Tag Archives: feminism

Your argument stinks.

Posted on by
29

I often read things that evoke strong opinion in me, but that I choose not to write about because I find it frustrating. In some cases, it’s a topic I’ve already discussed and therefore don’t want to sound repetitive. Other times I think to myself, in instances where someone has written or said something absurd, do I really want to give this person even more of a platform? And instead I often write about things like snarky knitters, or something equally as frivolous, because it’s fun and entertaining for me. So a few days ago when I read this short article, To be happy, we must admit men and women aren’t ‘equal’, I rolled my eyes, snorted, and clicked to something else once I finished. But it showed up again on google news today, and so I decided to address it.

The article is filled with catchy little phrases like ‘reject the cultural script’, and ‘the modern generation has few role models for lasting love’. My personal favorite was her decision to use a quote from Francesco Schettino, the cowardly ship captain that abandoned the Costa Concordia last year.

In reality, what the author, Suzanne Venker, is giving us is another worn-out dose of the ‘let’s get back to more traditional roles and we’ll all live happily ever after’ argument. Her main point, that feminists believe men and women are equals, is tiresome. Here’s a little quote for y’all to try on for size:

 “You see, the problem with equality is that it implies two things are interchangeable – meaning one thing can be substituted for the other with no ramifications. That is what feminists would have us believe, and anyone who contradicts this dogma is branded sexist.

But the truth must be heard. Being equal in worth, or value, is not the same as being identical, interchangeable beings. Men and women may be capable of doing many of the same things, but that doesn’t mean they want to. That we don’t have more female CEOs or stay-at-home dads proves this in spades.”

First, that last sentence is ridiculous. I’m not sure what scientific method she used to arrive at her conclusion, but, while the lack of female CEOs or stay-at-home dads might prove a number of things, I’m fairly certain her point isn’t one of them. Second, the feminist movement was about equality. I don’t think I’ve ever known a single person that believes males and females are exact equals. Now, I’ve known a lot of feminists that believe women are better than men. And I’ve known a great many men that believe they are superior to women. But men and women as ‘interchangeable beings’? Um, no. I know not a single person that believes we are nothing but bodies, and any one person can be exchanged with another. Equality, whether we are talking about gender, sexual preferences, race, or religion, is not about saying, ‘we are the exact same’, because of course we aren’t all the same. We are all human beings, however, and our worth should be of equal value. So please, Ms. Venker, who are these vague feminists you are referring to that believe we are all identical beings? Most of the ones I know, even those I strongly disagree with, all understand equality as being equal treatment and equal worth, and not some notion of us all being the exact same.

One of the arguments Venker implies is that feminism is to blame for men being less willing to lay down their lives for women. The example she gives, and where the quote from Schettino comes into play, is the sinking of the Costa Concordia as compared to the Titanic. Less than ten percent of the deaths on the Titanic were women. The Concordia had far less casualties, but it was chaotic, and there were countless accounts of women and children being pushed away by men in their hurry to get off the ship and onto a lifeboat (if you haven’t read details regarding the incident, the spread about it in Vanity Fair was enlightening).

Personally, I think the Concordia debacle says more about our current society in general, and not much at all regarding feminism. Sadly, we live in a world where it’s every person for themselves. Just a couple of days ago, I was walking my dog when a guy’s car broke down in an intersection. Within seconds people were yelling and honking their horns, including the people directly around him. It was crystal clear his truck was on the fritz, and yet people, both men and women, were yelling from their autos, throwing hands in the air, and laying on their horns. I walked around the block with my dog, and when I came back up the other side, the guy was still there, and a new round of people were honking and yelling, and not just at the poor dude, but at each other in their hurry to cut one another off in the name of getting on with their day. Right as I made it back, another man had pulled off the road, and he got out and helped the guy push his truck away from the intersection. Time elapsed from breakdown until someone came to his aid? About fifteen minutes. Remember when people would actually stop at the sight of a person in trouble, and, you know, help them?

Fifteen freaking minutes for someone to help this poor person out. And while they were pushing the truck, people were still honking. That is the world we live in, and I don’t think it has anything to do with feminism.

Look, say what you will about feminists, Lord knows I often disagree with many of them. Perhaps you think feminism is wonderful, or maybe, like Venker, you believe it has done more damage than good, or maybe you feel it’s outdated and in need of an overhaul. Whatever your belief, that’s fine, but let’s not blame the sad state of the world on the feminist movement, that’s freaking ridiculous.

I’m not sure what it is about Venker’s so-called revelation of truth that bothers me so much. Obviously, it’s a very cookie-cutter explanation given by a number of individuals, both men and women, as an argument against the feminist movement. This idea that we should all travel back in time to 1950 and embrace traditional gender roles is silly, because we’re never going back. Never. And that applies to all sorts of things in our society. Unhappiness with the current state of affairs can’t be resolved by going back to the past, life doesn’t work that way, you have to move forward. I agree there are a great many problems with our society right now, but wishing for bygone times of chivalry won’t solve any of them.

