Caitlyn Jenner's Feminist Conundrum

Caitlyn Jenner looks amazing. That was the headline on Monday, and it was well-deserved. Even if we hadn’t seen her before, we probably would have said that, especially if we had known she’s 65 years old.

As a secular humanist/liberal/commie/whatever you want to call me, I’m happy that we’re becoming what seems to be a society that’s more accepting of people’s choices (as long as there’s not a fetus involved). The male-female continuum has always been murky, and I’m glad that we’re starting to realize that.

I also think it would be horrible to have to live in a body that I felt I didn’t belong in, and I’m glad there’s surgery that lets people project what they feel on the inside to the world at large. But my feminist heart is troubled.

It makes sense - no one is going to have surgery to become an average looking person. If you’re getting fake boobs, you’re not going to get small weirdo boobs, you’re going to get really great ones. Same for your stomach and your hips. Everything down under is going to line up as nicely as it possibly can. You don’t just want to be a woman, you want to be a WOMAN.

But the perfect nipples, the raised cheekbones, the nips, the tucks, I have the same problem with those that I do for anyone getting plastic surgery. They continue publicizing this impossible ideal that (I thought) we were slowly starting to shift away from. 

#ImNoAngel

The Lena Dunhams and Amy Schumers of the world, the chronic loud and proud use of the word ‘feminist’ (Thanks, Taylor Swift! Thanks, Beyonce!), the celebs standing up (or down) to Cannes about their high heels rule, the Lane Bryant #ImNoAngel campaign, Rookie Magazine - I was starting to believe that mainstream feminism was the future.

At the same time, society is becoming more accepting of the transgender community. So where does feminism fit into that? I’ve never been a transgender person, so I don’t know. The way I understand it, transgender people are straddling the gender continuum - they're wired on one side, but look like they’re on the other side. With surgery, you're closing your legs, so to speak, you're meeting yourself on one side of the continuum. You are one thing and not the other. That immediately conflicts with second wave ideas that gender is a social construct, but this isn't my issue - as a third-waver, I believe men and women are different, and that's okay. That's good.

In a society that judges people on how they look, I get wanting to remove the extraneous parts - the penises, the boobs. I get growing your hair out or cutting it short, dressing in jeans or a skirt.

But Caitlyn Jenner didn’t stop there. She turned herself into an impossibly beautiful woman. I know that she’s got to live how she feels, but does a 65 year old woman really feel like THAT on the inside? I don’t feel like that and I’m 32. In fact, if I had surgery to reflect how I really feel on the inside, I would probably look more like Bruce Jenner than Caitlyn. I understand that Caitlyn is a woman, and that the Vanity Fair shoot was "about who [she] is as a person," but it makes my feminism sad that she became such a society-driven ideal of a woman. How honest is that?

OBSERVE and Report...a confession

I was shocked...outraged...pissed. I hate shock comedy and hate movies in general, but a film that mines date rape and serial flashers for comedy is NOT a film I want to see. Observe and Report is all of these things. Here's the R-rated trailer:



And here's Seth Rogen's explanation of why his rape scene "isn't" rape:

SETH ROGEN: when we’re having sex and she’s unconscious like you can literally feel the audience thinking, like, how the fuck are they going to make this okay? Like, what can possibly be said or done that I’m not going to walk out of the movie theater in the next thirty seconds? . . . And then she says, like, the one thing that makes it all okay:

BRANDI: “Why are you stopping, motherfucker?”

Never mind that she passes out after saying it. And forget about how messed up she is. We won't even mention her vomit-covered pillow.

This is obviously rape. Funny rape. Cue feminist outrage.

Then I remembered: I haven't seen the movie. I've read a bunch of reviews and feminist analysis of the TRAILER, but I haven't actually watched it. I forgot to observe before I reported (ha ha ha).

In short, I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about.

This isn't a movie for everyone. Obviously. Reviews range from rave to pan. I THINK I'll be on the pan side, but I don't know. I forgot to think for myself. I used other people's words, other people's outrage. And that makes me sad.

