Title image

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Pseudonymous Kid is a nonconformist


posted by bitchphd
Pseudonymous Kid is home from TaeKwonDo camp today because I am sick of arguing with him about going. "They have too many rules," he complains. For my part, I find myself apologizing every day to the camp instructors (who really are totally awesome) for his rudeness; whether it's because he's bright or because I've raised him all wrong, the facts are that he's impatient, has a bit of a temper, and is not in the least bit afraid of talking back to adults who expect him to do as he's told, especially if what he's being told to do is not what he wants to do.

His inability to just freaking go along with the group sometimes drives me absolutely batty, and I am forever signing him up for sports things and camps and such in the hopes that some other adult, in charge of a group activity involving children, will teach him how to follow orders once in a while. Dammit.

On the other hand, there's this:



Pseudonymous Kid: What's this video about?
Me: They're singing about the kind of girls they like.

PK watches it for a while. Then, approvingly:

PK: They don't have very sexist ideas at all, do they?

Via a comment thread at Unfogged.

Labels: , ,

Dear Brett Favre:


posted by Sybil Vane

 I doubt that you read this blog, Brett, but individual feminists do care about a lot of things that we may not be popularly associated with. In this, and my, case, that thing is NFL franchises. 

Brett, I have been a fan of yours for a long time. I like your franchise. I like that they are the only nonprofit community-owned pro sports team. I like the look of snowy games played in your home stadium. I like your small-market, blue-collar, die-hard fan base. I like your activist wife. I liked your Wrangler commercials even, and of course your retirement press conference.

It's the latter I want to talk about. Brett, just retire. This isn't going to end well otherwise. I can't imagine you playing with another team, and it seems clear that you have to stop holding this franchise hostage. Let's call it a day.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Blogging's Glass Ceiling: Lined with old copies of the NY Times


posted by Sybil Vane
I call shenanigans, New York Times, on this piece about the BlogHer conference, which manages to mention restrooms, makeup, nurturing, and Oprah in the first 7 sentences of a piece on the major conference for women bloggers. Oh, and did I mention it ran on the front page of the Style section? No Technology or Business section for the broads.

Nice work on the irony of your headline, though.


Via HuffPo and Feministe.

Labels: , , , ,

Linkedy-link


posted by bitchphd
Here's a new academic blog with a beautiful and clever name: The Call & Response.

Mr. B. sent me this nifty site: The Periodic Table of Videos. It's educational!

Forward this piece about John McCain to any women Republicans you know.

Wow. In some parts of Greenland, all the babies are girls. Not. Good.
In certain villages in northern Greenland something is completely out of whack—only girls are being born. These reports from villages near the U.S. Air Force base in Thule are now being explored by scientists. But studies conducted a few years ago now coming to light show that in other Arctic regions, the sex ratios of babies are also out of kilter. . . .
The most interesting and surprising result was that we saw a change in the sex ratio that we could correlate to the levels of PCB in the mother's blood.


A good man who did good things. RIP.

If you don't listen to This American Life, or if you missed their May story about the mortgage crisis, for god's sake listen to it immediately. You'll be absolutely riveted by the time you're two and a half minutes in. Via Postbourgie.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

That feminist blog with all the male writers


posted by bitchphd
Specifically Lawyers, Guns and Money, which actually does have a woman in the mix. But most of the guys are guys. Still, they're a solid lot: check out Scott Lemieux's recent post on McCain and abortion rights (hint: the title is "Far Beyond Roe").

He also should win a prize for his headline about the recent news story that guess what? Girls are actually as good as boys are at math. (Original paper here, for those of you with university connections.)


I assume that someone's sent a memo to Larry Summers.

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, July 28, 2008

Advice Bleg


posted by Sybil Vane
So I spilled coffee all over my new Macbook this morning. Coffee on table, 2-ish feet from machine, child careens into my chair, causing me to lurch forward and smack coffee across table onto machine. Nice. Have heard back from repair people: machine is toast. Data is recoverable as it still turns on, but logicboard already corroding. So, that sucks.

Now, it happens that I bought this machine with a credit card on which I have a 90 day accident assurance thinger, under which a consumer can be reimbursed for repairs/replacement. And it also happens that I bought this machine *exactly* 90 days ago today. So, that's something.

