Fucked up books of my childhood

Respectively, the Sweet Valley High (and satellites) books, as examined at The Dairi Burger

and VC Andrews (Inc), Trapped in the Attic.

If you, too, had your formative years at all warped by these literary classics, and had blissfully put most of the details out of your consciousness, now's your chance to have it all come flooding back to you, with hilarious commentary.

If you don't know what I'm talking about...check the sites out anyway. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll spork. Most important, you'll realize "Twlight" had nothing on the 80's for professional Mary Sues. Tragic orphans! Terrible accidents! Murder, even! Ghosts, werewolves, and vampires! And that's just the Sweet Valley series.

Perfect size six suburban twins with sparkling blonde hair! Perfect helpless heroines locked away in secret-and-spider-riddled garrets! With sparkling blonde hair! Many, many lovingly described outfits and other material details, which were of course in no way why I read the things in the first place. And of course, a whole shitload of men, some of whom are teh sexxy and buy pretty things before revealing themselves to be as bastard-y as all the others, not that there is ever any other ultimate goal besides landing one.


******

Edited to update:

A conversation elsewhere got me thinking more seriously about this essay by Joanna Russ in To Write Like A Woman on the modern Gothic, "Somebody's Trying To Kill Me And I Think It's My Husband." It's basically second-wave feminist analysis applied to lit crit, but she's by far one of the better ones out there.

More details and quotage shortly, but essentially her point is that in the Gothic the female "subject" position isn't really much of one; the protagonist doesn't really initiate plot, she stands there and things happen to/around her. Her main task is figuring out the "mystery" of what the hell is going on around her. Much of which involves figuring out other peoples' feelings
(especially the Man, natch).

It's interesting because her thesis not only fits the gothics she was writing about as well as the more sensationalistic VC Andrews books that probably came out after she wrote the essay, but also applies to True Blood and of course Twilight, no doubt among other contemporary hits.

As far as that goes, I was snarking when I first noted that the Sweet Valley Books, once they started not just jumping the shark but doing trapeze acts with it, eventually have all the elements associated with more standard "gothic" books like the VC Andrews books, but actually, it's not that dissimilar. There *is* no real action in SVH as such-the girls don't really *go* anywhere, despite having cunning plots to defeat rivals and hook boys and career aspirations and such-they stay forever frozen at a perfect age, and they don't ever really set anything in motion. So in order to be "exciting" it has to get soapier and soapier...

I had figured that the reason for this in the SVH books was more because having them actually change and grow would defeat the magic fantasy stasis of Perfect Teen Suburbia, but actually the Mary Sue-ism isn't at all unrelated to that fetish. I mean, it's specifically a woman's fantasy Perfect Teen Suburbia (Francine Pascal, more or less, via her many ghostwriters), a retro one, I mean. So the "waiting for something exciting to happen, which will almost certainly come from a Man" is probably kind of implicit in that.

Anyway, here's Russ in her own words:

The Modern Gothic is episodic; the heroine does nothing except worry; any necessary detective work is done by other persons, often the Super- Male. Whenever the Heroine acts...she bungles things badly. [Hi, Bella!] There is a period of terror, repeated sinister incidents, ominous dialogue spoken by various characters, and then the sudden revelation of who's who and what's what. In terms of ordinary pulp technique, these novels are formless. Even so, they obey extraordinarily rigid rules. There must be a reason for these rules.

I would propose that the Modern Gothics are a direct expression of the traditional feminine situation (at least a middle-class [white] feminine situation) and that they provide precisely the kind of escape reading a middle-class believer in the feminine mystique needs, without involving elements that either go beyond the feminine mystique or would be considered immoral in its terms.

...and here she puts a finger on the Mary Sue phenomenon in all but name:

Most striking about these novels is the combination of intrigue, crime and danger with the Heroine's complete passivity. Unconscious foci of intrigue, passion, and crime, these young women (none of whom are over thirty) wander through all sorts of threatening forces of which they are intuitively, but never intellectually, aware. Most of all, *they are of extraordinary interest to everyone*-even though they are ill educated, ordinary, characterless and usually very hazily
delineated (as one might suspect) as a stand-in for the reader.

Sometimes Heroines are very beautiful (although they don't know it) or heiresses (which they don't know, either) or possess some piece of information about the Secret (which they are incapable of interpreting). Their connection with the action of the novel is always passive; they are focal points for tremendous emotion, and sometimes tremendous struggle, simply because they exist...

In the face of this really extraordinary passivity-for if the protagonist of a novel is not active in some way, what on earth is the
novel about?-it is tempting to see these books as genuine family romances, with the Heroine as the child who is trying desperately to figure out what the grownups are up to...At their best Heroines merely stand (passively) for love, goodness, redemption, and innocence. They are special and precious because they are Heroines. And that is that."

This becomes a lot more evident with VC Andrews, who made the "family romance" part way more explicit than any of the earlier goffics Russ was examining.

As per the Mary Sueism, passivity and all, I think that's what had irritated me so much about True Blood, more so in the first season. Sookie is a *classic* of the type. And she only gets more special and precious and besotting of others as it goes on.

BTVS, whatever its flaws, was satisfying because it explicitly *doesn't* do this: Buffy really is a true protagonist, a Hero with a journey, not just someone who radiates goodness while all the fighting takes place all around her.

That said, I'm digging True Blood more in its second season probably precisely because there's so much more focus on all the subplots and secondary characters, most of whom have a more interesting "story" imo than Sookie.

So Russ concludes:

"The Modern Gothic, as a genre, is a means of enabling a conventionally Heroine to have adventures at all. It may also be a way that conventionally feminine readers can see their own situation...validated, justified, and glamorized up to the hilt, without turning Heroines into active persons or into sexually adventurous persons, both of whom violate the morality of conventional femininity.,

[It'd be interesting to see her take on the later Judith Krantz and such genre. wherein the Heroines do become much more sexually adventurous-within certain strictures-and nominally have careers, but a lot of this still applies. The "Lace" books as I recall them could be termed the Cosmo Gothic. More sex, more designer name dropping, the women become successful fashion designers or that sort of thing, and the rest is still pretty similar]

...

1. Housework, etc. is banned. I'm on holiday.

2. I'm upper-middle class, not lower-middle class.

3. My upward mobility is achieved through marriage.

4. I'm a good girl-modest, not too pretty but quite pretty, not too rich but rich enough, womanly, loving, dependent, and somehow "average" (even though I am uniquely precious)

5. The Super-Male *really exists* (all evidence to the contrary)

6. He really loves me, even though I am not strikingly beautiful, brilliant, talented, famous, or rich. I do not see why he loves me, but he does. He may appear to treat me badly or brusquely; still, he loves me.

7. I do nothing. I do not have to do anything. Merely because I exist, violent emotions and acts spring into being.

8. I am rewarded for being good. Aggressively sexual, beautiful, worldly women are wicked and are punished accordingly. Men don't *really* like them.

9. I have intense emotional relations with places-houses, weather, nature. (Scenery-painting is often the best-written part of these books).

10. I have pretty, romantic clothes (but not sexy or flamboyant ones). Clothes really are very important.

11. *My sexual value is my personal value and is respected by all but villains and villainesses.* Men's desire is a testimony to my personal, individual worth. I have no character, interests, or achievements, but those who do come to a bad end (if female).

12. I am a virtuoso at interpreting faces and feelings. [Sookie in True Blood takes this one further by being actually *psychic.*] This ability is not "wasted" on the everyday drudgery of infants' needs or husbands' grumpiness-it is vital in saving my life and the happiness of all about me. (Even if I come to the wrong conclusions, my intense over-reading of everybody else's emotions is still justified).

13. If I don't know what's happening, that's all right: my man does.

14. I can't save myself, but my man will do it for me. [More often torqued these days, if not consistently; Sookie's killing Rene in self-defense has shades of Final Girl, but she still has the men running to her aid, the distraction helps enable her to defend herself, and they do outright rescue her on many other occasions]

15. Life with the Super-Male is *really satisfying.*

Sookeh! SOOKEH!!!...

annnd

*sparkle out*

Oh joy, just what we all needed: PUMA 2.0

aka: "Shut up, Hamster."

Srsly okai.

Or, I guess, I had a long sit, as my partner drove. I read Deoliver47's post about 'Ms. Hamsher' and it rather annoyed me. I've lived for most of my life amongst those people who now go by "tea baggers" (their own moniker) and I knew that no matter what happened in politics, I could never accept an alliance with such hate-filled individuals and I couldn't understand a progressive that might advocate such a move. Then I read a diary that said Ms. Hamsher had gone on Faux and Friends to appeal to their audience to 'kill the bill'. It wasn't much of a diary (sorry diarist!), so I checked the Fox site itself and damned if it wasn't true. Not only had she gone on Faux, she'd not even asserted herself to decry what the party of "no" had done to decimate the hcr bill. She talked about how the bill would increase costs to the middle class and would effect your current coverage and "causes it to be worse"; it sounded like right-wing talking points.