RIP "Feminist"?

I'm tired of writing about Palin. Really, I am. But she did pose an interesting quandary for those of us who call ourselves feminists. Because...you know...SHE called herself a feminist.

A Feminist for Life.

That's a feminist who doesn't believe women should have a choice about what they do with their own bodies. A feminist who believes equal rights is being "one of the boys."

For a long time, I've believed that anyone who identifies as a feminist IS a feminist. Who am I to say they're not a "real" feminist? And then Palin came on the scene.

I don't think she would've kept the feminist thing going if it hadn't come out that she was a member of Feminists for Life. But it did, and she took it and ran with it. Smart.

Still, I don't think, as this article suggests, that she killed the word itself by "eliminating the taboo."

I don't want people to be scared of the word. I want everyone who truly believes in equal rights to be able to proudly say that they're a feminist. We don't need a taboo to keep us going. We need people on our side.

And that's what bugs me about Palin. I don't think she's on our side. Obviously, feminism means something entirely different to her. She can call herself a feminist, but a politician who believes "that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway" is not someone who is fighting for women's rights. It seems like she just wants to maintain the status quo. And that's not enough.

But the KKK didn't kill the word "Christian" and Palin didn't kill the word "feminist." She can call herself whatever she wants, but she doesn't represent feminism. She doesn't speak for us. And terrorists who call themselves Muslims don't speak for Muslims everywhere.

I'm not, in any way saying Palin is comparable to a terrorist or a member of the KKK, I just think people can use words to describe themselves without changing the definition for everyone.

I don't think Conservative Christians are anywhere near co-opting the word. I think it's still scary, just not AS scary. And that's a pretty good place to be.

Michelle Obama is not ready to call herself a feminist (she "doesn't like labels"). And I think that proves the point. People are still afraid of the word. I would love for that fear to end, but it hasn't.

It isn't time to read the "feminist" obituary, but when that time comes, it will be because it's second nature to believe that men and women should be on equal footing. (That's why we don't call people man-ists.) The death of "feminist" won't come from some female good ole boy, it will come from hard work and revolution. When everyone's a feminist...THEN it will be time to retire the word.

Feminist Freak Out: Ms. Magazine's Obama Super-feminist cover

The stage is set. Tomorrow, Obama will be our President. It's historical and wonderful, and I'm still feeling the chills from that performance of "This Land is Your Land." For the first time in my life, I feel like that song might be true very soon.



So Ms. Magazine decided to get in on the action with a "special Inaugural issue." The cover of the issue has caused a lot of femi-freak. Here it is:



Some feminists are upset at what they feel is a misguided image of feminism. Right. Who wants the President on our side? We want people fighting for our rights, just not the man who beat what this article calls the "real live" Wonder Woman candidate (Hillary Clinton). We're bitter, we're hurt, and we'd rather just sit in our meetings and complain.

And I'm saying, no. That's not what we're about. Feminists are PEOPLE who believe in women's rights. And while I don't think he's a God or a superhero, we want him fighting for us. While The Super-Feminist would make for a boring comic book, it's great in real life. Sure, we haven't broken the presidential glass ceiling, but all women are not feminists (Palin, anyone?). Yeah, yeah...so we don't need men to rescue us. But if that man is President, we need him on our side.

To the Second Wave Feminists who are still bitter about Clinton, who still think of feminism as an exclusive club, I say: Get over it. Wait till he screws something up, then complain. But maybe this time, he'll actually listen to us.

Sarah Palin and the media

Great suggestion, Andy. As you can imagine, I have a lot to say about the media.

While Jon Stewart did a great segment on the pundit turn-around for Palin, he didn't address the sexist coverage of Palin.

I just read an article in Bitch Magazine about the sexist analysis of women's voices. This one was centered on Hillary's coverage. And yes, some of the media definitely hit sexist territory during that race. And some of it revolved around her "naggy" voice. But I don't see the vocal mentions as sexist in and of themselves. Obviously I don't, because I mentioned Palin's shaky, accented voice myself.