But, being an insurance program, they are all cagey about whether or not the claim will be approved. I can't see anything in the fine print that obviously excludes this scenario, but I can imagine a world where an insurance adjuster claims that having coffee within 2 feet of a computer is negligent - DENIED! I have seen Sicko, after all.

So I have to decide what to do before I know what they will do, obviously. Do I replace the Macbook with the same Macbook, hoping that the credit card will reimburse (because we really can't afford it if they don't) or do I just replace with a way cheaper computer, which the credit card will definitely not reimburse, but at least my outlay will be way less than if they deny the Macbook.

I'm looking for advice from the internet generally, I guess, but more specifically from anyone who has ever dealt with credit card insurance claims or, even better, anyone who works in them. What to do people?

Labels: , ,

Followup to that whole desecration thing


posted by bitchphd
Remember this one? Dsquared wins.

The commenters over there who are all upset about "lying to a child" are annoying, though. Fuck, I've told Pseudonymous Kid, who's as adamant an athiest as PZ Myers (believe me; we're "working" on teaching him to be more polite about it, though) that rainbows are a sign from god after the flood. People need to re-the-fucking-lax about this whole "lying to kids" thing. (I also notice that Daniel mentions, in that comment thread, that he plans to lie to his child about Santa for an extra year, just to get even with his commenters. Which I completely support.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Dilemmas


posted by Sybil Vane
Like many American women, I have am imperfect relationship with food. My high school years were peppered with crash diets, despite always being slim. I've not dieted as an adult, but I am conscious of being not-thrilled to not weigh the same postpartum as I did prepartum. I do not always eat ice cream with the unadulterated joy it deserves. 

In this sense, I think too much about food. But in another sense, I think too little about food. I occasionally resolve to know more about where my food comes from, particularly produce and meat, but am incredibly lazy and rarely follow through. I am not terribly knowledgeable about what is in season when and I'm not entirely sure what additives I should try to avoid. We eat well at my house, but its nothing to write home about.

I'm thinking about my relationship to food because of one particular feature of my daily life: I dread dinner. I start thinking about what I am going to make for dinner around 3 everyday. What can I make that is healthful, that my kid will eat, that is easy enough for her to help with, fast enough to eat before bathtime, pliable enough to keep if Mr. Vane's commute takes 2 hrs (which it often does). Gah, I get tense just thinking about it. And then usually I make it, fighting with the kid half of the time, we sit down to eat and she declares herself done in 6 minutes. And I have a sort of rule about not power-struggling at the table, so I let her go and Mr Vane and I try to ignore her pleas to play for the next 15 minutes while we finish. Gah.

Obviously, I hate this all and am trying to think about changing the paradigm, which has as much to do with how I think about the possibilities with food as with table manners. Which brings me to The Omnivore's Dilemma, which I just read. (I know, you already read it; I am slow)

I liked this book. It was informative without being polemical, which is important to me. If there's one thing that makes me avoid conversations about food it's the sanctimony. When Alice Waters tells me that people should simply give up their ipods and cable to afford  local organic food, my chest tightens. Pollan, in this book anyway, is aware that food choices are complicated, food chains are staggeringly obscure, and economic constraints are real. He follows the food chain for 4 paradigms of meals: industrial (corn-based), big organic, local organic (grass-based), and hunted/foraged. Unsurprisingly, the latter 2 are more satisfying than the former 2, but there are lots of interesting details along the way (e.g. 20% of US fuel consumption is related to food transport). Also the prose is good.

There is some deck-stacking. One is hardly surprised to learn that a meal from the local sustainable farm, which Pollan takes hours to prepare and eats with old college friends while throwing back some nice wine, is more satisfying that the industrial representative: a McDonald's cheeseburger eaten in a moving car. No shit, Sherlock. There are, perhaps, more satisfying iterations of non-organic, non-local, processed foods. I have joyfully shared many a frozen pizza with friends. Mr. Vane and I really cherished our occasional trips to KFC in China. Bar food can be awesome. Families can bond over Chinese takeout. And so on. 

Similarly, Pollan's hero, Joel Salatin the sustainable farmer, asks, "Don't you find it odd that people will put more work into choosing their mechanic or house contractor than they will into choosing who grows their food"? No, I don't. And this kind of folksy faux common sense makes me crazy.

