I’m not even going to pretend this is a cohesive post

Random cool things I learned from teh internets today:

+ My new favorite blog/podcast, the Bowery Boys, have a post up today about Hair, the musical. I can’t remember if I blogged about it or not, but my mom and I went to see the 40th Anniversary Concert at the Delacorte Theater in Central Park last fall, with a few original cast members in the audience. It was a good time. I love the musical anyway — what’s not to love about a rock musical about the counterculture full incomprehensible lyrics — and my mom’s review was that the concert made her feel 18 again. Anyway, the Bowery Boys post has lots of trivia.

I’ve spent the last week or so listening to their old podcasts. It’s good stuff, especially if you are a New York City history nerd such as myself. So check it out; it’s available on iTunes.

+ More on that Texas cult of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints: Sara Robinson has a fascinating and disturbing post up on Alternet. The most disturbing part may be the way the FLDS has manipulated their own health services to keep women trapped in a cycle of abuse, particularly by labeling women dissatisfied with the lifestyle crazy. Also The Watcher reviews a new documentary on the FLDS.

+ I just bought this book, which is being billed as a bisexual regency romance comedy. Looks like fun! Actually, the reason I bother to post here is that it’s an interesting success story, a self-published novel that got picked up by a major house (HarperCollins) plus it has kind of a weird set up, being an m/m/f love story.

+ Suddenly I’m cool! Glasses are so hot right now!

+ Jezebel has a round-up of the recent feminist blogosphere controversy.

+ A gay kiss on in Birmingham, orchestrated by 20/20, results in a 911 call.

quickies: all feminist edition

It seemed appropriate.

+ Rebecca Traister interviews Amy Poehler about Baby Mama ad the fact that feminists are funny! Poehler says, “You can get a point across better by making people laugh than by stridently telling them anything.”

+ Equal-opportunity nudity or, “look, nekkid men!” The message seems to be: yes, women’s bodies are objectified, but objectifying men also makes it okay. Right.

+ Speaking of racism, Holly at Feministe writes about feminism and the Sean Bell trial verdict.

+ The media’s bizarre obsession with the virginity of teen celebrities.

+ I wrote what I had to say about Take Our Daughters to Work Day here. (Scroll down.)

+ Okay, not feminist related as such, but the NYPD is sending cops with MP5 machine guns down to the subways to prevent terrorism and that? Scares the crap out of me.

+ And, uh, while we’re objectifying people, half-naked men with cats.

about that brouhaha; or racism and feminism

I wasn’t going to say anything. I don’t have that many readers, what does my opinion matter? But a few people asked what I thought on this matter, so here it goes:

Confession: I am a total political theory nerd. I’m fascinated by politics in the abstract but I’m kind of bored with the pragmatic and the real-world wonky political minutiae. I think, though, that the latter has its place and that, when espousing any political ideology, one has to ask, “What’s the point?” I label myself as a feminist, I probably fall mostly in the liberal feminist camp. This is fun in the abstract because you can have debates about what gender really means and you have those college-era dialogues about Judith Butler and Andrea Dworkin and identity.

Because here’s the thing about me. I was probably always a feminist but was reluctant to label myself as such. I spent my formative years on the national high school policy debate circuit, which is most definitely a boy’s club (I was the only girl who made it to the varsity team the whole time I was in high school). We debated theory a lot, and feminism in particular was openly mocked. One of our rival teams when I was a senior often used a nearly unbeatable feminist argument, and the argument and its writer (another rare female varsity debater) were dismissively labeled feminazi and subject to ridicule. As a teenager, I didn’t want to be associated with that. It wasn’t until I started taking women’s studies classes in college (and the first one I took mostly because the professor was universally liked and the class conveniently met in my dorm building) that I Got It. And the women’s studies department at my university was made up of nearly all minority professors, which meant the emphasis was about feminism for everyone and in particular how race, gender, and class intersect. So that’s my feminist background. I like to think that I Get It.

But what’s the point?

Well, the point is that being a feminist carries a certain amount of obligation with it. What good is the high-falutin’ discourse if there’s no practical application?

What is it that we want? Political ideology has to be selfish to a point because we adhere to it because of something we need or something we’re lacking. We try to convince others to espouse our ideology also by appealing to their needs and what’s lacking in their lives.

I personally have moved away from the theory in recent years and thought more about what feminism can do for me. On the theory level, I’ve argued here before that abortion isn’t just a feminist issue, it’s THE feminist issue, because a state-mandated lack of access to it is an affront to women’s basic autonomy over our own bodies. I still believe that, and that informs what I fight for politically. What do I want for myself and how can feminism help me? If feminism is ultimately about equality, I want equal access. I want to be taken seriously. I want to be paid as much as my male counterparts at work. After that it gets trickier. I want self-autonomy. I want to be able to make decisions about what’s right for my body and my lifestyle, which means deciding when I get married, when I have children, when I work, and when I have sex. It means having freedom of movement, being free of fear. It means I want to be judged for my ideas not the size of my breasts.