We evaluate all of our politicians, celebrities, friends on many levels. It doesn't matter if they're a man or a woman, an especially high-pitched voice, a comical laugh, a snort - we notice these things and we comment on them. John McCain's voice is whiny as well. He sounds a bit like Kermit. Am I being sexist?

People have said that Obama is hot. When they say that about Palin, that's not sexist, it's just another method we have of evaluating people. It's unfortunate, but it comes down on both sides.

I can't disagree more with the people who think Palin isn't fit to serve because of her 5 kids. While there are sexist undertones to that point, John Edwards went through the same thing when his wife was ill with cancer and there were 2 little kids in the picture. Of course, it's definitely troubling that his wife had to have a terminal illness before the man was questioned. The sad thing is that I've heard mostly women make the priority argument. My mother even said she seemed like "an opportunist" and that she was "too ambitious." What politician isn't ambitious? What politician doesn't have an ego? If they think they can hold the highest (or second-highest) office in the country, they BETTER have an ego.

As far as the Bristol Palin coverage goes, I feel terribly sorry for the young, pregnant woman. I wonder if she was consulted at all before Palin accepted. They had to know it would get out. It's unfortunate that politicians' families get dragged into the public eye when their mother/husband/wife/father campaign. But the politicians open the floor when they make speeches and talk about their families accomplishments. Democrats and Republicans are free to use their families however they see fit, but the media is not allowed to respond? I don't think either side should bring the families in to it.

Palin's inexperience is getting the same amount of discussion as Obama's. It's just coming from the other side of the aisle.

She did exactly what she had to do at the RNC, but I don't think it changed anyone's mind (for or against). She's playing the folksy card, and she's playing it well. We'll just have to see how many Christian Conservatives are left in the world. If they still outnumber other voters, McCain/Palin will win.

Okay, that just makes me want to cry.

As Gloria Steinem said, "Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere."

What's wrong with McCain's Palin choice

1. It undercuts his "no experience" argument against Obama.

2. Liberal and conservative mothers (ex. my mother) will have a problem with a woman with 5 kids (including a 5 month old baby with Down Syndrome who she's still nursing) heading into 2nd-in-line situation with a 72-year-old man. In other words, soccer moms aren't quite sure about this "hockey mom."

3. Sure, he gets evangelicals on board, but people who (for some reason) thought McCain was winking when he said he'd be "a pro-life president" are not so sure it's a joke anymore. He's losing the center.

4. As Kim Gandy said, "Not every woman supports women's rights." Palin belongs to Feminists for Life, an organization that believes "women deserve better than abortion." She believes abortions should be illegal, even for rape and incest victims. She also tried to hire a guy who had been reprimanded for sexual harassment. McCain's choice is offensive to many feminists and Hillary supporters who were actually thinking of giving their vote to McCain (as NUTS as that is).

5. Completely surface and cosmetic: her voice is grating. If she keeps speaking like that, she's going to lose her voice fast. I know it's silly, but that stuff gets to me, whether it's a man OR a woman speaking.

Yes, it's great that there's a woman on one of the tickets, it's just the completely WRONG woman. She just rounds out the McCain ticket and makes the choice easier for centrists everywhere.

Sure, McCain stole Obama's news cycle yesterday, but that's because the media was picking Palin apart. Biden has plenty to pick at, but it's already been done. This woman hasn't been vetted on a national scale yet...and the media only has 2 months to do it. In my opinion? This thing is going to crash and burn.

Domestic Abuse

I posted this at MobLogic, but it seemed appropriate...

Alright, so we all know there's no way Hillary Clinton is going to win the popular vote. So why the hell is she still in the race?

Well, it's because she's an American...no, it's because she's a woman. That's it. As Clinton said (quoting Eleanor Roosevelt, who said): "A woman is like a tea bag. You never know how strong she is until she is in hot water."

Okay, this is actually a good tactic: focus on the female part of the candidate and remind people of the fight to break the glass ceiling. Some people may buy it. And some people might think Clinton is perpetuating the stereotype that women are bad at math.