So, despite my struggle to remain objective, I was getting a lil subjective. When I logged on tonight, the first diary I saw was about Ms. Hamsher joining forces with Grover Norquist to force Rahm Emmanuel to resign. Grover Norquist? Really? I'm sure readers here know who Norquist is...founder, supported by President Reagan, of American's For Tax Reform; opposition of President Clinton's attempt at health care reform; Contra and North supporter; co-author, with Messr. Gingrich, of the "Contract with America; Abramoff aficionado; supporter and promoter of President G. W. Bush. Need I say more? That sort of perked my ears.

But it wasn't until a poster noted that Ms. Hamsher had tweeted about Senator Bernie Sanders losing his seat unless he killed the bill. Losing his seat. The only self-professed socialist in the political spectrum. Losing his seat because he wasn't progressive enough? Bernie Sanders, promoter of single-payer health care? That guy who passionately argued for, and offered an amendment that would provide health care and dental coverage for every American? I almost couldn't believe it. But I clicked the linky, and sure enough...there it was, in all its glory...

moar:

Grover Norquist is a lifelong Right-Wing warrior. Destroying all progressives and any progressive/liberal agenda is his life’s work. He is very good at and has been finding useful idiots to help him divide and conquer progressives for over thirty years.

Norquist started this work with Jack Abramoff at his side. One party rule has always been their goal and Democrats and liberals have always been their blood enemies. Destroying progressives and everything we believe is their life's work. It is what they do.

Grover is deeply connected to Abramoff. Perhaps nobody goes back as far with Jack as Norquist...

...These two created Ralph Reed and inflicted him upon the world and they spawned a host of other lobbyists, activists, media whores, think tankers, staffers and politicians that make up the extreme conservative movement in America. Jack Abramoff’s ability to lobby and be successful as the point of the spear for the K Street Project depended upon Norquist and his weekly gathering of DC conservatives (Jack’s in jail, but these weekly meetings go on—perhaps Ms. Hamsher will be Grover’s featured guest at a future meeting). The sweatshops, sexshops, human trafficking and systematic labor abuse on the Marianas Islands have Grover Norquist to thank for their protection by Republicans just as much as they have Abramoff to thank (and Jack kicked back funds to Grover as part of the circle of "thank yous"). Norquist should be in jail, but he was protected by McCain, Rove, Bush and Congress. Now he is still out on the streets of DC and making fresh "alliances" with gullible and foolish people within the progressive movement. Sadly, Jane Hamsher is one of those foolish people.

...And the heart of her alliance with Norquist is the fact that she is lending her support and credibility to the conservative conspiracy theory that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending money to poor people through the Community Investment Act and Community Banks. It is an article of faith among conservatives that Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama forced Freddie and Fannie to engaged in risky loans and that these two mortgage giants forced the big banks to do the same. And then the system crashed. See, in wing-nut world everything bad that happened to the economy was caused by poor people taking advantage of the system. This is a scandal that the wing-nuts want exposed just like they want that whole birth certificate thing exposed, and the ACORN thing exposed, and the death panel thing exposed, and the government’s dirty hands on your Medicare thing exposed, and the socialist takeover of America exposed, and the...

...If you want to fight with Rahm Emanuel, fine. If you want to pretend that he is your chosen personification of evil on this earth, go ahead. Whatever. But, if you decide that your hatred of Rahm is stronger than common sense, if you decide that you must join Jane Hamsher in making common cause with a shitbag like Norquist to attack Democrats, the President and his agenda, well then—and I mean this in the most civil way possible—go to hell. You have let your anger and your desire to piss farther and harder than you think Rahm can piss cloud your judgment.

Honestly? I'm listening to people on the left who are against the hcr bill as it stands now, even though I'm leaning toward the "hold your nose and support it, after making it as good as possible till the very end, because whatever that is is as good as we're going to get." But, joining up with Grover "drown the vulnerable anyone who gets in my way the government in a bathtub" Norquist to try to unseat Bernie Sanders because Sanders isn't progressive or aggressive enough in upholding progressive values. Because the guy who's been actually doing work, even brought up a bill for single-payer, has said this bill is worth supporting; and you think you know better, so you're gonna go side with the people who don't think we should have health care (reform) *at all*. Ooooookayy.

As for Obama and (some of) the Congresscritters supporting this bill (Lieberman can also be devoured by roving wolverines, yes, that goes without saying):

Listen, if I'm going to be supporting actual moderate-to-conservatives/self-aggrandizing cynical corporate sellouts going under the progressive flag whose "help" in this case not only doesn't much but may (*may*) even make things worse, I'm at least going to stick with the ones who aren't complete fucking boneheaded losers. That would be the ones who got elected into office, have some proven ability to find their ass with both hands, and are at least *trying* to make some kind of useful policy that will *help* *some* actual people be better able to not, you know, die. Hint: P.R. disasters like the Lieberman blackface stunt do not count as "progressive activism." They do count as "boneheaded loser moves."

p.s. how the hell did I get on Hamster's mailing list, anyway? No, I'm not signing your stupid petition. GOE AWAY.

Damn.

p.p.s. This, dammit.

If anyone thought that Obama's language about bipartisanship and compromise were just a ploy to get elected, and the fierce passionate liberal would then pull away the mask, they were deluded.

To me, Obama's open, bipartisan and cross-ideological tone was never just a pose. It was how he intended to govern, defining a mild, modified liberalism as centrism and putting the opposition on the defensive. A fierce, aggressive liberalism, the counterpart to the high point of conservative exercise of institutional power in the middle of this decade, was not going to succeed. Recall, that such an approach ultimately failed conservatism.

However, Republican senators' refusal to participate in any meaningful way in the health-care conversation, with the small and notable exception of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe's single, hesitating vote when the bill was before the Finance Committee, is a painful revelation that Obama can't govern the way he campaigned. And that revelation is in itself a kind of cost, a useful illusion now lost. As recently as a few weeks ago, every savvy Hill insider would tell you that health reform might get 58 votes and fail, or it might get 61 or 62 votes. But it wouldn't, couldn't get exactly 60 votes, just because some Democrats -- Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu -- would insist on Republican cover. The biggest surprise of the last week is that health reform had to hit that target 60-vote target exactly, and that it did.

Health care's passage shows exactly how small the target is for any future Obama initiative, from cap-and-trade to financial reform. With no room for bipartisan compromise, and also no room to tell Joe Lieberman what everyone surely wants to tell Lieberman, the path forward is hard to see. As long as Republican opposition holds, even with the occasional press-release exception such as Sen. Lindsay Graham on cap-and-trade, there will be no room to the right and even less room to the left..

Sure thing, Joan Kelly, will do.

Re this post and the preceding ones.

Yeah, enabling Howly Blog does put you beyond the pale. I'm afraid so. I mean, truthfully, personally, I never cottoned to you much anyway, so no great loss. But, seriously? You are sucking up to a couple of vile trolls who would basically be Fred Phelps with a couple of small adjustments. Glad to see you've found a "spine" of some sort, though. It does take guts to "agree to disagree" about blatant hatemongering, fuck knows.

And, for the record, the tu quoqueing you've been doing? Yeah, those women (yes, women) are *also* toxic hateful assholes. Amazingly enough, the existence of some assholes doesn't excuse vile bigotry, which is, let me repeat, exactly what you are oh so magnanimously choosing to ignore as "disagreement." Let's not even get into the "what? I'm not saying I -like- infanticide, I'm just saying it beats the alternatives."

So, yeah, posting this will no doubt feed the martyrdom complex as well as the vomit monster machine, and, yeah, I keep swearing I'm giving up the dwama, but you know, I can live with it. Because, wrt the whole "if you don't like them, just don't read them?" You're full of shit. They post flaming gauntlets like that and especially leave hatespoor trackbacks to any trans blogger post they find for a reason. They wanted a reaction. They got it. And now, so have you.

Enjoy.

"Stop being so full of ressentiment, you ugly pathological lefties of subnormal intelligence. Shouting is viceful."

I found another fuckwit, y'all. Yes! On the Internets!! Inorite? I'm too lazy for a recap, I've been busy slapfighting with her, because I am out of chocolate and booze and it seemed like the thing to do, but here, enjoy.

Have I mentioned lately that I execrate Cultural Feminists of the FluffyBunny Wicca-y type?

Well, I do.

Sadly, I can't recount the entire story here, as it involves a listserve whose email isn't really for public consumption.

Suffice it to say that I firmly believe that if you anthropomorphize the moon to the point where this story drives you into a state of utter panic and mourning WHAT HAVE WE BECOME, sending out calls for a mass protest and vigil against the "insane" "dudes" of NASA who would DARE to harm our sister-goddess' body like this? to the point where you say you can't "bear" to do the research to confirm the details of the story?