But I am persuaded of several things by this book. "Organic" means very little anymore. Organic via Whole Foods and the like certainly means nothing in terms of sustainability or treatment of creatures. Federal agriculture policy isn't helping anything; rather it provides subsidies that encourage farmers to produce more of over-produced crops (e.g. corn), thus dropping the price more and more. Meat should be eaten infrequently. One really must get past the notion that she can eat whatever food she wants whatever time of year. Food choices are undeniably political *if* one has the fortune to be aware of those politics. 

One thing the book didn't do was help me with dinner. And that is what I was looking for. It made me feel shittier about my dinner actually (organic but not pastured pork chops, roasted not-organic vegetables, organic salad, sugary salad dressing). And it made me feel miserable about the stress I felt when the kid ate 3 bits and started running around the house. Michael Pollan, and a lot of you probably, think if I take the time to know my food's history, to care about it's production, that my eating will be filled with more joy, more satisfaction. I am not persuaded of this, and truly I don't know where I would find that time. Eliminating the blogs might buy me a bit of it, actually.

I've more to say about the politics of food and class, but this post is ridiculously long, so I'll save that for part 2.

Labels: , ,

Saturday, July 26, 2008

I love you, but you have to do this yourself


posted by M. LeBlanc
My father was born on December 7, 1944 in Cairo, Egypt. He used to tell me that he had been born on Pearl Harbor Day, but when I was in my sophomore year of high school, I came home one day and told him that they dropped bombs on Pearl Harbor in 1941, not 1944. Each time I would ask him how old he was, he would say "Well, I was born on December 7, 1944..." and then think about it for a while. I used to think he was faking. How could anyone forget how old they are? Was he trying to test my subtraction skills? Nevertheless, it fit in with the dad I knew as someone who liked to forget things.

Because he was forever forgetting the things he was supposed to do for me. Forgetting to call, forgetting to show up to silly school meetings, forgetting to pick me up. Forgetting where he'd put his keys and me spending fifteen minutes in the morning helping him find them. Forgetting how much money he had in his pocket, which was good for me 'cause I could swipe a little and he wouldn't be any the wiser. I lamented because the forgetting seemed to be genetic: I'd forget my swimsuit at home on swimming day, I'd forget to take back my library books, I'd forget my homework at home, even though I'd done it. Trying to get my dad to remind me wasn't much of a strategy; I couldn't necessarily be sure he'd even wake me up in the morning.

Let's back up. In 1972, my father met an American woman from California who was staying with a friend of his family. My father had been conscripted into the Army, as all Egyptian men were (and continue to be). You could only get an exception if you were the oldest male in your family or the only male; my dad was neither (their brood was 5 boys and 3 girls). He had no health problems. Even though he was technically in the Army, he had a strong relationship with his commanding officer where he could basically do whatever he wanted as long as there wasn't a war on. So he took a few days off to show this young woman around town. She knew no Arabic to speak of and his English was mediocre at the time, so they spoke in French, a language she had learned in college and he in Jesuit grammar school. My father said he wanted to show her the hidden secrets of Cairo. On one day that was memorable for them both, they went deep into a Cairo slum to find the glass-blowers, men who blow hot liquid sand into colored bottles and bowl. There, among the dirt and grime and raw sewage and garbage, was the glittering glass art coming out of the mouths of mysterious craftsmen. Their shared wonder at what they saw was the first moment my dad reported that he thought he was falling in love.

She left town, and they wrote each other letters, hers in a teacher's neat cursive and his a whimsical mass of delicate flourishes. Each letter was more earnest than the next, more pulsating with undercurrents of romantic feeling. Nothing was made explicit. That would be improper.

The following summer, she returned to Cairo for a longer visit. And in the late summer, he proposed to her in the Andalusian Gardens and she said yes. But they couldn't get married right away--she had to go back to Provo, Utah for another school year. And on October 6, 1973, Egypt attacked Israel on Yom Kippur. My father's days of lollygagging around and doing side jobs while ostensibly being in the army were over. He was trained as an artist, and for the past several years his army duties had mostly involved making maps and models of Israeli tanks and weapons so commanders could teach the conscripts how to recognize them. Not so now--they sent him out into the desert.

And of course, in accordance with law, he wasn't the only boy in the family who was called to serve the Egyptian government. Only one other out of the five of them served; one got the "oldest" exception, and two others had epilepsy and asthma, respectively, that exempted them from service.