The numbers...the REAL numbers...don't add up to a Clinton nomination. She's not fighting for equal rights or tea bags everywhere, she's fighting for herself. This is a contest. No one likes the wrestler who keeps fighting after he's pinned.

But in her mind, she's not pinned. She's got Florida and Michigan propping her up. Of course, way back when, Clinton agreed not to campaign in either state and she didn't fight the decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. And if you factor in the fact that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan...those two states aren't much to pile your hope on.

The Kentucky and Oregon primaries on May 20th will likely push Obama over the 2025 delegate mark. In the DNC's eyes, he would be the nominee. But Clinton is fighting for her two favorite states, which have been left out of that total number. In Clinton's world, the number looks more like 2209.

So maybe May 31st will spell the end for Clinton. That's when the Democratic Party's rules committee hears challenges to it's delegate strip-fest.

And if she hangs on after that, she should leave after June 3, when the primaries are over. If Clinton really respects the American people, thinks our voices matter, she'll drop out then.

But who knows if she will? Something sure has to change. She's loaned her campaign $11 million and Obama's acting like he's already the nominee (by visiting Clinton's best friends, Florida and Michigan, no less). She's redefining the word "win" and he's giving rational explanations for his decisions and actions.

Maybe if she plays up the hard fight, sisterhood, sexism thing, she'll gain some ground. But right now, she's just giving powerful women everywhere a bad name.

DC Madam: A Very Personal Eulogy From Susie Bright

Susie Bright, author of a bunch of great sexual politics books and all-around awesome lady has a touching post up on her blog about Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the DC Madam who hung herself recently.

I have to quote the whole thing, because it offers tremendous insight into Palfrey, and it's a wonderful picture of a woman seeking to understand another woman:

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, the "DC Madam" whose call-girl service got busted in the cross-hairs of partisan payback, has committed suicide. She hung herself at her mother's home in Tarpon Springs, Florida.

Susie's talk with Jeane, 2007 (mp3): Link

Transcript of DJP interview: Link

Jeane, I am so sorry. I know you swore to me that you'd never serve another term in prison for prostitution, or anything else. You almost lost your eyesight the first time. I'm sure you asked your lawyers if there was any hope for your sentencing, and I guess it must have looked bleak.

I know how pissed you were. This was an act of revenge, and I know who you're determined to haunt.

You were righteously furious at all the men who "walked away."

I'm sure that goes quite a ways back, but it certainly includes the esteemed gents on your client list: Louisiana fundamentalist, Senator David Vitter; Abstinence Ambassador Randall Tobias, who squashed AIDS funds all over the world; "Shock and Awe" war profiteer, Harlan Ullman.

And that was just the expendable layer. None of them were charged with anything; all are living quite comfortably, in particular because they have no conscience whatsoever.

Was Jeane suicidal, in the first place? Yes, but I'd describe that carefully. She wasn't irrational to think she wouldn't survive another round in a penitentiary; her health was poor. And she was brittle, the kind of person who is aware of her considerable intellect and education, but who finds herself in unlucky and vulnerable situations over and over again.

She was gullible to the wrong kinda guys, the kind of men who turned her out when she was young, whom she mistakenly placed faith in when she was looking for love, or a safe harbor. She's the kind of woman who should've been groomed for university when she was young, and cultivated for her bright mind and sensitivities. Instead, she was exploited and wasted— and her bitterness, her depression, was a result of that cruel awareness.

She tried to "go straight" after the first round in prison, and of course, was undermined by the typical prejudices against her record. She became more angry about the hypocrites, and determined to beat them at their own game. But it's clear that when Cheney bigwigs were on her tail, she wasn't going to beat their surveillance and manipulations.

Why doesn't everyone kill themselves when they're facing hard odds like Jeane did? Well, that's the million-karma question. All I can offer at this point, is painfully prescient rhetoric: Hell hath no fury like a smart woman scorned.... and justice has NOT been served.