And then, when someone snarks her dissent -very mildly- at you, you are "driven to tears?" and then -separately-, after that, after an (admittedly not very heartfelt) apology from said snarker, said snarker then posts a snark-free link to the story for public interest, and you email back that y'all already KNOW "these facts" but the snarker needs to let it go because you're "grieving" anyway?

This + this = you are driving me to increasing levels of sadism, Fluffy Dianic Too Sensitive To Live Person.

and I mean. a -graduate- student. wtf critical thinking skills...? oh, right, those are from the Patriarchy, never mind.

nyargh.

EDIT In fact, I feel compelled to burst into Song. and so I shall.

The ultimate in Asshat Thunderdome

is David Frum, Bay Buchanan and Ann Coulter bickering over Sarah Palin. It's compelling like the shower of maggots scene in whatever horror movie I've mostly blocked from my brain that was.

i'm just posting this because I already had the tag ready to go, really

"When I say I want to talk about you, I don't mean I'm actually INTERESTED in what YOU have to say for yourself," part infinity-four

This edition, a slight twist on other versions of this wank, at least for this blog: a feminist who has decided that not only is sex a -positive- thing, it's positively -mandatory.- Whether you actually want it or not.

Clarissa explains it all for us:

Asexuality

A recent post at Feministing illustrates the point I was trying to make about tolerance that sometimes turns into a parody of itself.

The post responds to a message from somebody who feels asexual and finds anybody's touch "absolutely repulsive. The thought of sex makes me gag a bit." The response that the author of the message gets to her post takes the idea of political correctnes to the extreme that is even a little scary. The main idea of the response is "Asexual people of the world, unite!" Don't worry about beinng asexual, it says. You can always get together with other asexual people, date them, and form yet another neat identity group.

This attitude does not come exclusively out of the desire to show the world how tolerant and accepting one is. It is also the result of a deeply Puritanical view of sex, which refuses to see human sexuality on terms of a physiological process. If anybody found the idea of eating or sleeping (also physiological processes) "absolutely repulsive", we wouldn't be as likely to dismiss this problem with a lot of well-meaning but ultimately empty words. Nobody would (at least for now, I think) suggest to form an identity group around this problem.

Another problem that the response to this post brings to light, is the deep-seated fear that many Americans feel towards psychology as a field of knowledge. While several people suggested that the author of the post look for hormonal causes of her asexuality, nobody mentioned that it might be helpful for her to search for psychological causes.

a) "Political correctness"=pretty much automatic fail already. Sure enough:

b) "I'm all for 'tolerance,' but when it comes to something I'm too lazy to learn about and/or still want to make fun of/wax superior over, that's going -too far.-"

c) "For instance, the very idea that people might want to have meaningful relationships without sex, and that that might be about -their happiness- and have -nothing to do with me-, rather than about forcing poor put upon me to be "tolerant" of yet another "identity group."

d) "Blah blah blah one size fits all boilerplate which certainly has something to it but still doesn't have anything to do with this person whom I don't know -here- lecturecakes blah."

e) Glad you mentioned psychology. I happen to be training in psychology. And the first thing you learn in -my- school, at least, is you meet people where they're at. I.e., you don't try to "fix" them according to -your- standards of what would make -you- happy before even learning the first thing about -that other person who isn't you.- Those would be the second and third things as well, actually.

f) Also, armchair diagnosis over the Internets, while a fun party trick (I've done it myself): really not for the sake of the actual person being "helped," you know, so much as for the gratification of the person making the diagnosis and/or third party observers. Pretty much that would be always.

So, okay, so a bunch of people argue with her, many self-ID'd asexuals. And I was -going- to go over and throw in my tuppeny, but quickly realize I actually couldn't say the whole "you are not the center of the universe! no, really! p.s. this ain't feminism (or sex positive either, for that matter)" any more clearly than a number of other commenters already.

And then, to confirm my suspicion that anything I had to say over there would be both redundant and unheard, at the very bottom:

Clarissa said...
For those who feel the need to participate without reading what was said previously, I repeat: this discussion is closed.

I'm always ready to discuss anything with calm, reasonable, and polite people (such as pretzelboy, Allison, and more recently Erbs).

Those, however, who come to repeat things that have been discussed 100 times, or those who are so enraged with the fact that somebody somewhere dared to have an opinion do not interest me as interlocutors. Coming here to scream "batshit," "SILLY" and "LEARN" in capital letters is not, in my opinion, an acceptable way to engage in a discussion. I don't even want to imagine what would make people want to seek out blogs of those with differing opinions and to engage in such public fits of hysteria. Curiously, these are always the same people who scream "tolerance above all".

If there are still people who fail to understand that for me this is not about the asexual community, I can't help you.

Once again: the discussion is closed until the participants start behaving in a way I find more acceptable.

Oh, cupcake.

Putting everything else aside (woo, tone argument for the epic fail! "Cut his mike!" "I can spout ignorant offensive bullshit as though from the Papal office and then ignore any counterarguments that don't suit me if I want! IT'S JUST MY OPINION!" is that a universal BINGO card I see before me?):

Friend, if -you- can't understand how calling a post "asexuality" and then proclaiming, quite truthfully apparently, that "for me this is not about the asexual community" might just be a wee tiny bit fucked up...well, I can't help you either.

And aren't you glad you -asked- for my -help- and thinky thoughts?

--Especially wrt this, now I notice:

As to you parallel with homosexuality, I still fail to see how it applies. As I said, sexuality is a physiological process, like sleeping or eating. depriving yourself of sleep will be detrimental to your health. This is my firm belief and I have a right to it. Since gay and lesbian people do not deprive themselves of sex, there is no reason to believe that they might suffer detrimental effects of sexual deprivation.I find that trying to bring homosexuality into the discussion of sexless lives is nothing but a tactic aimed at diverting the conversation from the actual topic.

Oh where to begin.

Yes, sex is important to -most- people, and being "deprived" (i.e. "unable to obtain something you want and need, not something other people think you want and need) can seriously fuck up your emotional health and eat away the rest of your life. Been there, done that, got the scratchy hairshirt. Yes, I believe that sex-negative culture has had a lot of deleterious effects, individually and structurally. Yes, I even think Wilhelm Reich was onto something (at least some somethings).

And yet: no, actually, the individual -doesn't- need sex like sleeping or especially eating: if you don't eat, you're gonna die. As in, literally and physically, in a relatively short amount of time. This is not how sex works. That's not a "belief;" that's a fact. Unless you are some other species that I am not aware of.

And, I for one also really do not appreciate the implications of "deprive -themselves-" from what sure looks like a blandly oblivious heteronormative perspective; there's a lot to say about the ways in which internalized as well as externalized homophobia can cause "deprivation" and "detrimental effects"--see above re: unable to obtain something you want and need--but I for one sure wouldn't have found that sort of smug tone implying there was yet something -else- wrong with me remotely helpful, ever. One gets quite enough of that all around.

ETA: and yeah, as someone else noted, the whole "sex is a natural biological process" business is a wee tad 'normative itself. and annoying.

veyz. yeah, I can't actually get into all of the ways this irks right now. more later. maybe.

ETA: it crystallized a bit more:

Re the parallel with the queer umbrella sexualities and why it's a relevant parallel: most of us have direct experience with having been pathologized and disprespected for our sexuality (yes, "sexuality" includes "lack thereof," in fact) even when said sexuality is in fact none of anyone else's business, isn't harming anyone else, and in fact the people who say or imply they're lecturing us/attempting a "cure" "for our own good" clearly do -not- have our best interests in mind, but rather their own agenda.

Anyway, really, the definitive comment was made on an earlier (and equally headdesky) post at feministing some time back:

UnHingedHips said:

Dear Woman Doing Something: I am a feminist and want women to be able to make their own choices. However, YOU are too (young/old/poor/x/y/z)and I think your choice to (have babies/not have babies/sail around the world/a/b/c) while being so (young/old/poor/x/y/z) is reprehensible and you should be loudly condemned for daring to do something like *that*, even though it has no impact on my life.

I hope you see the error of your ways.

~Another Woman

ETA again: Just for the record's sake, here's one of those other commenters from over there.

Shain Neumeier said...
To both Clarissa and Anonymous 5:40 a.m.,

I think the main problem I have with all of this is that people who are not me are trying to tell me what I and people like me should be and disguising it as what we "are" and are refusing to accept, or what we should want by saying it's what any functional person would really like. It's unfair, and frankly condescending, to say about people that the puritanical patriarchy has brainwashed them into not wanting sex (I find this a bit antithetical to feminism anyways - isn't it the belief that women ARE smart and capable enough to make their own decisions about their bodies?), or that they're immature and will grow out of it. If someone happens to eventually want or at least like sex, or if the benefits of having it outweigh the costs for them at some point for whatever reason, then great. But at the point that someone is coming out as asexual, I can think of no way in which it helps anybody, you or them, to invalidate the conclusion they've come to about themselves.

