Vagina! Vagina! Vagina!

There. I said it. VAGINA! I said it again, and I am wearing my red-and-black "My vagina says slow down" shirt from the Vagina Monologues as well.

Slow down. That's one thing my vagina, and the rest of me, would love right now. Regarding those restrictions on women's reproductive rights, I would only love it if certain lawmakers slowed down in their frenzy to take away all women's reproductive rights and actually considered just how scary and dangerous their bills would make life for women. I would be more than thrilled if they slowed down just enough to think from the perspective of a woman who did need birth control or an abortion. Just for a moment. So yeah, my vagina is telling all of them to slow down.

Then I'd like them to slow down and think about just what went down in Michigan recently. A female representative gets censured for saying the word "vagina" in Congress? Really? That's what that part is called! It's a medically accurate, clinical term. And that's considered "inappropriate" or a "lack of decorum"? Really? What would they have rather had Representative Brown say? Vajayjay? (I hate that term. It sounds like a bird at best.) Hoohoo? (Sounds like something a three-year-old might say.) Pussy? (That's a slang term.) What would they rather hear her say? I don't hear anyone complaining about people who call breast cancer by its proper name, or describing what erectile dysfunction. But apparently a vagina is too shameful to discuss in public. When over half the population has one, no less!

Really, that's just ridiculous. Who do these men think they are, that they can put all these restrictions on women's healthcare and expect us not to fight back about it? Do they really think that we're OK with having our privacy invaded and our rights taken away? Do they think we appreciate being shamed and insulted if we aren't confined by pregnancy we can't even control?

Well, let me tell you something. My vagina is a part of me, and like me, it's pissed off about all the shame and restrictions. My vagina, along with the rest of me, has been to a Planned Parenthood clinic, and it thinks Planned Parenthood is all right. (Unlike those anti-choice congress members.) And my vagina is not the type to go gently into that dark night. I'm taking my vagina to the ballot box in November and helping to vote out anyone who wants to limit its (and my) freedom. While I don't live in MI and couldn't help out at the giant performance of The Vagina Monologues at the capital, that doesn't mean I can't take action in my own way! And that's a promise we can keep.

Now, this is for all you men who think it's too shameful to discuss: My vagina says SLOW DOWN and start thinking about what your laws really mean for women.

Tracy, please stick to "Mad Men"

I'm doing some baking with my brand-new oven. Did you know brand-new gas ovens smell bad when you first use them? According to the technicians at Premier Appliances, this is normal and will go away after the next few uses, but for now, there is this stinky smell in the air. Hopefully the baked potato skins I'm making for a potato skin salad will help make my kitchen smell a little better.

But you know, the stinkiness of the smell my oven is making cannot possibly compare to the stinkiness of an article I just read today. Apparently, Tracy McMillan, a writer for Mad Men and somewhat infamously the author of "Why You're Not Married" (which is now--WTF--a book), has a follow-up article, "Why You're Still Not Married."

Now I could answer that in one sentence: "Because I don't want to be." Easy. I got what I want! Ms. McMillan, on the other hand, has a much longer answer. (Her first reasons were quite the doozy: 1) You're a Bitch, 2) You're Shallow 3) You're a Slut, 4) You're a Liar, 5) You're Selfish, and 6) You're Not Good Enough.) However, she's got some new ones! Apparently...THIS is the reason for my husband-free state!
#7You're a mess. Well, okay, I know I've been in therapy. I make no apologies for that. Lots of people have. Apparently, to be "a mess," one needs to have a secret that they don't wish to share, one that's holding them back. Well, that hasn't yet stopped folks from being interested in me, and I am doubtful that it's going to. And your point?
#8 You're crazy. So McMillan sees "crazy" as anyone who likes intensity? Again, what's wrong with intensity? And if somebody's more intense, wouldn't they seek out someone equally intense or who could tolerate the intense and leave the vanilla folks to find someone else? Again, her point is?
#9 You're a dude. Well, that is really going to shock my parents when I tell them they have a son instead of a daughter. Not sure if I can describe myself as a femme anymore, but hey, if I am a dude, can I have the $0.22 added back to my paycheck?
#10 You're godless. Now, how are the people at devotions going to act when they find that out??? And if that is such a turnoff, why are there still atheists and agnostics who do get married?