MobLogic Gets a Feminist Bump

I don't speak for anyone at MobLogic when I say this, but this week there were some great feminist-y shows. I always enjoy sinking my teeth into a MobLogic blog, but I was especially psyched to write about the fact that porn is legal but prostitution is not and a study that confirms the g-spot's existence, just not for every woman. I should say that I have nothing to do with picking the shows.

Here are the shows. I love my job!

This is What a Feminist Commericial Looks Like

Yes, it's a commercial, but how many feminist commercials are out there today? I only wish it was on TV. There are so many people out there with the wrong idea about what feminism is today. You are a feminist as long as you believe in equality for everyone.

I like this commercial, even if it is a little cheesy. It makes me feel all warm inside.

Is Women's Studies Irrelevant?

A piece in The Independent today focuses on Metropolitan University's decision to stop offering a degree in Women's Studies. Apparently, it represents the irrelevance of feminism, the waning interest in the field, and the end of an era.

I agree that it's horrible that this university has stopped offering the course of study, but is does one university's decision make that much of a difference?

Maybe. I took a bunch of women's studies courses in college, but my college didn't offer a degree in it. This is a definite problem. But I think it's a shift. I think women are still interested in feminist theory, the feminist movement, etc., but I think they want to know how it applies to them. Because it DOES apply to them.

I hope we start seeing a new course of study. Or at least new courses. We're in the third wave of feminism, and it's time schools stepped up to the plate. Look at feminism today vs. yesterday. Look at how feminism IS relevant today. And maybe the schools should take a little more time to promote the field of study.

I might have gotten a degree in women's studies if it had been offered, but I'm not sure it would have been the right choice. Unless you're going to be a feminist scholar or historian, it's not a good choice for the future. Of course, neither is philosophy or history.

I just think women's studies needs a face lift. If we have to change it to gender studies, that's fine. We should look at how both sexes got to where we are today. Maybe students have been swayed by people like Cristina Hoff:

British and American societies are no longer patriarchal and oppressive 'male hegemonies'. But most women's studies departments are predicated on the assumption that women in the West are under siege. What nonsense.

But we need to fight this. It's not nonsense. We're not directly under attack, no. It's under the surface now, and it would be beneficial to society to have women who realize what's happening.

It's sad that the school doesn't think Women's Studies is worth promoting. But hopefully this will give us the opportunity to revamp the program. I took some great classes in school. I'd hate for those opportunities to fall by the wayside.

Lindsay Campbell vs. Silda Wall Spitzer

I commented on the site. Here's a little taste. Go check it out on the site. The discussion's getting REALLY heated.

Lindsay and I debate:

Amanda

A couple beefs with your argument:

1. If she hadn't shown up, if she'd been out at under-funded schools, Slida Wall Spitzer would've been attacked, just like she's being attacked now. This is a lose/lose situation for her. Just imagine: "What a bitch! She can't even support her husband as he apologizes to her!" Here's the headline: "Slida Wall Shuns Disgraced Husband." This is all about his career. If he resigns, she can't do all the good it seems she's trying to do. At least not as easily. (She's trying to convince him not to resign - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336688,00.html)
2. What would a visit to under-funded schools do? She'd get press, but for all the wrong reasons.
3. If this was a woman politician and it was her husband standing up there with her, he'd be considered a sensitive, forgiving man. This is how the game is played. It's a silent show of support when someone fucks up.
4. The "downcast eyes" - it looks to me like she was reading his speech along with him. Maybe she helped him write it.
5. In this case, as in the other cases you mentioned, the personal has become political. Slida Wall Spitzer made a personal choice to stand up next to her husband. The implications of her NOT standing up there would've been just as bad.

I like your rage and the discussion it starts, but I'm not going to judge Slida Wall Spitzer for a careful choice she made. Yes, it would've been cool if she had made another choice. Interesting, at the very least. But imagine how many people would've been calling her a bitch if she'd made that other choice. She may have taken the easy, expected way out, but she chose to keep her battle personal by not making any public waves. I can't blame her for that.

lindsaycampbell


"She may have taken the easy, expected way out, but she chose to keep her battle personal by not making any public waves. I can't blame her for that."