As far as the argument that sex is good and even necessary for one - If I may, I'll accept, but revise, the food comparison. I would say that asexuality is a little like having an aversion to a food that most people like and/or that's very good for people. Would life be better for someone who couldn't stand the smell of bananas or the texture of salad if they could eat these foods without throwing up? Maybe. But if, as things are, they get sick if they try to eat these foods, the health benefits might not be worth the costs of trying to learn to like them. So let them use their multivitamins or whatever other compensatory measures to make up for any lost nutrients, or choose to do nothing at all. It's no one's business to tell them what they need or should want in case like this.

Likewise, maybe it's true that one gets headaches and irritability from not having sex. But you know what? I'd rather stock up on ibuprofen and get some hobbies that allow me to vent my anger in a productive way than let someone do things to my body that I'm uncomfortable with. I can imagine that someone will want to jump on me for that description of sex, but that's how I see it. I'm simply uncomfortable with invasive physical contact, as I am with a number of other sensory experiences, and sex falls under the category of invasive physical contact. I get emotional fulfillment from others through a lot of things, like watching movies, making up stories and having good debate, but sex just isn't conducive to trust or love in my mind. This is abnormal, but, as it does not interfere with my day-to-day or overall functioning, it's not by definition disordered. Such is the case with many asexuals, whether or not they're repulsed by sexual contact as I am. So who is anyone else to tell us that we should be otherwise?

If I'm unhappy or unhealthy because I'm not having sex, I'll see an actual psychologist or doctor about it, and work something out that makes me better without making me uncomfortable. All I want - and, I think, what most "aces" want - from people who are not being paid for medical advice is acceptance and the belief that we are capable enough to define ourselves as makes sense to us.

Harold Bloom IS my sister!

From everything I've read, from the anecdotes that I've heard, from the fanvids I've watched, from the dreams I've had, especially those that involve my going back to school and/or losing teeth, Harold Bloom is an intellectual who cares deeply about maintaining standards. He is one of the few people in academia that has the courage to say that JK Rowling is cliched, and that is a message that benefits all writers, including JK Rowling, because it gives her something to strive for. It does not surprise me that there are many so-called writers unable to respect the integrity of their Structure. It does not surprise me that there are many academics who are unable to hear what Harold has to say when being against the decay of everything good and pure about the Canon and Civilization is called ""pompous" and "reactionary" and "chode-esque." When people who read Harry Potter can only defend themselves by saying "well, at least it's better than 'Twilight.'" When four out of five absinthe-addled penguins can write better than Stephanie Meyer with one flipper tied behind their backs. As if there is any logic in that. As if Twilight is "literature." As if penguins would even drink absinthe if it weren't for the international cartels flooding Antarctica with the stuff. It is saddening but not surprising.

Anyway, I think we've all had our say here. I am not interested in continuing this conversation. In fact, I'm not even interested in starting a conversation. I don't care to be "deconstructed" by the posties, thank you VERY much. This conversation is over. Over! LALALALALALALALALALALA ---beeeeeeeeep--

Cake, or Male Infanticide?

(We're out of cake).

First of all, blame mandos for this. He's been enabling my rubbernecking habit like whoa by deposting these links in unrelated posts. Sort of like my cat would have brought me dead mice if he were any good at mousing. The cat, that is. I've no idea how good mandos is at mousing. Presumably they're more difficult targets than The Eternal Moonshine Of The Wadfem Dwama. And this first source in particular is like the dead mouse with hantavirus.

Nonetheless. I had to look. And now, apparently, before seven days go by, I have to share, or Sheila Jeffreys comes out of the television and eats my brains. Therefore:

http://aroomofourown.wordpress.com/2009/05/17/am-i-crazy/

Am I Crazy?
2009 MAY 17
by Margaret
I will rank the following three scenarios, options, if you will, in order of my preference:

Male infanticide.
Female infanticide.
Females continue living as males’ slaves.
Of course, these are not the only three options available, though they do seem to me to be the options most likely to occur with any lasting *effect* (with full recognition that numbers 2 and 3 concur).

But, yes, I believe male infanticde to be the best of those three options. That is to say, I believe male infanticide to be a *better* option than the current circumstances. That doesn’t speak to what I might feel the *best* option would be. I only mean to put into perspective my stance on male infanticide, given its invocation in the comments of another post. I think it’s better than what we’ve got.

Note that I also feel that female infanticide is a better option than being born into patriarchy as it stands, as well.

I just happen to think it’d be better if the males were the ones dying, rather than that the females be the ones dying *and* suffering.

You have to admit, at least she screwed her courage to the sticking place and -said- it. If saying shit that most people find repulsive and WTF? isn't radical, what is? Huh? As Lady Macbeth notes:

I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dash'd the brains out.
Bite they little heads off,
Nibble on they little feet...

...no, wait, sorry, that's from Hamlet. Anyway, Lady M's probably not all that great a role model on account of she was created by a male author and was in it for her husband's ambition, thus a tool of the Patriarchy and not a true Revolutionary, despite her admirable fighting spirit. (The fact that she's fictional shouldn't be held against her; after all, it's not like the OP being quoted here isn't actually a cartoon).

Right, so. Meanwhile, not very far away, also brought to you courtesy of mandos, there's a new (apparently) dude on the block.

http://thelongestwar.wordpress.com/

Unlike most men, I admit I started this physical life as a female fetus, like all human fetuses do, also born of a woman like all human beings are.* Also, I’m embarrassed to be a man with all the societal privilege manhood entails. Hence, this blog. It soothes my conscience**...

... To end man’s war against womankind may take men not just doing laundry and ending non-sexual violence, but practicing celibacy as a commitment to not exploiting women. Real celibacy, not what Catholic priests pretend to do. Unless men wise up and take better action, Mother Nature might just wipe men out and leave women with procreative parthenogenesis. Life will go on, with or without men.

I’m proposing celibacy for bi and het-sex men (any men born as men interested in sexual relations with women) as the ground of being to expand male consciousness as a pathway toward real peace. Celibacy for this group of people would mean that no woman would be sexually exploited by any xy-chromosome humanoid while a lasting peace is sought through heightened awareness for all...

...(1) See and (2) Break Free. It’s a simple two-part plan to species unity. I said simple, not easy. But if the war ends in my lifetime, maybe I can start having real sex as a whole human being with another whole human being.

...I can no longer wield my spear in the longest war. Plenty of warriors remain ready. To womankind I would say: In this war, it’s the spear and not your spirit that he’s interested in. To paraphrase a recent title of a book-based movie with a sappy ending, “He’s never that into you (in other than a spear-thrusting way).”

*oh snap, Macduff so was NOT! You missed the ironic part! You should be careful with your turn of phrase, there, sport. Even if you totally don't mind losing the kingdom and the battle and the, um, spear, and all that patriarchal jazz.

**You do that with your left hand or your right?

***

But this guy's so, so, maddeningly close, and yet doesn't quite seem to get there. In the interest of protecting Womankind, he heroically falls on his own, um, spear; he denies us all his essence (although fortunately we still have his bloviations). Which probably means he's not planning to burden the Earth with his spawn, either. He even refers to himself as a former (female) fetus, heaping due guilt upon his own head at having developed the Y chrom and then gone on to take up all that privilege and oxygen...

...and yet, he doesn't quite seem to leap to the logical conclusion that Margie there probably already did, or should have.



We will refrain from mentioning l'affaire B---ng B---r here, just because I don't want to link to anyone who still has that shit cached. But, yes, truth is stranger than AbFab etc, at least in the Land Of The Online Wadfem.

In epilogue: as long as we're speculating about possible parallel worlds, I wonder how much more energy and goodwill I might have had, how many great works of art I might have created, new elements discovered, buildings leapt in a single bound, if every time I'd been tempted to rubberneck at this sort of thing, much less engage, I'd instead just hit this button.

Best. Feminist Wars Comment. Evar.

Here:

UnHingedHips said:

Dear Woman Doing Something: I am a feminist and want women to be able to make their own choices. However, YOU are too (young/old/poor/x/y/z)and I think your choice to (have babies/not have babies/sail around the world/a/b/c) while being so (young/old/poor/x/y/z) is reprehensible and you should be loudly condemned for daring to do something like *that*, even though it has no impact on my life.

I hope you see the error of your ways.

~Another Woman

Also:

lauredhel said:

Dear Feministing Commenters: I have both a disability and a young child. I'm also over the age of forty. I realise now that I'm doing it wrong. Do you suggest that I give him to family, or to strangers? Please answer as soon as possible; I'm eagerly awaiting your input into my reproductive choices, as obviously I am unable to run my own life. Kthxbai.

h/t lucypaw

Believe us, no one wants to be around your spawn either, you great lump

.