Sometimes it’s okay for men to wear sequins.

Posted on by
8

So.

A week ago Alisa Valdes’ memoir, The Feminist and the Cowboy came out to not so stellar reviews. Before I jump into today’s topic, let me say that, 1) I did not read the memoir, 2) I did read several reviews of it, and the gist of it is that she renounced second wave feminism in order to embrace her new found femininity brought about by her submissive relationship with a real-life cowboy (wow, that was a mouthful), and 3) days after the book was released, she published a post on her blog that her cowboy angel was really an abuser – she is now in a new relationship. That post has since been removed by Valdes.

Holy crap. If the intention was to generate publicity, then I think she did it, and kudos to her. Actually, I kind of hope that’s what she was going for, otherwise what a freaking disaster. If in fact she was abused by her ‘cowboy’, then that’s awful, and I’d like to give the finger to the guy. Way to fuck it up for the other cowboys in the world, dude. Real men don’t abuse women.

Anyway, the whole thing is rather complicated and messy, so if you’re interested in reading more, then check out yesterday’s article in The Atlantic by Noah Berlatsky.

I’ve read a number of posts and reviews ripping Valdes a new one over her book and subsequent post. Frankly, I don’t care whether or not she did an about face on feminism. She’s a grown woman and entitled to make her own choices.  What bothered me had nothing to do with the cowboy, or her new found views on feminism – what I’d like to know is, why is Valdes hatin’ on Prince?

The following is a quote from her book, from a review on Slate. I also came across a similar but different quote regarding Prince in the The Atlantic.

“They want to be men, but hate themselves for wanting to be men, so they push it all down and act like freakin’ Prince,”

Um, waaaaa? First, I have never known a single man who ever acted like Prince, either purposefully or by accident. Because really? How do you even begin to imitate the artist formerly known as? Oh, and I forgot to mention she also threw David Bowie into the mix (and THAT is where she really lost me. Even in his bizarre Ziggy Stardust days, Mr. Bowie was one hot mo-fo) . Okay, sure, both men have been known to sport a face full of cosmetics and wear glittery jumpsuits (and there was that rumor about Bowie and Jagger, which, given the propensity of both men towards Amazonian super models, I’m not inclined to believe. And if it did happen, who cares?) But Prince and Bowie are also unquestioningly talented. Even if you don’t care for either man’s music (and if so, what’s wrong with you?), it’s difficult to deny their musical gifts. They are artists, the glitz and glamor is part of the performance.

From what I gather, Valdes takes issue with the so-called ‘feminization’ of men. I get it, it’s a hot topic and one that’s been beaten into the ground lately. I’m not so certain the trend, if indeed there is one, was begun by Prince. And as my husband pointed out, Prince and Bowie have very likely had more ladies than the manliest cowboy on planet earth. Is Prince feminine? Yeah, he’s a pretty little man if I do say so myself. I’d love to know his skincare routine. But I wouldn’t discount his manhood solely based on his flawless complexion. Have you seen any of his ex-ladies? Hot stuff, all of them.

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful..

 

Things to consider

Posted on by
14

For whatever reason, the history of women and psychiatry has popped up several times in the past few weeks for me. I’ve seen two separate art exhibits revolving around the theme, and then there is the new season of American Horror Story. I’ve read some commentary from folks who feel like the show shoves a feminist agenda down the throats of its viewers. Personally, I think it’s those very issues that make the show interesting. Were it not for the underlying message, the show would be flat out weird and disturbing.

Anyway, the first two episodes of AHS: Asylum reminded me of a story my mother told me when I was a teenager. When she was a teenager herself, a family member was in a bad marriage. The husband stayed out all hours, catted about and spent money while leaving the wife home with the kids, it was basically a typical if terrible dysfunctional relationship. Keep in mind that this would have been in the late 50s/early 60s, and divorce was not common. When he would finally come home, the wife would of course be enraged. His response was to threaten her by saying that, in a nutshell, she had better suck it up and deal with it, or he would have her committed.

I remember being utterly confused by this, and my mom’s explanation was something along the lines of, “Oh yeah, they could still do that back then. A husband could commit his wife for all kinds of reasons.”

Teenage me was in disbelief. I think it was the first time I ever thought about women’s rights. A little research told me that, yes, women could be institutionalized by their husbands, for being promiscuous, or because they were gay. And I learned other things too, like the fact that it wasn’t until the 1970s that legislation was passed that made it easier for women to obtain credit in their own name. It’s difficult to imagine that just a few years before I was born credit wasn’t readily available to women.