Oh, but I digress. Tracy's real point is this: in order to find somebody who wants to marry you, you need to act like you don't have any personality or dreams or boundaries or anything that makes you, well, you. And you have to be straight (again, LGBTQ folks don't seem to exist in her world). If that's what it takes to get married, well, I think being single suits me quite nicely, thank you very much.

Really, I think Tracy should just stick to her day job of writing "Mad Men" scripts. At least that show is fictional. But I will say, I do agree with one sentence of hers, though not in the sarcastic way she meant it: "People are always just trying to make women feel bad, that's all. Misogynists." Yeah. They are. It's called sexist behavior and misogyny. And Tracy has shown that she is happily doing that as well.

Wow, after reading over her screed, my oven stinks a whole lot less by comparison! That's saying a lot!

An Open Letter to "Concerned" Women for America

It's open letter time! And I am not linking to the original source that gave me this information, as I don't wish to give them the publicity. But as both a crisis worker and as a pro-choice activist, I couldn't let this slide. As a side note, unless otherwise specified, the sexual assault survivors I am referring to are female. While I know that men are also victims of abuse, women are primarily the ones who are victimized by it.

Dear "Concerned" Women for America,

Who do you think you're kidding when you say that abortion is a "cure-all for rape"?!

I mean it. Honestly, do you really think anyone is fooled by your stating to be "concerned" when your actions and words say the exact opposite? And who in their right mind would see anything as a "cure-all" for rape?

I'm a professionally trained rape crisis worker. In April, I will have been one for five years. I've provided support and guidance to nearly one hundred women and men seeking assistance in the aftermath of abuse, helped with support groups for traumatized populations, and have trained victims' advocates to do the same. My thesis was on the history and politics of the anti-rape movement, and I have successfully planned and facilitated two panel discussions surrounding reproductive justice. So, in other words, "concerned" women, I am no lightweight when it comes to both of the subjects you are discussing.

And I do have some empathy and concern for women in America. However, judging from your language in that letter, I think that what you mean by concerned and what I mean by concerned are two very different things. As a crisis worker, I have a lot of concern for the women I work with every day. After all, rape is a crime that takes choice and consent away from its victims. Who wouldn't feel concerned about that? However, as an advocate, I know that there is no "cure-all" for rape. The only cure for rape that I see is if it never happened, ever.

But let's look at your reasoning, "concerned" women. No one is doubting that a pregnancy as a result of rape is difficult, and no one would disagree on the importance of preventing the crime and punishing perpetrators. Those are things that you and I can agree on. However, your saying that abortion merely deals with the "physical consequences," is really doing a huge disservice for women who may be traumatized, scared, AND pregnant. For many (I understand, not all) women, ending a pregnancy that they in no way wanted or planned for can be a HUGE relief and a huge saving grace for them. Try thinking a mile in their shoes. Can you imagine being traumatized due to sexual assault...and living with the reminder of the rape for nine months? Can you imagine keeping the child and dealing with a living reminder of the assault? For the women who may be pregnant due to rape, it can be a nightmare dealing with this additional issue. Abortion is not simply "dealing with the physical consequences." For many women, it can help them to restore their choices. You even said it in your letter: "pregnancies under these difficult circumstances need an extra measure of compassion and support." Compassion and support includes not judging a woman's choice, even if that choice doesn't involve carrying a pregnancy to term.

A welfare rights group once said it best: "The right to choose is a poor woman's right to life." The welfare rights organizations were among some of the first pro-choice allies in the days when abortion was illegal. They knew the importance of making one's own decisions, especially for women who did not have the needed resources to either keep their child or the connections needed to secure a safe illegal abortion. They also knew the tremendous importance of promoting all women's autonomy. You may do well to think on that.

And for the record, I would be much more open to my tax dollars paying to assist one of my low income sisters get a safe, LEGAL medical procedure than for my tax dollars to pay for killing already-born, full grown adults in two wars.

Trusting women always (in the words of the martyred Dr. George Tiller),

Revel

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?

It's still not okay

I've really come to notice a fairly common trend in some of the arguments/disagreements I've been having with some of my progressively-minded acquaintances. So I think I am going to settle this once and for all by putting my view online where everybody can see it and so there is no confusion.