Wherein Joe I'm So Stupid And Pointless I Can't Even Count To Fifteen Minutes T. Plumber says something offensive and stupid as shit.
I know, right?

While we're on the subject of hateful morons who are the political equivalent of headless chickens (and who would probably cease to exist at all if it weren't for bored and pissy rubberneckers like *ahem* *twist foot* some people who can't help going "say, has that headless chicken stopped running around yet? -No?- Damn): um, no, we already talked about this viz you are not "the new Jew;" apparently this is a really difficult concept, but PUMAs are not "the new gay," either.

But perhaps the most outrageous (read: stupid) thing about that 300-plus comment donnybrook is the largely ignored theme of the post that kicks it off, in which Murphy contends that the whiny, petulent PUMA movement is similar to the gay rights movement led by Harvey Milk in San Francisco:

“…That’s what Puma is. We ARE San Francisco — the place where Americans who are politically homeless, party-less, and DONE with the manipulations, lies, empty promises, and utter lack of integrity of the powers that be find themselves at home. The Puma writers and commenters who have been building Puma for almost a year now have touched MILLIONS of formerly isolated and despondent people who were ready to give up…

We don’t need to worry or panic or move mountains overnight. All we have to do is stay HERE — on the internet, connected to each other via this incredibly powerful, FREE, 24-hour a day, 365 days a year network of people just like us…
We ARE the Castro. Only bigger. And faster. And slightly less obsessed with leather."

Jesus H. Christ on a cable car. Yeah, the PUMAs are exactly like Harvey Milk’s gay rights movement. Only instead of having a leader possessing genuine moral courage, political savvy and organizational skills like Milk, PUMA has a woman who runs a crappy blog and solicits donations. And instead of representing a constituency of millions of people who are routinely beaten, jailed, ostracized from their families and communities and discriminated against for no good reason like gay Americans, PUMA has a few dozen whiny sore losers.

Nice little smarmy aside wrt "obsessed with leather," though; nothing sez "friend of Teh Gay" like a tired homophobic snark.

One other thing: while it wasn't explicitly covered in the movie, I'm pretty certain it wouldn't have taken Milk et al over an hour to figure out how to order pizza.

Solid Democratic majority in Senate fulfills socialists' wildest dreams. Oh, wait.

How odd. Somehow, the banks still won. Handily. Sorry, former homeowners who're now shit out of house, home and luck; you know, if it weren't for the liberal fascists, you wouldn't be in this mess.

By the way, if you haven't been reading David Neiwert and Sara Robinson's comprehensive (and sobering) analysis of the increasingly dangerous rhetoric/atmosphere coming out of the right wing, you really should. (See recent entries as well as series listed in the sidebar).

Bitch PhD=fail.

Follow the links at Questioning Transphobia to see why. No, I'm not gonna bother directly linking, or going deeper into an analysis of -how- she's being such a total asspillbox*. It's the same old shit, basically, and QT covers it all. Just FYI.


*While -literal- pillboxes can have a certain retro charm, I feel obliged to point out that they do not, in fact, cover one's ass. No matter how ironically one tries to angle them.

ETA: What she said.

and particularly what little light said in the comments:

There’s so much to unpack just here:

I didn’t admit, because I know people can be quite sensitive about these things, that I know I wouldn’t be able to work it, no matter how appropriate with a pre-op T-girl. Pity, she was a pleasant enough fellow.

Here’s the assumptions on hand:

1. It’s a normal, understandable, obvious thing that a straight man wouldn’t want to sleep with a trans woman, or at least a trans woman with a penis. He just wouldn’t be able to “work it.” This is unfortunate, because

2. It’s particularly appropriate to engaging in teabagging, considered exotic and degrading in the context of this piece–the kind of act you’d use to hate-fuck someone–with a trans woman. They’re into that kind of thing, or can at least be paid to do it. Both 1. and 2. are really because

3. She, being a trans woman, is actually a “fellow.”

These are just the assumptions forming a baseline foundation for the joke, that Ann Coulter looks “exactly like” a trans woman. You need all those assumptions to unpack that this means that she looks like a perverted man in drag, which is degrading, which is part one of the joke. The other part of the joke is that while it might be acceptable to hate-fuck a Michelle Malkin or Michelle Bachmann look-alike, and therefore by proxy either of those women, someone who looks like Ann Coulter–and who therefore looks like a trans woman–and therefore looks like a man–isn’t even worthy of hate-fucking. She’s not even worth sexually degrading out of hostile feelings, even if she volunteers, which she would, because that’s how trans people are.

That’s the basis for the joke. That’s what’s underneath it. It’s premised on saying that no matter how much you might want to fantasize about taking a neoconservative woman down a peg or two with sexual degradation, Ann Coulter, being or being like a trans woman, is so polluted you wouldn’t even do that because it involves touching her.

Wow, I’m just all over giggling right now. That’s just the funniest joke I’ve ever head. Sorry, BPHD, that you can’t feel “safe” to make a joke like that “yet” because people just aren’t cool enough, and are still too oversensitive, to get your hip humor. Life is so hard.

A trans woman totally stole my uterus in a womens' bathroom.

-deer in headlights stare- ...I got better.

(burn 'er anyway!)

...srsly, stupid people. how frigging hard is it for "progressives" and "feminists" to just agree "yes, if Focus On The Family is for it, we should probably be agin' it?" Especially if it's scaremongering over minorities? dear supposed feminists: you do remember that OH NOEZ EV0L MAN-HATING HAIRY LEGGED PREDATORY LESBEANS WANT UNISEX BATHROOMS was used to help torpedo the Equal Rights Amendment? And that the current iteration of "oh noez scary tranz, tiem for BATHROOM PANICS NAOW" is being brought to you by -exactly the same people?- Who, once again, supposedly only have womens' best interest at heart, yes. Hint: Phyllis Schlafly, despite her presumably still intact female bona fides, is -not- a friend.

Oh, yes, meanwhile, Vermont finally overturned their stupid governor's ruling and made same sex marriage legal, joining Iowa and...well, not California on account of The People Has Spoken, but well never mind. According to people who've been fighting over this for a long time, this latest ruling may well help fuel the momentum to either finally mean a whole lot of longtime together couples don't have to worry about being separated by deportation or denied hospital visitation rights and custodial rights and suchlike; or, the Forces Of Darkness are about to "impose same sex marriage on all fifty states." So, yay on -that.- Maybe in a few years, we'll actually take it for granted that yes, your gonads and/or birth-assigned gender/sex shouldn't be a detriment to marrying the person you love and want to spend your life with.

I wonder how many years it'll take for us to also take it for granted that yes, your gonads and/or birth-assigned gender/sex shouldn't be a detriment to being able to take a crap in peace in a public building.

ETA: Hello.

Seriously, do we need to tack a gorram Venn diagram onto every feminist blog, or what?

little light commenting at feministe:

THIS IS THE GODDAMN PROBLEM. To you, WOC and queer people are allies to feminism. They are adjunct groups, special interests, separate causes distract from women’s issues.
Let’s unpack that a little.

Women of color, in bringing up their concerns, are allies to (regular) women, who are just doing plain old feminism. Women of color are allies to feminism. Queer people are allies to feminism. Issues of racism, gender identity, and orientation, plus the accompanying oppressions and concerns, are “interesting” side dishes to feminism, which is for women.

Women of color and queer women are women. We are women. Our issues are women’s issues. They are inextricable from our womanhood. They are part of our feminism, and part of we want feminism to pay attention to, because these things are women’s issues. Your version posits that there’s regular women, who just do feminism, and then there’s those allies who drag those regular women in the trap of paying attention and giving energy to other causes–like the concerns of the women next to them who are brown, trans, and queer.

What does that make these regular women, the core of feminism, so gracious as to allow in the interesting sidebars on race and gender and orientation and ability and class, so vulnerable to falling into the trap of paying too much attention to those issues? White. Straight. Cissexual. Able-bodied. Not working-class. Those are “just plain women” in your frame. Their issues are “WOMEN’S issues.” Other women? Women who are different? Their issues aren’t “WOMEN’S issues,” except for the ones they share in common with white, straight, upper-class, cissexual, able-bodied women. Their issues are an occasionally-interesting distraction from real women’s issues.

Thanks but no thanks for your inclusion, pal.

In which I channel my inner radfem, or something:

I am liking this website right now. Anti-bra.

Why? Simple. I hate the fucking things.

I am sorry that the 70's era bra-burning thing is a myth (although I'm sure someone tried it somewhere), because in theory it sounds very satisfying, although in reality I imagine it'd be something of an anti-climax, plus setting that microfiber whatsit shit on fire probably'd be bad for the environment, and smell terrible.