Well, so, okay. That’s where I’m coming from. I wasn’t following it, but there was some animosity on the feminist blogosphere earlier this week. My understanding is that Amanda Marcotte wrote an article about immigration that sounded awfully similar to something a woman of color blogger, Brownfemipower, wrote. There were accusations of plagiarism lobbed. Brownfemipower quit blogging. The bigger issue was not so much the plagiarism but the fact that Amanda, a white woman, brought attention to an issue in a way that a woman of color couldn’t and thus rendered that woman of color invisible. (Or this was my interpretation. Y’all can correct me.) This is an old issue: since the 70s (or since the 1870s even, Sojourner Truth notwithstanding) white feminists — who have benefited the most from progressive politics, I would argue — have largely been oblivious to their own privilege and left women of color out of the equation, made them feel they weren’t part of the larger movement.

It’s an important issue to talk about, although I didn’t because I don’t know that I, as a white woman, have much I can add. It sucks that there’s still some racism inherent in the movement. A lot of the apologies I’ve read have rubbed me the wrong way because they sound kind of patronizing, and I never wanted to do that, didn’t want to add to any hurt feelings. What can I do but try to be aware of my own privilege and try to do better by these women who feel they’ve been silenced?

And, besides, ideology is selfish, right? That’s the sad truth.

The success of feminism depends, of course, on the success of all women, including those who are not like me. And women’s experiences are far from universal. So if I have learned anything from reading blog posts on the topic over the last few days, it’s that there’s value in helping all women achieve feminism’s goals, that I can’t succeed unless I help others succeed.

It’s important to keep the discourse going to an extent. I think dwelling on this particular incident is not that useful. We need to take a step back and look at the more systemic problem of racism and privilege in the feminist community, because apologies don’t make the problem go away, although acknowledgment of the problem is a step in the right direction, I think.

Anyway, I didn’t know about any of the controversy when I made plans with some friends to go see Amanda Marcotte read from her new book It’s a Jungle Out There last night. I went to the reading (and here’s proof: that mass of brown hair on the far right of the picture is the back of my head).

And no sooner did I get my book signed than someone noticed that some of the retro jungle images used in the book are pretty darned racist.

Amanda has since apologized, and so has the publisher. Probably I could say something here about how Seal Press not realizing the images were racist to begin with just speaks to their own white privilege, this coming on the heels of a brouhaha in the feminist blog community about how they don’t publish many (or any?) writers of color. But do I even have the agency to speak here? Am I just as full of shit as all the other white apologists?

It sucks. It sucks that this happened. It sucks that women of color feel invisible, that our own willful ignorance renders them invisible. It sucks that white privilege is still not acknowledged by many white feminists. It sucks.

And that’s what I have to say about that.

advice blogging

I’m getting the the advice blog back together. Update your RSS readers accordingly.

quickies: literary edition

+ Check out the Brooklyn Literary 100.

+ 65% of women aged 25-45 have disordered eating. Not surprising, but still alarming.

+ A man in Italy was arrested for staring at a woman. Sure, it seems extreme punishment, but I’m conflicted because I’ve also been the woman stared at. Women should be able to feel safe when traveling, and if it takes threatening to arrest men who make women feel unsafe in obvious ways (staring unrelentingly at a woman for an hour, say) then maybe it’s something to consider? I don’t know.

+ Mandy Kaling, who is awesome, tells you 10 things you don’t know about women.

+ The Times has a profile of the American Worker. The gist: Americans are overworked and underpaid. Gee whiz, I never could have guessed that!

+ On the other hand, Jezebel says it’s called work for a reason.

+ The Official Village Voice Election-Season Guide to the Right-Wing Blogosphere

+ I’m still annoyed about that Tyra-hosted show about people competing for an editorial job at Elle. It’s apparently not just me.

+ Why is it we work hard to cover up something that is natural and happens to almost every woman. *sigh*

+ How expensive is the beer at Yankee Stadium? I feel like saying, “I paid $9.50 for flat Miller Lite” kind of says it all, though.

+ In case you missed it, a few weeks ago, Peter Sagal of NPR had an awesome feminist rant about Horton Hears a Who.

+ Speech and Debate have a lot in common with sports. Damn right they do! Our debate team in high school brought home more trophies than our sports teams in fact. Does this mean I can say I was a jock in high school?