Yeah, Amanda, this is the exact part that I find so distressing. If there's no way to keep it personal, then the choice you make can't truly be your own anyway. You have to think about the headlines. And your job and your husbands job. Where is the humanity is all that?

I disagree that the same pressure would be on the husband of a powerful female politician. We've yet to test that out but I think the standard would change.

Amanda

There is no humanity. But it's not Silda Wall Spitzer's fault. It's politics. Games, deception, hypocrisy, it's all in there. Silda Wall Spitzer was essentially doing her job. She could've quit, yes, but she didn't want to. That's her choice.

It's hard to know if a husband would get as much pressure to stand up, but in a world where the positions in this situation were flipped, and Eliot stood next to his wife Silda, I think the reaction would be very different.

Oh, All Right. She Deserves it.

Every feminist in the world is swooning over Ellen Page.

In an interview with The Washington Post, the actress said these now immortal and worshipped words:

"I call myself a feminist when people ask me if I am, and of course I am 'cause it's about equality, so I hope everyone is. You know you're working in a patriarchal society when the word feminist has a weird connotation."Hippie" has a weird connotation. "Liberal" has a weird connotation."

"'Cause it's about equality."

Simple words from an interesting woman. Got to love it.

No One's in the Kitchen with Robert

Oh, jesus. Vanessa Richmond posted an article on AlterNet today that made me never want to cook again.

I'm lying. Cooking makes me never want to cook again. But not according to Richmond. She writes that feminists don't cook because they think it's demeaning and oppressive. If they have time to cook, they should use that time to "enjoy life" some more.

So men are taking the reigns. Richmond says it's because cooking is "sweet" when men do it. They get praise. Women are expected to cook, and thus feel pressure.

How does Richmond get to this point? Quotes from her friends, her own interpretation of their tones, and a general sense.

Yes, my man cooks for me. But he J cooks because he's good at it, and he enjoys it. I reap the benefits, and I make sure to thank him very much. If I were cooking, he'd do the same.

Anytime I've tried to cook, I've found it annoying, tedious, and time consuming. I have not found, as Richmond states, that "anyone who's ever cooked will tell you the act of preparing food makes you more powerful and sexy." Oh, is that a fact? Tell my stained jeans and sticky cheeks. Tell my husband that when I've burned or somehow fucked up the meal.

I think the base of Richmond's argument (that women are cooking less because they don't think they "should," because it's too oppressive) is ridiculous. Her survey is unscientific and based completely on feeling. I find it offensive to be accused of thinking that much about cooking (or not cooking in this case). Frozen meals and hot dogs are fine for me. And it's NOT because I'm a feminist. It's because I'm a horrible cook.

The New York Times Gives EcoMoms The "Housewife" Treatment

I realized, as I clicked the link to read the New York Times article "For ‘EcoMoms,’ Saving Earth Begins at Home," that I would be dangerously close to the line.

You know, that line. The one we feminists are accused of all too often, but that sometimes actually applies.

"You're just reading it through a lens."

Right. Yes, sometimes feminists go too far, placing their own values on something without thinking of context.

But this article, about women who start conserving at home (you know, so we don't have to fight pollution overseas), is not a case of over-analysis. It's purely sexist.

Let's start at the beginning, where "housewives" are thrown back to the '50's:

The women gathered in the airy living room, wine poured and pleasantries exchanged. In no time, the conversation turned lively — not about the literary merits of Geraldine Brooks or Cormac McCarthy but the pitfalls of antibacterial hand sanitizers and how to retool the laundry using only cold water and biodegradable detergent during non-prime-time energy hours (after 7 p.m.).

Move over, Tupperware. The EcoMom party has arrived...Here, the small talk is about the volatile compounds emitted by dry-erase markers at school.