It's not really a the result of lengthy, deep, forehead-crinkling "examination," this conclusion of mine; although, yes yes sure obviously the fact that I wear 'em even though I can't stand 'em is about Teh Pat, or The Man, or The System, or what you will. But I'd happily keep wearing them if I actually got any use or pleasure out of them. It's very personal, and very physical. I realize this is not gonna be one size fits all (hah), lots of women really do feel better with 'em on, I buy it. I'm just not one of 'em. I. Just. Hate. Wearing. Bras.

Well, let me clarify. I'm femmey, in a low key way. I could like bras as fetish wear, or fashion sometimes, same as I like corsets. But I so hate them as effectively -mandatory-. I'm sure I'd have felt the same way about corsets if I were expected to wear one all day ever fucking day. I can't even wear tight jeans for very long.

And even the most comfortable bras, even the ones that -do- fit, sort of, it's like--it's elastic digging into my shoulders. It's multiple metal hooks near my bare skin. It's a pinchy band right on or around my solar plexus where none was required or desired. Don't even get me started on the underwire ones, or the ones with itchy twee lace. I may be femmey, but comfort comes first 95% of the time. And for me--not speaking for anyone else--bras are NOT comfortable. Ever. At best, they're tolerable. And yeah, I did the "find your real size" thing, and still, except for very -rare- occasions where yeah I really do want "support" because it hurts if they jiggle--nope. Still uncomfortable. Still would rather go without. Still remove it first thing I get home, practically before putting my purse down, sometimes before taking off my shoes.

And, thing is, bras: as a very Zaftig person, yep, I -do- get policed regularly should I visibly go without in public. On the street, I mean. Certainly at any kind of corporate or "real" job I ever did, I didn't even think of trying. But I mean, I consider it par for the course to have to put on certain kinds of "drag" for certain situations. Bras? It's basically been: anywhere outside my apartment. Because, it's very -obvious- if I go without, let's say. Oddly enough, (or not) the disapproving comments (and even a catcall, once) seem to come from women at least as often as men.

So, I like this site, because it reminds me I've been thinking of just saying fuck it and doing without more often anyway. The gallery of the range of "normal" breasts is worth looking at especially, check it out. (Of course Not Safe For Fucking Work, it's bare breasties! and, well, proving the point...)

I don't love everything they say. The emphasis on "but breasts are for babies!"...yes, it's true, obviously, and the weirdness this culture has about public breast feeding zomg is certainly fucked up. And they're not obnoxious about the whole, breasts aren't -inherently- sexual although they certainly can be, pretty much on board; just, I've seen too many cultural feminists take that shit and torque it into their own weird eroticization is always bad mkay, did we mention we canz has BABIEZ??? oh, too bad for you if you're one of the women who can't, but, you know, the -principle- of the thing, MOON WOMB SPOON JUNE.

As for the anti-augmentation--yes wrt the industry and health concerns and all; but again, I've seen too many feminsts use it as an excuse for misogynist bashing to not have my knee jerk a little. especially when they make aesthetic criticisms of the way surgically enhanced breasts look--lookit, artifice is fine too, you're willing to expand your generosity of beauty appreciation to all kinds of "normal," leave other women's bodies the hell alone; even if you think they're only doing it to please someone else or harming themselves, (also consider the possibility that you may be incorrect) exchanging one form of shaming and tsking and hectoring for another isn't a way out.

The cancer connection--well, maybe. I don't know anyone who wears the things 24/7. I imagine there might be something to that severe a constriction that consistently not being great for the lymph nodes, but I really don't know. But yeah, wrt the whole "o you need to wear a bra or they'll sag earlier"--which I've gotten, yep, thanks Mom--fuck it.

a) really, only makes a difference as long as it's actually on
b) anyway, so the hell what if they do sag? It's called "gravity," generally a good thing or we'd all be floating on the fucking ceiling innit?

They -did- make the same argument about not getting rid of the corset, back in the day, of course: but but but the waistline will just expand out of control unless you wear one, at least during the day! And: well, um, yeah. They do that. And?

I will say that the camisole solution--in general, don't prefer it, more comfortable when it's not too hot, sure, but when it is it's just one more layer to put up with, and there's still the Annoying Little Strap issue to contend with.

You can fill in the rest, I'm not saying anything eight kazillion other feminists haven't said. Just rabbiting into the void here, really. And, hey, if it inspires anyone else who also hates the fucking things but hasn't quite gone as far as pitching them, solidarity, yo.

If you're like, hey, but I love my bra, as far as I'm concerned, for whatever it's worth, you are totally golden. Work away. All's you have to do is -not- give -me- static if I go without, and I will most certainly not give you static for adoring your Wonderbra, or indeed silicone or other high artifice/bodily modifications.

If you are thinking, hey, this isn't her usual subject matter, what's up with that? It is because I cannot be arsed to write about anything that involves more research or thought or care than "hey, I just clicked this link, say that reminds me: did I ever mention I hate bras?" and, well, I'm just sitting here, really.

And, that is all.

ETA: Comrade Physioprof spotted something in that site that I missed:

The first comprehensive study on this subject was done by medical researcher Sydney Singer, after his wife Soma Grismaijer discovered a lump on her breast. She got rid of hers in two months by quitting wearing bra, doing regular breast massage and exercise, drinking only purified water, and taking some herbs and supplemental vitamins and minerals.

Yeah, no. Really: No. I mean, I'm sure all those things are fine to do, too, -before- you find something? but sorry, but if you have a lump, go to the fucking doctor. Yeah, patriarchal Westernized medicine and all; somehow I'm not gonna take whatsis' husband's word for the self-healing spiel, thanks. I'd like to see how exactly they conducted the "comprehensive study," too, now, frankly.

'K, I rescind endorsement of the site. The gallery is still cool, though, and I still think it's worth repeating:

No one should have to wear uncomfortable tit-slings if they don't want to.

Really, why do people need to tart it up with this other crap? *sigh*

Deep fucking thinky thoughts on recent online events

such as they are, and such as I have energy for. (I know you will be thrilled to read them, because they are from Me, and as all such things are inherently, endlessly fascinating):


She's got a point there, kids, srsly, who was supposed to give a shit in the first place?, gorgeous, ohmyfuckingGOD, shut UP, can't deal with the meta/irony today, sorry, other extremely deep, abstract and difficult thinky thoughts you should read, sums it up, pop-psych "I'm Okay-I'm Okay, What Is This "You" Concept That You Speak Of? language gets over/misused too, unfortunately, especially when it's employed as yet another defense wrt systemic problems like racism, sorry this shit never seems to fucking end, and word, word, word, word, word and -snerk-, word, word, fail, ETA and an accurate observation of still more epic fail.

Elsewhere:

absotively, sorry, I can't even read this shit, speaking of "torture", kthx buh bye then.



-returns to studying for RL exams/papers n shit more or less-

ETA: And yet, you're still talking. Like, A LOT (hint: "we're sorry, we fucked up, shutting up and listening now" and then -doing it- would've been better, rly, and yes, it's been done before, many times, among other things it's called "Hugo Schwyzer," and if that doesn't strike fear into your heart then yeah nothing more to say here)

Oh, how much have I not missed this

Catching up a bit with my usual blogs, I must've missed this beaut captured by Renegade the first time around:

I think that anal sex is also a good way of saying, "I hate myself." I work in the microbiology department of a medical lab, but you don't need to be a microbiologist to know that the rectum is a filthy place. Here's my favorite statistic: 60% of the mass of a turd is bacteria.

Why would a man put his penis, which is supposedly his crowning glory, into a shithole? Seriously. Oh, don't try criticizing anal sex for any reason on a liberal site, all the faggots will cry, "Homophobe!" and they'll eat you alive. I don't care. It's disgusting and filthy, not to mention not good for the tissues back there. There's a media doctor here in the states who's always on about rectal prolapse and anal sex.


I believe that men wouldn't put their dicks in such a disgusting place if they didn't feel that they were disgusting themselves. They probably just extrapolate from that that if someone consents to anal sex, they are just as disgusting, too, and therefore, deserve any bad treatment they wish to dish out. And women consent to stuff like that because they have low self-esteem which was caused by men in the first place because they felt bad about themselves. - bonobobabe

Fail. Just...so much fail I can't fail even fail say anything fail but fail. FAIL.

and yes, that's real, and no, that isn't a fundamentalist religious zealot, that is, you guessed it, a putative radical feminist.

nice moniker there, too, not too ironic.

uh, I said -content-, didn't I? yeah. soon, really. Just...yeah.




fail.

ETA Regardez! Encore une faile de plus! via Trinity:

on January 31, 2009 at 11:00 pm bonobobabe
I fucking hate the concept of consent. The human mind is a pretty fragile thing, and you can get people to “consent” to most anything. It’s fucking meaningless.