When the six days of the October surprise were over, my dad's brother didn't come home. In fact, the brother never came home. His death left his wife and infant daughter and his whole huge expectant family waiting. They never found his body, or any confirmation of his death, and everyone's lives were put on hold. Meanwhile, my father was trying to plan a wedding, and the family fought. According to custom, there is a mourning period during which you can't do anything like have a big festive celebration. But how would they know when the mourning period was over? They didn't even know when he had died. And there were other objections, too. The young woman my father had asked to marry him had already, at the tender age of 27, had a bout with skin cancer. One brother advised him to find someone healthier.

The concerns turned out not to be so far-fetched. The wedding went ahead in September of 1974, and fifteen years and three children later, she died. My mother was an extraordinarily strong woman who tens of doctors agreed should have been dead by 1985, but she held on. But this story isn't about her—it's about my father.

On July 2, 1989, mourning the death of his beloved wife, my father packed up his three children and left the house in Utah where they had all been staying, where my mother fought the last siege in her battle against bone cancer. He took them back to Cairo, back to the warmth of his big family, back to their carefully-furnished apartment in a tree-lined suburb they had bought the year I was born. While they had been gone trying to save my mother in the hospitals of central Utah, another of my father's brothers, the one with epilepsy, had died. The family was in mourning, again.

I don't want to fall into the trap of overpraising my father for doing what millions of women do every day, that is: raising his children alone. But it's important to remember that was he was doing was strongly culturally contraindicated. I understood that only years later when my best friend's mother died, and her father spent the rest of her teenage years foisting her off on female family members who shouldered the burden of raising her. I saw other widowers who got immediately remarried and then went back to being cheerfully absent from their kids' lives.

My dad did neither. In fact, seventeen years later, he still hasn't remarried. I'm still holding out hope that he might, although given that he's not much of a dater, I don't know if it's really in the cards. So he raised us totally alone--there was never a girlfriend, there was never a nanny, there was never any substantial amount of help from his sisters or mother. We wanted our father, and we would accept no substitutes.

And he parented graciously. Now that I've been exposed to other people's families and the rest of the world, I'm shocked at how cooperative our house was. He is an extraordinarily sweet man, full of love, and we were, and still are, in a sense, very close. Even though we never talk on the phone, live seven thousand miles apart, and only email maybe once a month. I've got more in common with my dad than most people have with their parents—we're both highly idealistic dreamers who are deeply ambitious and enthusiastic about art and changing the world.

Growing up, I had to learn to be remarkably independent. My dad would cook for me most nights, and he would make sure I went to school and give me money, and ground me if I wasn't home by curfew, but that constituted the tabs he kept on me. He didn't buy me clothes, or call my teachers, or enroll me in summer programs. When I didn't have any clean clothes left, he reminded me how to use the washing machine. When I wanted to take a trip to visit my relatives in the US the summer after my sixth grade year, he told me to call travel agents and check around for prices. Looking back, I'm still kind of shocked that they let an eleven-year-old make a reservation on an intercontinental flight. He would entrust me with large sums of money. He would let me proofread and edit products he put out as part of his graphic design business when it became clear that my English skills had surpassed his (circa age 12). He would always, when I asked for advice, ask me "what do you think you should do?" When I squirmed and pleaded for guidance, he would say "no, you're going to figure this out. I'll help you—let's make a pros-and-cons list."

But though I had to do almost everything myself but cook meals and make my own money, my dad was far from an absent father. We spent tons of time together. On school nights, we would sometimes stay up until two or three in the morning, talking. He would tell me stories about his childhood, or the story of how he met my mother, relayed (in part) here. Or we would talk about what I wanted to do with my life. He would tell me what he knew about history, and, in those days before the Internet, we would look things up in our giant set of Encyclopedias. He would show me ideas for his latest project, and I would give input. I would talk about my friends, and he would tell me stories of when he and my mother went traveling in Europe. When I got older, we would debate, about religion and politics and feminism.

I left for college three days after my high school graduation. It was not a surprise to me, because I had watched my two older siblings leave home with similar results, but it was still weird that I basically didn't talk to my dad anymore. The first time he called me on the phone after I left home was almost four years later, in 2004. We would email, and visited about once a year, but we were no longer a part of each other's daily (or even weekly) lives.

I have mixed feelings about the way I was raised. One the one hand, it made me tough and independent. Even when I was 18 I handled my whole life; my money, figuring out my education, applying for financial aid, getting jobs, taking trips home. It was easier for me to succeed in college because I was used to being on my own and doing things myself. I'm a problem solver, and I learned how to be one because I had to.