I love my fellow progressives. Really and truly, I do. I really appreciate the work and effort they take to make this world a nicer and better place. THAT SAID, this does not mean I am going to be fine if they make a comment or statement that is somehow intolerant or perpetuating prejudice. I'm talking about the liberal-minded person who makes a racial remark and defends it by saying, "I can't be racist! I voted for Obama, didn't I?" I'm talking about the so-called ally who makes some sort of sexist or heterosexist joke and then defends him or herself by bringing up the litany of things s/he does to empower the community that was just dissed.

Let me make this clear, once and for all, I do not care who you are when you make intolerant statements.

IT'S STILL NOT OKAY.

If something sounds bigoted or intolerant, it does not matter who is saying that. It is STILL wrong and it STILL perpetuates the inequality. You do not get a pass because you are somehow liberal or progressive. A true progressive or egalitarian does not participate in behavior that makes this world a meaner place. And you do not get a pass because you voted for a certain candidate or may have done certain activities in the past. It is "everyday" words and actions that perpetuate and promote inequality because they create an atmosphere where that is considered "normal." A person doesn't have to be a card carrying member of a hate group to contribute to this toxic atmosphere, but we all have a part to play in dismantling it. The first step is watching our language and our actions.

So I will continue calling out that behavior and words. No matter who's saying that, it's still not right. And I expect that if I engage in it, I would like to be told about it so I know not to anymore.

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.

Friends are NOT accessories!!

Readers, I am going to draw your attention to a phrase I've been hearing quite often that is really starting to sound just like nails on a chalkboard. Have you ever heard someone make an unbelievably bigoted remark about [insert minority group of any sort here]? Sure, you have. Bigots are unfortunately everywhere. Then, when you call the bigot on the inappropriateness of that comment, his or her first response is pretty much universal:

I didn't mean it that way! I have lots of [insert minority group of any sort here] friends!

Honestly, it's just ridiculous! I have heard it so much that I have begun to take the first words someone says about their Black or Hispanic or female or LGBT or Asian (or any other group they were previously disparaging) "friends" as a warning sign that they might be a bigot. Because no one who is truly open-minded or an ally would say that. You know why? Because they wouldn't make disparaging comments in the first place, and they would have those friends around them in the first place. Those folks who talk about their little rainbow coalition of buddies? I highly doubt they even have one minority they consider a friend. If their attitude is so prejudiced, I don't think that (a) any member of that group could stand them and (b) they would want any member of that group around them. I just don't believe they do.

Friends are NOT accessories. They are NOT there for you to put on display of "proof" of how awesome and open-minded and tolerant you supposedly are, when your actions are say the exact opposite. Actions speak louder than words. They are NOT for you to show off because it's supposedly going to make you look good. Treating someone as an accessory, as something that's not even human, is just as bad as being outright against them for their identity. In both cases, you've denied their humanity and made them into what you assume them to be.

I have a lot of different kinds of friends. Many don't look, talk, or act anything like me. And I like that. But you know one of the many reasons why we are close? Because we don't treat each other like accessories! We don't act like those friendships are simply there to make us look good, and we know that a relationship is a give and take. I'm not saying that race or gender or orientation or religion is something I don't notice. I do notice aspects of someone's identity. In fact, I do think identity matters in my friendships in the sense that anyone who mistreats my friends because of their identity WILL be faced with my wrath! We treat each other like the awesome folks we are.

Revelling is good for you

Well well well...

Who would have thought I could use most of what I wrote in my post "Searching for Sisterhood" in one of my classes? I totally got down to the heart of both writers' arguments, and even my professor referred to something as a "classic Morgan-versus-Moraga debate." (Although I'm not sure if Cherrie and Robin ever actually debated anything verbally.) He was talking about Sisterhood is Powerful, and about how it was a perfect example of a patriarchy-conscious second wave text, and I raised my hand to stack it up against This Bridge Called My Back.

So there. She's A Revel is a perfect conversation-and discussion-stimulant.

And come to think of it, I actually prefer This Bridge to Sisterhood. It took me a while to figure out which one I liked better, but I like learning about how to fight both racism and sexism from a lady who's "been there, done that." And I am totally all about forming alliances.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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,

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.

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.