are about discussion, dialog, and development.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Hear me roar!
I am strong!
I am invincible!
I am woman!
And wow, I am stressed!
That Blackhearts/Cheap Trick concert after Sex Out Loud and shirt sale and Spring Break will totally be welcome. As will The Producers. On the plus side, I have an interview for a killer internship over break, and I am hoping I get it! And later on that night is the Pink Martini concert. Any and all opportunities to let loose after being so hyper-responsible will totally be in order.
But responsibility comes first, and I think I'm off to a good start. We began publicizing the Sex Out Loud health fair tonight, and we covered up the quad. And most of our participants have responded. So it's off to a fine start...
I am invincible!
I am woman!
And wow, I am stressed!
That Blackhearts/Cheap Trick concert after Sex Out Loud and shirt sale and Spring Break will totally be welcome. As will The Producers. On the plus side, I have an interview for a killer internship over break, and I am hoping I get it! And later on that night is the Pink Martini concert. Any and all opportunities to let loose after being so hyper-responsible will totally be in order.
But responsibility comes first, and I think I'm off to a good start. We began publicizing the Sex Out Loud health fair tonight, and we covered up the quad. And most of our participants have responded. So it's off to a fine start...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