But, on the other hand, it's nice to have people do things for you. When my dad visited just over a year ago, the little things he did made me want to cry--sweeping up the floor of my kitchen, chopping fruit in the morning for breakfast, changing out the laundry, putting out a new decorative plate I'd bought as a centerpiece. I struggle with that every day—the competing desires of wanting to do everything myself and wanting someone, just for a day or two or three, to take care of me.

I grew up so fast, and the trajectory still just hurtles along. I'm handling my own cases, and I feel so much responsibility, and I'm scared I'll fuck up. I'm basically supporting my boyfriend and I. And on a morning like this one, where I look forward to another day of people depending on me, I wish I could call in the Daddy force for a little help. But it's both hard to admit you need help, and crippling to be arrogant enough to sometimes believe that no one can help.

I've been sitting here for fifteen minutes trying to figure out how to end this essay--but there's no end, no lesson, nothing pat or pithy. There's only the confusion of how I can know with certainty that there are so many people in the world who love me deeply, and yet feel on most days like I'm in it all alone.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Fuck Doctors, the View needs a fucking feminist consultant


posted by M. LeBlanc
Jezebel features a post about Amanda Gershony, a 16-year-old girl who got a breast reduction and liposuction when she was just 15. The video's at the link; I don't know how to embed ABC's videos.

This made me really upset. Her mom explains that Amanda was being teased at school, and told by teachers to cover up more, as if she was being inappropriate merely by having big breasts. So she got a breast reduction, even though she admits that she didn't have any physical symptoms associated with her oversized breasts, like, say, back problems.

While they were at it, she got liposuction too. Her mom explained that Amanda had a "pocket of fat" above the belly button that "wouldn't go away." She also feared that her daughter would get an eating disorder, because she kept eating "less and less" to try and make the "pocket of fat" go away, and that it was never going to, because apparently everyone in the family has that same fat pattern. Horror of horrors.

Amanda is cute. She's a pretty, thin teen who probably weighs, what, 120? 130? She's small. And she has gone through these two surgeries now, which the plastic surgeon they had on the show (compromised interests, much?) said was no big thing. Maybe it isn't, physically. But what about the psychological consequences?

I have some experience in this matter. I started developing breasts in elementary school and by seventh grade was a filled-out C. By senior year, I was wearing DDD and now I'm like an H. And yeah, parts of it sucked. It sucked when someone wrote "[M. LeBlanc] is a slut" on the wall of the girls' bathroom, when I hadn't so much as made out with a boy. It sucked in 8th grade, when boys who were asked to lead the warm-up in drama class would have us do jumping jacks and sit there and watch my tits bounce. It sucked when high school seniors asked me to sit on their laps when I would cross over to the high school side of the campus for my advanced French class. It sucked when I went to horseback riding camp for a week when I was 16 and the instructor pulled me aside to tell me about how my breasts were bouncing a lot and she was worried it was causing me problems. But it sucked even more when that same instructor called my godmother, who I was staying with that summer, and they had a conversation about my tits and my godmother took it upon herself to talk to plastic surgeons about the feasibility of getting breast reduction.

I didn't want a breast reduction. I wanted everyone to stop paying so much fucking attention to my tits. And luckily I was sound of mind enough to not believe other people's implications that there was something wrong with me that I needed to have surgically altered, and told such people that it was none of their business. I said that I would decide what to do about my apparently TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE tits when I got older.

And you know what? I don't give a shit now. I like them. If I start to have back problems, maybe I'll think about it. If I end up with breast cancer, which there's a decent chance I will, I may just go for the double mastectomy instead of a lumpectomy (that is, if I have a choice).

Because the fact that my tits are grounds for everyone and their mother to have a conversation about my breasts is other people's problem. Not my problem. Just the other day a client made a comment about the size of my breasts and I wordlessly glared at her so hard she came back the next day to apologize.

And that's what the mother in this clip missed. If she wanted to help her daughter, she should have gone and told the teachers that what they were doing was inappropriate. She should have talked to the school principal or encouraged her daughter to take those fuckers out. Not paid for her to have surgery on her body because other people found they way she looked to just be too goddamn provocative for a learning environment.

I hate to judge other people's choices. I really do. But I can't help thinking that in this case the mother was thinking "I had to go through that, and I don't want my daughter to.." so, she just went for the extreme choice.