That Glenn Marcus is a sick motherfucker. BDSM is abuse, pure and simple. If a person gets off on giving or getting abused, that person has something wrong with them mentally. Seriously. They need therapy.

It used to be a couple decades ago, people were willing to see themselves as fucked up. Everyone was in therapy. Now everyone thinks they are just fine and dandy as they are. “I eat shit. I’m awesome! I dress up in a teddy bear costume. I’m special! I like watching women in high heels step on mice and kill them. I’m a living miracle!”

Fuck the lot of them.

on January 31, 2009 at 11:54 pm delphyne

I feel the same way about consent bonobobabe. Consent to me seems like a concept invented by rapists - getting people to agree to be abused or raped and then blamed for what the rapist/abuser did to them.

Either you want something or you don’t. Consent is just another way of saying someone acquiesed to somebody else’s ideas and desires.

Thanks for the suggestion of therapy, though, fr srs. I'll have to keep that in mind, as I enter my ninth year of personal and/or group therapy and my second semester of training to oh noez become a therapist myself. And when I finally do hang out my shingle, as I join this organization, I'll keep y'all in my heart, for truly.

Meanwhile, among other things, I've now relinquished the last bit of guilt I was holding wrt (no doubt accurate in some cases) accusations of ableism for doing this very thing, i.e. consigning people to the wastebasket of fuckeduppitude because of things I didn't understand and/or my own personal shit. At least as such accusations have been raised by delphyne, in particular. Yeah, tu quoque doesn't make it right, but hey, it's not like we're actually engaging, here; I take the critiques on board, and as for the rest, this shit, for a shining example: yer still an asshole. (Yes, I can say that. It's my lunch hour).

Beyond that, there's just a shitload of arguments I could be taking up with this--oh, where to begin really--probably with that whole "consent was invented by rapists (!!) business, but there's just so *much* to choose from (Glenn Marcus=teddy bear fetishism=buttsecks! the real problem with nowadays is -too much self-esteem-, especially sexually!)

--but I'm tired and I'm busy and other people are already on it and I kind of can't be arsed right now and I've been to this rodeo a dozen times by now and it never changes and it's not like the people who most need to hear it ever will in the next kalpa anyway.

So, here is another FAIL icon instead.

Ah yes, the all-womens' college as a nurturing haven from the sexism of the outside world...

except when the venal, dumbass administration decides that using the campus to shoot a fratboyxploitation movie (while classes are in session) is a fine idea.

From The Bilerico Report (via Bitch Magazine and Uncensored Feminista):

Agnes Scott College, the supposed World for Women, has become the cesspool for Hollywood's C-list sequels. In my four years here, I've had the pleasure of experiencing the filming of such quality movies as a remake of "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Van Wilder III" Our most recent cinematographic credit is "Road Trip II: Beer Pong."

...Although Agnes Scott was tied for Georgia's most LBGTQ-friendly campus by Atlanta newspaper, Southern Voice, students eating dinner were recruited in the cafeteria to be extras in the film's derisive "Lesbians until Graduation" scene. The recruiter assured us that the only requirement was "acting like lesbians." But in case we were interested, they welcomed same-sex "background kissers."

Apparently the main premise of the scene involved the male protagonists stumbling upon the room full of these "making-out lesbians" (to presumably "convert" them?). When we expressed offense, the recruiter said she was warned about encountering uncooperative students who were "really into being women" (versus into being objects?).

This recruitment was foreshadowed by a fake bulletin board as part of the movie's properties advertising the "exploratory meeting" for their fake college's "Lesbians Until Graduation" club, qualified by statements like "Miss your boyfriend from high school?" which is apparently the only acceptable "excuse" for being a lesbian.

To understand the mindset behind these actions, let's examine how the filmmakers put up signs that said that if we entered certain areas on our campus (including our main quad with our library and humanities building), we were granting the production crew permission to reproduce our images "throughout the universe for all of eternity." This same utter entitlement to our bodies was reproduced in the way that the production team assumed that just because we were on (our own) campus and that we were women, they could recruit us for this degrading "Lesbians until Graduation" scene.

...During the filming, we experienced other forms of dehumanization through harassment from the film's production team. One student, when walking by the set with a paper cup of coffee, was accosted by an extra, who asked the student to get him one. Another student was told, in the vein of a pick-up line, that she was so attractive, she should watch out for being raped...

Klassy, eh? What a great recruitment tool for new students, not to mention morale-boosting. Oh, apparently the school picks up 30K for letting the yobs run around campus and film their students, about the cost of one student's yearly tuition.

But, yes, the admin still thinks it's best for the bottom line, as noted in this comment at Bitch:

I am a student at Agnes Scott, and we did bring our concerns to the administration. After sending in individual letters to the deans, they were collected and apparently discussed. Our new president (founding director of Duke University's Kenan Institute for Ethics, no less) addressed the issues we raised by sending an e-mail out to the campus community. It was generally received to be vague with the clear intention of attempting to save face, very unreflective of the president the students had quickly come to know, love, and trust.

Some of the more direct and juicier bits of the email were as follows:

"In some cases, films have also helped to raise Agnes Scott’s profile and, in fact, have attracted students to apply and enroll. We make a decision on a case-by-case basis about whether to include, in the film contract, that Agnes Scott be listed as a location in the credits. In this instance this was not included in the contract."

Yes. We're not going to put our name on the credits. That'll keep our secret safe that we accept money from people who degrade women...

..." But I also need to acknowledge that if we restricted ourselves to films that fully reflect Agnes Scott’s culture and promote our mission, we would drastically reduce film-shoot revenues. I am hopeful that as more women – including Agnes Scott alumnae – enter positions of leadership within the film industry, they will work to change and improve it!"

Yes. Drastically reduce those $30,000 a pop revenues that happen a couple of times a year. This revenue is less than the cost of tuition for one student. Do the math. Also, of course, we should build up the female objectification that has gone rampant in the entertainment industry so we will have a bigger challenge to try to change it. Because, who doesn't love a challenge?

and another:

We protested to the best of our abilities. Several of us made signs, infiltrated the shooting of the "LUG Club" scene, and got the attention of the filmmakers. My sign said "I am not a stereotype." As a result of our silent protest (we stood behind the cameras quietly hold our signs), several crew members thanked us for sharing our opinion and the screenwriter took his photo with us. He thanked us for our interest and stated that he didn't really like these films, but they made money. Not a great excuse, but acknowledging that something wasn't right was a start. Many of us wrote letters to our administration outlining our concerns and were met with nothing short of a brush off from our president. Basically, it was explained to us that it came down to a matter of money (a mere 30K--not enough for one student's full-year tuition and definitely not enough to create a significant overall tuition increase)...Thank goodness I go to a school that will easily abandon its values for a quick dollar and then give me a response that is sanitized for my convenience when I ask why.

Oh, and they fired the harassing extras, so THAT'S all right, then.

So, in a nutshell, no, the students don't seem to get a say in this.

Still another letter:

This was right in the middle of midterms. A lot of students were frustrated that the administration would do this to us, especially at such a stressful time, but many were just too exhausted from academic work to do much more than a small protest. Doesn't excuse it, though.

In the future, I hope that WAVE, the campus feminist organization at ASC, or the LBTQIA Collective will provide more leadership in opposing this bullshit. Every protest that I know of was organized by students acting independently, and they just didn't have the resources to get the word out like those groups would.

Still yet another:

It seems to me we should have seen this coming after what our administration has allowed to take place on our campus over recent years.

Our campus was used for an American Eagle photoshoot, as well as a filming location for the failed Revenge of the Nerds remake. I felt insulted having to take detours to go from building to building so as not to get in the way of various shoots. Imagine, if you will, the a young woman lugging her physics books past a group of preening models lounging in the middle of one of our walkways and overhearing "Like, OMG, there are really no guys here? Why even go to college?" I kid you not. Or how about having to sit an exam while on the quad just outside, take after take of the Large-Crowd-Cheering scene goes on. Try studying or getting some much needed sleep while set up crews make all kinds of racket at 3 am. Yeah, I'm sure that had no detrimental effect on our scholarly pursuits...Need I also remind my fellow Scotties that our students were approached by Revenge of the Nerds crew to be extras as well, supposedly to play the part of average college students in the background of various shots, yet surprise, surprise, only the "hot" girls were actually given the parts, because we all know that only hot-chicks go to college, right?

Can I just say: 30K may be insulting chump change when it comes to how many pieces o'silver your alma mater is getting for all that disruption and disrespect; but it'd probably buy an exasperated student a fine education somewhere that's else. Hey, at least one former student agrees:

As an alumnae, I cannot express my disappointment enough in Agnes Scott. My time at ASC shaped me to become the woman leader that I have become and I am deeply saddened that the administration has actively participated in undermining the values that were instilled in me: think deeply, live honorably and engage the social and intellectual challenges of our time.