Oh, isn't Patricia Leigh Brown whimsicle, assuming women gather strictly to talk about books and tupperware. Gasp! Can you believe these ladies are talking about something important? I'm shocked! (Brown gets NO credit for the mention of Cormac McCarthy, because his book was recently selected for Oprah's Book Club.)

The tone continues throughout the article:

Perhaps not since the days of “dishpan hands” has the household been so all-consuming.

More unnecessary assumption that women have nothing interesting to say, think about nothing but their house-life.

Re: the EcoMom movement:

Part “Hints from Heloise” and part political self-help group

What the hell is a political "self-help group"? Can't it just be a political group? Do women need self-help for politics now?

Also rampant in the article is the assumption that all these women have no other job. I'm fine if someone chooses not to work, but it's just not the case with the EcoMom Alliance (which is NOT linked to in the article). Robin Wright Penn is a member (who, I think is still an actress), and the group was started by a social entrepreneur who co-produced an event for the United Nations World Environment Day.

But the article's not all bad, there is a little of the idea that women are powerful in the changes they can make at home:

Women have been instrumental in the environmental movement from the start, including their involvement in campaigns a century ago to save the Palisades along the Hudson River and sequoias in California and, more recently, Lois Gibbs’s fight against toxic waste at Love Canal.

In public opinion surveys, women express significantly higher levels of environmental concern than men, said Riley Dunlap, a professor of sociology at Oklahoma State University.

And the EcoMom alliance itself pushes the history of women's meetings. Of course, it doesn't refer explicitly to Tupperware:

Much as kitchen table conversations have inspired women throughout history, the EcoMom Alliance is a call to action asking moms to help protect our planet and create a more peaceful, just world.

(from the website)
I'd say the tone is a little more about power, a little less about women gabbing about the best way to iron shirts. The tagline on the website: "Because one of nature's strongest forces is a network of mothers."Despite the brief mention of power, the NYT article ends on a sour note, noting the "domestic strife" eco-housewife-ism can cause and (natch) the cat-fighting within the movement:

And ecomotherhood is not always sisterly.

At the EcoMom party recently, some guests took the hostess, Liz Held, to task for her wall-to-wall carpeting (potential off-gassing), her painted walls (unhealthful volatile organic compounds) and the freshly cut flowers that she had set out for the occasion (not organic). Their problems with the S.U.V. in the driveway were self-explanatory.

The organization is about power, it's about concern for the environment. This article cut it down to coffee talk and internal strife.

NOT good, in my book.

Happy V-Day...Literally!

Via The Raw Story.

In honor of Valentine's Day, The Today Show let Jane Fonda say "cunt."

Okay, not really. But the censors missed it on the East Coast feed. Oh! The horror! We're all going to die!

Raw Story has some nice quotes from conservablogs:
Newsbusters.org:

Besides her left wing activism, famous North Vietnamese propagandist Jane Fonda spouts foul language on morning network television, when some children almost certainly saw it.

Michelle Malkin:

The woman has no class. You already knew that. But here’s more confirmation. Another reason not to let your children watch TV in the morning.

Here's the earth-shattering clip:

Hmmm..."the secrets to making your love last." Nice segue.

Anyway, thanks for the Valentine's gift. Love hearing women's genitalia on television. And no, I don't care about these so-called "children."

1. If they're watching The Today Show, they're losers.
2. If this word ruins their lives, they need new ones.

It's a word. It doesn't mean anything.

NOW Freaks Out Again

I know NOW isn't the only organization going crazy over David Shuster's 'pimp' comment, but NOW's press release is the first one I've read.

NBC News President Steve Capus announced this afternoon that MSNBC's David Shuster would be suspended from appearing on all NBC broadcasts because of his "irresponsible and inappropriate" remarks -- I would call them disgusting and sexist -- suggesting it was "unseemly" that 27-year-old Chelsea Clinton is campaigning for her mother, and then characterizing it as "being pimped out."

After Shuster's damaging remarks on-air, the National Organization for Women and others called on Capus to take action. After all, NBC has had a track record of employing sexist on-air personalities and for taking its time to deal with their behavior.