And that's not even getting to the liposuction. The mother and daughter (and the hosts of The View, by their silence on the matter) seemed to agree that there was definitely something wrong with not having an absolutely flat stomach, and that since Amanda couldn't change it by exercising obsessively, she should have surgery. What about just saying "hey, it's cool, even though I'm thin doesn't mean I have to look like an airbrushed model." What about being positive about your body? What about waiting to see how you feel in a couple years? I used to think my nose was hideous when I was fourteen; now, I really can not figure out what I thought was wrong with it. I used to hate my thighs--now I could give a crap about any one part of my body. I still struggle with the whole "being fat" thing, but I don't have particular ire directed toward any part of my anatomy.

I'm sad that there was just no chance on this show of having those issues addressed. The doctor said it's okay, Joy took a "surgery is bad!" approach, and everyone else just sat there with concerned eyes.

I should start marketing myself out as a feminist consultant on current events. In a just world, there would be riches and fame in that.

Labels: , , , , ,

Quick Hit: Lessons


posted by Sybil Vane
One of my most favorite parent-bloggers makes the ultimate observation about flying with small kids:

If a child kicks your chair from behind, don't be an asshole about it. It is very hard for parents to care if their children kick the chair of an asshole.

(Also, if you spend some time there, notice the grace and depth with which Brian has been writing about his daughter's struggle with epilepsy. Send some good vibes that way.)

Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Being Grateful


posted by Sybil Vane
Everyone acts like they want to hear less bitching and more gratefulness from us privileged feminists. So here's what I'm grateful for tonight:

- Clean water. We were under a boil water advisory for 2 days because of a power outage at the water treatment plant. It really does a person good to be reminded of how much she takes treated water for granted.

- The Dark Knight. leblanc made the relevant point/bitch re: the role of women and I agree with her, but I still thought the movie was teh awesome. I've been trying to write a review, but it kept coming out super earnest and invoking Benjamin and I couldn't bear myself, so I'll just reduce it to this: heady and explode-y. Edited to add (because I actually woke up at night thinking about this): all this being said, the movie really should've been rated R.

- This

- Finally having read The Left Hand of Darkness, which had me weeping in a coffee shop as I finished it. Gorgeous.

- A very good friend submitting his diss tomorrow, triumphing over the Worst Committee in the history of graduate school.

- Obama's Berlin speech

Admit it, gratefulness is just a little bit dull.

Labels: , , ,

skin deep


posted by bitchphd
I hesitate to put this up, because the comments at the link are appalling. Don't read them. But the link itself is really nice, and we've been talking about beauty standards, so: celebrities without makeup.

Yes, some of them are in fact wearing some makeup--think of it as "celebrities without celebrity makeup," if you must. But it really is a lovely collection of candid pictures of women of all ages, women whose faces you know, looking like--well, looking like women you know. Many of them are beautiful, a couple are average-looking, most are above average (after all, these *are* women whose livings depend in part on their looks). It's a nice reality check nonetheless: these are women whose *jobs* are to present images of extra-human beauty, and what we usually see when we see them is: them working. When they're not working (at their job of looking amazing) they look like . . . real people.

Which is to say, they look great. Not ugly, not plain. Great. Just like all of us.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

You want a fat princess? Here you go


posted by bitchphd


Via LGM

Labels:

on being the colonized and being the fat princess


posted by ding
Good, sweet lord.

I wonder when games are going to get progressive? (Remember the disaster that was Ghettopoly? Ugh.)

I mean, when is the gaming industry going to make some attempt to stop reinforcing the current/past power structure and start doing some subversive work by offering a different narrative? (Or, maybe they have and since I'm not a gamer I'm completely clueless about it.) From the Racialicious post:

'It is reprehensible that colonists are so often portrayed as brave heroes earning what land is rightfully theirs–games such as Colonization only perpetuate this myth so common among Americans and Europeans. How about a game about colonization from the natives’ perspective? Battle against an army of white folk claiming the land you’ve lived on for centuries to be theirs–now that’s a game I’d play.'


Sure, some folks could say that reversing the script is only a way for 'victimologists' to achieve useless, emotional catharsis and that it's a pointless, PC gesture. I would partially agree - playing a game of 'beat the colonizer' won't reverse the history of systematic oppression that was begun when those ships came over with their guns, germs and steel.

But I think playing a game that uses indigenous resistance as its premise would at least be a valid (and fun!) critique of the popular myth that colonization was a win-win. I've often imagined what could have been if those ships had been turned away or if some event had intervened that changed the colonizing trajectory.