I think it’s easy to forget that the current state of modern Western woman is a relatively new thing. Let’s face it, in the grand scheme of human history, the widespread idea that women should be treated with fairness and equality is still pretty darned new. And yet we already fail to remember that women (and men, many of them fought hard for women’s rights) had to fight for things like the right to vote, or not to be discriminated against in the workplace (which sadly still happens all too often). This is a big part of why I find it frustrating when women don’t care about voting. For crying out loud, in America we haven’t even had the right to do so for a hundred years yet, so how can anyone be lackadaisical about it?

I think it’s worth noting that pretty much all of the above doesn’t only apply to women, but to minorities too. Going back to American Horror Story, if you’ve been watching this season then you know that it isn’t just women’s issues at the forefront of the show, race and disabilities are addressed as well. And individuals with disabilities are certainly yet another population of people for which the current standard is very new.

My grandmother is in her 80s, and still takes care of her eldest child, my aunt, who has Down’s syndrome. My aunt was born in 1950, at a time when it was quite common for people with Down’s, or any disability really, to be institutionalized. Despite pressure to place her child in a group home, my grandmother refused. And from what I understand, that pressure came from all sorts of people, including hospital staff. I can’t imagine having someone tell you to give up your brand new baby. Apparently, neither could she. My grandma went on to have five other children, each just a few years apart from the next. Six kids, one with special needs, and not a lot of money, makes for a tough job as a mom. That’s admirable, in my book.

I wasn’t sure where I was going with this post when I began, but I guess I’m saying that taking things for granted is a very good way to lose something.

That’s all. Now go forth and enjoy the weekend.

The Vesta Party

Posted on by
43

My political views are like a bag of trail mix – there’s all kinds of shit in there. I feel passionately about them, yet I rarely discuss politics with anyone outside of close friends and family. Usually I try to stay away from political talk on my blog, and discourage others from leaving political or religious (including anti) comments. Those things simply have no place here. Yes, we sometimes talk about women’s issues and feminism, but since that’s a given considering the name of this blog, I figure anyone reading understands what they are getting themselves into.

With regards to women’s issues, most of you have a pretty good idea of where I stand. Other than that, I typically keep my political views to myself. If in conversation someone brings up an issue I happen to disagree with, I try to assess the situation and decide whether to shrug my shoulders and give a noncommittal smile, or voice my opinion as rationally as possible. Therefore, I find it annoying when people start yapping about politics (or religion) and just assume everyone agrees with them. Recently I was at my book club meeting, and right from the get go, this woman started bashing Republicans -

“Gawd, I hate them. They’re all so disgusting!”

That’s a direct quote, followed by many more details about how much she hates them, and how awful they are. All I could think was, really? You hate every single member of a political party, and they’re all disgusting? Sure, some Republicans are revolting (I’m looking at you, Rush, you misogynistic ass munch), and so are some Democrats – there are assholes in every group, it’s the way of the world.

Keep in mind this was a book club, not a political group, and none of us really know each other, so it seemed in bad taste to waltz in and declare hate for hundreds of thousands of people (I think she was just an incredibly negative person all around, she had almost nothing nice to say about anyone, including the characters in the book we were reading. Ironically, we discovered about half way through she only made it 60 pages into the 900-plus book, so I have no fucking idea why she even bothered to show up).

I run into this sort of thing more than I would like. Ultra-liberals assume just because I live in Southern California, I must agree with their views. Or people who live in Texas and think because I live in California, I’m a granola head, tree hugging liberal. And people in California that discover I’m from Texas, and then automatically assume I’m a gun-toting, evangelical, right wing nutjob.

I am none of those things. Besides, my husband doesn’t want me to own a gun, he’s afraid I’ll accidentally shoot him.

Here’s the deal, I have a lot of views that are very far to the left, and just as many that land me squarely in the conservative camp. For that reason, I find most diehards on either side don’t want me, which is totally fine. My views are my own, and I accept people think differently. I’m neither on the right or the left, because each group has core beliefs deeply at odds with some of my own (and yes, there are other political parties aside from red and blue, but none with any chance of becoming top dog…yet. With any hope, one day we’ll have other viable options, instead of it always coming down to the lesser of two evils).

I am so tired of all the hatefulness on both sides. When did we lose the ability to rationally discuss things and have an open dialogue? And more importantly, why do so many people adopt this mentality of ‘You’re either on my side or you’re evil’? Opinions, folks. We are all entitled to them, and that’s all they are. It’s fine to disagree, but no matter what ‘side’ you’re on, you really should hear the other one out. How can you know what you oppose if you won’t listen long enough to understand what the other person is saying?

I know the elections are coming up, and a lot of people have their knickers in a knot over it, but November is a long ways off, and I am already sick and tired of all the mudslinging.