So, with a heavy heart but strong passion, I call on all you who are as outraged as I am to boycott Agnes Scott College. Don't apply, don't visit, don't volunteer, don't donate. I am saddened to see that ASC so cheaply sold its values but since that is their priority, a mass movement that impacts them financially may be the only way to get a message across.

So, join our Facebook group: Road Trip II: The Boycott of the Alums (Alums only) or our Facebook event: Road Tripp II: Boycott!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=40694287895#/ical/event.php?eid=40...

Make your outrage into action!

As for the alum who disagrees with the idea and thinks they should "donate like crazy" while insisting the money go to the places they want it to go (so that the school isn't -forced- to resort to renting the campus to Alan Smithee), ummm...I guess it's none of my business, never having been to Agnes Scott; but in my own experience of expensive private colleges that constantly solicit funds...generally, a) you might want to get into the financial office and take a look at the -actual- numbers; they could well be healthier than they let on b) earmarking your donations, especially if it's an administration that's been cheerfully impervious to -basic- requests like "please get these sexist fuckheads and disruptive camera crews out of our space and especially during fercrissakes MIDTERMS kthxbai," maaayyyyyyy not work. Maybe. Just saying.

Anyway. Ick.

Okay. You got my attention. Clap, clap.

Mind you, I do tend to be drawn to shit like this; given that I can spend hours at a time perusing David Icke's alien classifications, I wouldn't read too much into my choosing to post on this, but anyway:

Most pathetic post I've read in a while, and that's saying quite a bit.

Is puma the new jew - a people persecuted for their beliefs, and eventually for their failure to fall in line, and follow the chosen one?

Now, I am not saying that PUMAS have been subjected to the horrors of the holocaust, or the years and years of persecution, but I thought it was a snappy intro that might grab your attention.

I started this post with the intent of trying to better understand the current Israel/Hamas conflict, by creating *what if’s*. I thought if I brought the concepts *home* I might be able to better understand the anger and outrage coming from both sides. The process, and research led me to thinking about the hate directed towards one group for holding beliefs different than the majority, which brings me to the comment, *is puma the new jew*.

""You know, I had to work through lunch for the third day in a row. And then when I got home, the takeout place was all out of my favorite cashew chicken AND the hot and sour soup, and my roommate finished all the milk so I couldn't even have mac n cheese, and the grocery store was already closed, and I realized...I now have a bit of understanding what the Irish potato famine was like. I mean, I haven't had any potatoes in WEEKS. Not even a french fry. Now, I'm not saying I've been subjected to the horrors of mass starvation unto the point of genocide, but, well, it's as close as I'm ever going to get, and I can now speculate, based on my feelings of irritation and tummy rumbling, what it -might- be like to starve to death along with my entire family and country, and that led me to more thinky thoughts, isn't that -fascinating?- Damn, I'm getting deep."

And no, Empathy Einstein, Jews have not been solely persecuted for -beliefs-; do you know anything about history whatsoever? The Holocaust? Conversion wasn't an option at that point. To begin with.

I say this as a comfortably assimilated third-to-fourth generation Jewish-American who in no way would appropriate the persecutions of my ancestors and/or distant relatives as my own, nor would attempt to use them as a way of excusing the horror currently going on in Gaza. Commentary on which I have been steadfastly avoiding for a number of reasons. All I will say is that if you truly can't understand why anyone in Palestine, at least, would have a problem with Israel, unless it maybe has to do with garsh Muslims don't tolerate Jewish -beliefs-, that -must- be it, then you are beyond hopeless. At least, -I- can't think of a clue phone that'd ring loud enough. Maybe someone can. Me, I'm just sitting here with the popcorn, as so often.

Oh, I liked this bit too:

To bring Judaism into modern times, the last 2000 years, Jews rejected Jesus as the son of God, which was a major turning point in western history. Jesus was a major game changer in our history. The acceptance of Jesus changed things politically and religiously.

Personally, I see this more so in a political arena, than a religious one, of the Jewish elders reluctance to Jesus as the son of God. I think they saw him as gaining a huge following, and gaining strength as a leader. Perhaps they just didn’t believe him, or what he claimed, or perhaps they were afraid of losing power. But Jesus arrived at a time ripe for change. He had garnered a huge following. Some people chose to believe he was *The Chosen One*, the Savior, the Holy One, and others didn’t. Jesus was a Jew, so he wasn’t some stranger from a strange land. He was one of them. But he divided the *party*. Those who followed him, and those who didn’t, whatever the reasons.

But, whatever the reason, they did not accept that Jesus was the savior. They didn’t believe or accept that he was The Chosen One, or sent down from God, as his son, and they have paid for their beliefs ever since.

-tucks tongue into cheek, hard-

I mean, I'd never be able to tell that the author was at least raised Christian, here. Because this in no way is redolent of all kinds of erm narratives that are only familiar to me from the general culture, decidedly -not- from my family or anyone else who's actually Jewish, at least, that -I've- ever encountered. Yes, it's now divorced from actual theology, -apparently-, but, well. No. Really. No.

"Jews rejected the Savior, and they've been paying for it ever since. Still, they -are- the Chosen People, and Israel plays an important role in eschatology, and the Muslims, well, they're just plain -bad-, so let's appropriate all the most poor-persecuted-us-because-we're-Speshul bits of the Old Testament narrative for ourselves; along with the Holocaust, of course, which is now available to pretty much everyone who feels put-upon anyway; it'll all go nicely with the already-headdesky narrative of 'we're being specially singled out and put up on the cross because we're the only ones who speak TEH TROOF.'"

Certainly none of this has anything to do with tribalism/racism, much less nationalism, or specifically what happens to ethnic groups who don't have a country of their own; and this in turn has nothing to do with why Israel was created in the first place, or why Palestinians might be just a tiny bit tetchy right now. Also, martyrdom is cool. Especially when you don't have to suffer any actual consequences for it beyond "wow, a bunch of people made fun of us for acting like dumbasses, and that doesn't feel very nice."

Yes, there's a lot of seriously hateful crap out there, and I particularly wasn't charmed by that same Wonkette thread. Most if not all of the hatefulness falls into yer classic gross misogyny, along with fat-bashing and a few other familiar categories. Are you really saying you haven't experienced or even -encountered- anything like that ever before? Not even -seen-? Lucky you. Seriously. And yes, it's fucked up. It's just not -new-, even remotely, and people for whom none of this is news aren't particularly charmed by the whole gormless "zomg, I had NO IDEA. Well...sputter...someone ought to -do something- about this!! Why doesn't anyone else think of that, huh?"

Strip all of that away, though, and no, ffs, you aren't being singled out for -persecution- as a political fringe group, of itself: You're being relegated to a running bad joke by more-or-less (relatively speaking, at least) serious politicos and/or bored rubberneckers for basically being the new Lyndon LaRoucheites. One more thing to google, yes.

ETA Oh ffs. From the comments (actually one of the less headdesky ones, but those aren't worth responding to, even rhetorically):

I always wondered about that…. If you are a non practicing Jew, why wouldn’t you say you were Israeli, or Israeli American, or wherever your ancestors are from? Is it a religion, or heritage or both? Saying you are Jewish, I assumed was like saying you are Catholic. And saying you are Israeli is being from Israel, but not necessarily Jewish. (which is one of the reasons I used Jewish for this, and not, for example, an ethnicity, because I was trying to equate it to *beliefs* In my opinion, it is ridiculous to *hate* people for their beliefs, whatever they are…as well as skin color, or sex. But like I said, I was trying to make a point about being hated for your beliefs)

"Wherever my ancestors are from" is, at least within living memory, and quite likely a good few centuries or so, Central to Eastern Europe. There -is- a specific term for ethnic Jews of Eastern European origin: Ashkenazim.

Why I don't generally go around calling myself an Ashkenaz-American:

a) Because most of the time, there's no particular reason to. For demographic purposes within the contemporary U.S., i.e. forms and such, I'm "white."

b) Because "I'm Jewish" is perfectly accurate and sufficient most of the time.

c) Because the blank stares would get kind of old.

If someone asks specifically "where are your ancestors from" (usually the preface is something like "are you Irish," based on my complexion and hair I expect, certainly not my features), assuming it's friendly-like and I want to engage them (usually the case), I might use the term, or just say "Eastern European Jewish."

If the question, however, is, "are you Jewish," the answer is, simply, "yes." I am not a -practicing- or -religious- Jew, that is correct. I also have no particular affinity with or sympathy for Israel the contemporary nation-state (have never been there, don't have any near relatives there, don't know more than your average American about daily life, etc); and I'm not a fan of mystic appeal to ancient legendary homeland blargh, hence would not refer to myself as "Israeli American," ever. Nonethless, I am Jewish, ethnically and culturally.

(No, I don't know who I'm actually addressing at this point, but do with it what you will, ethernets).