The article then mentions Don Imus (natch) and Chris Matthews.

I wouldn't even think of characterizing Shuster's comments as sexist. Here's what actually happened:



Oh yeah, he took a real stand there. He was talking about the fact that she's out there, clearly campaigning for her mother, but she is untouchable by the press. There's a double-standard there. Sure, it's not a great metaphor, but he was clearly grasping for the right words.

Comparing this dude to Chris Matthews and Don Imus is ridiculous. But I do think, like some of Imus' and Matthews' comments, it slipped out because Shuster was trying to fill time. 24-hour news sucks.

Don't Resist Laughing at Those Scabby Ankles! It's Feminism!

Ugh. This Guardian article literally had me grinding my teeth.

Though, admittedly, there were some paragraphs I couldn't make sense of (I suppose it's that British wit I keep hearing about), I think I got the gist. Julie Burchill wants you to feel free to obsess over Jennifer's cellulite or Braxtey's dry skin. Glamour rags who feature the latest celeb-gone-wrong are ... promoting feminism!

"How so?" you might ask. I'll let Burchill tell you:

"Ooh, a hundred years of feminism gone down the drain!" a certain sort of killjoy Jeremiah is wont to whinge when they see a civilian chick sniggering over a Heat snapshot of some starlet's un-fake-tanned ankles. To which I would reply no, it's you that's a disgrace to our living, mutating feminism, with your apparent feeling that to be a "proper" woman one must never bitch, smirk or get a cheap laugh out of someone wealthier's imperfections. So a woman should be pure in thought, word and sense of humour, eh? A veritable Angel of the Hearth, indeed! How very Victorian - and how very boring.

I warned you about the Britishisms.

What Burchill has completely wrong (and I'm sorry if it's England moved to another planet where it's different) is the argument. Who the hell is talking about "proper" women? I hate these sad excuses for journalism (celebalism? sounds like the disease it is) because they make normal people like feel like shit. Maybe people are laughing on th outside, but on the inside, they're thinking, "damn, I wish I had that kind of body." If a size 2 movie star is getting criticized for her supposedly flabby stomach or her natural face, what kind of message does that send people like me? No, forget me, I'm old enough not to give a crap. What kind of message does that send to a self-conscious adolescent?

Not to mention the fact that Burchill's article only talks about women. The green light of crapmags only seems to hit famous women. Does Burchill not have a problem with that? Are famous men too real for her already?

Sorry to rant, but this is just ridiculous. Sure, if these were simply pictures shot with a goal of showing us real people in honest moments, Burchill's argument would stand. But I'm supposed to laugh at these women. I'm supposed to feel glad that I'm not them. Women are being criticized for being real.

And that's not okay.

NOW That's a Level-Headed Response

At least the national chapter of NOW has it right. Here's the sane response to Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama (as opposed to NOW-NY's insane response).

NOW's Response to Sen. Kennedy's Endorsement

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

January 28, 2008

The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.

Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote.

NOW it's Time to Take a Breath

I know. No organization can be perfect, but come on!

Today, NOW came out with a press release shaming Senator Ted Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama. I'm not kidding. Here's the headline:

Senator Ted Kennedy Betrays Women by Not Standing for Hillary Clinton for President;
Ultimate Betrayal Felt by Women Everywhere

And here's a taste of the release:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal...

...Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills.

And this is a good thing? This is making me angry at women. Why do we care about Kennedy again? Oh, right, because he's an important endorsement. What's a little compromised principle for a couple votes? The shit continues to rain down:

And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not “this” one)

That's right. He owes us for being doormats.

Jesus Christ! In no way is this okay. And hey, where's the equal opportunity? Don't you feel "betrayed" by Caroline Kennedy? Where's the hate?

This is a symptom of the problem I blogged about earlier. 2nd-wave feminists are not helping the cause with this shit. NO ONE should be forced to vote for someone "because they should."

Feministing says it best: "NOW-NY does not speak for me. And it does not speak for all feminists."

Argh! So much anger on my way to bed!