Also, I bought Certain Girls by Jennifer Weiner. Perhaps I’ll review it for the blog after I read.

happy birthday, molly

Today is my roommate Molly’s fourth birthday. Here’s how she feels about getting older:

mollyrude

do not collect $200

Last night, I went with my mom to see The Dhamma Brothers, a documentary about a program to teach Vipassana meditation to inmates at a maximum-security prison in Alabama. She reviews the movie here and I don’t have a whole lot to add beyond that the movie’s main point, or what I took away from it at any rate, is that the US prison system is totally FUBAR and that it’s worth a look at possible alternative rehabilitation programs, even (or maybe especially) when they fly in the face of tradition or what’s been tried before. Teaching a Buddhist meditation method should not be controversial, even if it is being taught in the Bible Belt.

I thought a bit while watching the film about the goal of prisons. One of the subjects of the documentary commented that the prison is pretty much just a warehouse for men who have done bad things. So, is the goal of our penitentiary system to segregate criminals from the rest of the general population? And if that is the only goal, what do we owe the prisoners? I would argue humane conditions and hopefully freedom from violence, but what do we do beyond that? I don’t know the answer. If the goal of the prison system is to rehabilitate, what is the purpose of life sentences without parole, or of the death penalty for that matter? If the goal of the prison system is to punish, what punishments are appropriate? I appreciate prison as a means of deterrence, also; don’t do crime because you will end up here. So prison should be bad to a certain extent, but is being locked up punishment enough? (Probably yes, thought I’m sure people will argue the point.)

This all has very little to do with the film, which doesn’t seem to take a stance beyond, “This particular prison is Alabama is really violent and this program got some dudes to mellow out a little bit so now there is slightly less violence. Success!” Well, that sells the movie short a little bit, I think it has a larger message than that, but that’s really about the sum of it.

recidivist transit grinder

Aside from the awesome headliner nickname, I’m disturbed by this story about a man arrested for rubbing himself on young women on the subway mostly for his choice quote: “When there’s this many attractive women in the city and on the subways, don’t they know [this will happen]?”

Yep, that’s right. If we go with what this guy says, then clearly a) pretty women who dare leave their houses are just asking for creepy guys to rub their crotches on them, and b) men have no control over their urge to rub their crotches on pretty women. Just so we’re clear.

In related news, I think I should keep a running log on cat calls. Here’s the latest: I was coming home last night around 9pm. There’s a block near my apartment that I pretty much have to walk down to get home, but I don’t like it because I found out that one time three years ago there may have been a mugging there, maybe. Healthy paranoia, I say. There are always shady dudes hanging out there. I know most of them by sight now, since I’ve been in the nabe almost two years, and they know me so I think they’ve got my back, but there was a dude standing on the corner last night who I didn’t recognize. I was leery. I almost thought I was in the clear when he said, “Hey, mama. You strut that stuff for me, oh, yeah.” Then he said some more stuff, but I power walked down the rest of the block and out of earshot.

Dear dudes: Not okay. My walking down the street is not an invitation to hit on me. Thanks.

I have no excuse for my slackery ways

So here are some links.

+ Jennifer Weiner, who I adore, has a new book out called Some Girls. Jane Smiley, who I also adore, reviewed it, saying Weiner’s much better than her chick lit marketing, positing that Weiner has thrown in the towel by letting her new book be slathered in pink. This seems like a specious argument to me. While I agree that Weiner is a very good writer and that there’s something kind of demeaning about sticking shoes on the cover of a book written by a woman and something dismissive about calling it “chick lit,” I know first-hand that authors usually don’t have that much discretion over their covers or marketing plans. That’s in the hands of editors and publishers. Weiner essentially agrees, saying, “n terms of “is this book chick lit,” I’m not sure I’m the best one to answer that, or that I can say for sure that the book is anything other than a Jennifer Weiner book.”

+ Speaking of people I adore, check out this interview with Mike Doughty, who has a new album out that I must purchase. Also, Liz Phair’s “Exile in Guyville” is getting reissued. Guyville is one of my favorite albums of all time, so… I already own it. But, still, awesome!

+ Check out this 1958 bra ad!

+ I can has gold twinkie?

+ Some good ol’ feminist activism gets the words “female” and “lady” removed from thesaurus.com’s listings for “weaker”.

+ Bad news for editors: the LA Daily Journal fired all of its copyeditors.

+ Jezebel makes some observations about how single women are represented in the press.

+ Another person who is awesome this week: Paulina Porizkova.

+ Despite the butt bows and tightly pulled corseting, I love these vintage wedding gowns. This would give me ideas if Hypothetical Future Husband had put in an appearance yet.

+ Note for later: I intend to do a longer post on the raided polygamist sect in Texas, mostly because I’m morbidly fascinated by the story.

More later.

Bad Behavior has blocked 73 access attempts in the last 7 days.