(To read Jared Diamond's book, though, such an intervening step would have meant finding a way to prevent east-west migration, stopping the development of literacy and killing horses. That's a lot for just one indigenous population to handle all at once. And, yes, I know this is a gross reduction of Diamond's premise.)

Neither do I buy the argument that basing a game on the POV of the colonized is problematic, or just a game of 'kill whitey;' wanting to be the one who fights being colonized is just as valid as wanting to assume the role of the colonizer (which, to me, is plain old disturbing.)

I mean, wouldn't we call a person who resists enslavement a Freedom Fighter? Or would we, because assuming the role of the colonizer runs counter to our approved national and racial narratives, call that person a terrorist? Hm.

In other game news, Holly, over at Feministe, posts a spot-on criticism of a new game called Fat Princess. My mind is officially boggled. From Holly's excellent post (which I hope you read in its entirety):

"...it’s not like games with fat characters have to mock them or reinforce stereotypes like “fat people can’t move on their own” and “fat people will eat anything you put in front of them.” This opinion seems to confuse the more dimwitted dewd-gamers, who say things like “what, you don’t like skinny chicks in games, and now you don’t like fat chicks in games, there’s no pleasing you feminists!” Figure it out, dumbass. We’re complaining about mocking, objectified portrayals of fat people and over-representation of certain other body types as sexpots, heros, and sexpot heroes. Heck, a lot of gamers have complained about it too, even in the early coverage of Fat Princess on Kotaku.

A strategy game with a name like Fat Princess could feature the princess as one of your most important military units, powerful and important for strategy because she’s fat. (And if you think that means she’s a sphere that rolls other units over, you’re missing the point by a mile.) Or, like any number of large male characters in games — Barret from Final Fantasy VII and E. Honda from Street Fighter both come to mind — her weight could simply not be a big deal. But that’s probably too much to ask from a culture where fat women get treated like pariahs far more than fat guys do."


As a big soft girl, my frustrations with how fat/chubby/plump/zaftig/big/large/curvy/Juno-esque/plus-sized (hey, like a meal!) women are represented in our popular culture are reaching dangerous levels. Shit, what am I talking about - not just in popular culture. I still feel the sting of having a lover, who thought he was being helpful, say to me, "Maybe if you got in shape you wouldn't need therapy." (Yeah, we've moved past it but what the hell??)

We have issues with fat. It's like we *hate* it. We want to locate it, eradicate it and, in the process, punish whoever harbors it. On Project Runway fat is both a designer's bogeyman and the path to prizes; successfully design a 'fat dress,' you move to the next round, but worry if the fat is a little too...fat. Auf you go. (Chris, last season's fat man, was a campy delight; this season, let's see how Korto, the only fat female designer, fares and what the judges say about her pro-full figure designs.)

Yesterday, I had an exchange with a friend on my blog explaining why pinpointing white privilege is so important to fighting systemic racism. (Bear with me, I swear this will make sense.) I said to him that if the world works one way for, and benefits, the majority, I want the world to work the same way for the rest of us. Similarly, the unearned benefits our culture bestows on non-fat people, I want extended to the rest of us.

As a fat girl, I shouldn't have to *earn* my basic frakking humanity by dieting. Know what I mean?

(I wonder if Peggy McIntosh's signs of white privilege have been adapted for fat acceptance and size privilege. I also wonder if there are games that manage to buck our expectations re: colonization, gender roles/representation, etc. If there are, please share.)

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Mousehunter


posted by bitchphd
Mousehunter was sent to me by the author, whose girlfriend (very soon to be wife; congratulations!) happens to be a reader of this here blog. It took Pseudonymous Kid and I a little while to get around to reading it, but once we got started we couldn't stop. In fact, PK started reading ahead, making this the first chapter book he dug into on his own.

It is, of course, a book custom-made for PK: mice + pirates! What could be better? But even if your kid isn't obsessed with mice (or pirates), this is a good one: swashbuckling adventure (with a girl protagonist, by the way), just enough cuteness, suspense and plot reversals, a little bit of mystery, and a genuinely creative fantasy world. Plus bonus formalist complexity, for the literary types: each chapter is followed by a brief description of one species of mouse--Golden Mice, Nosferatu Mice, Elephant Mice, and so on--along with mousekeeping notes and regulations from the Mousekeeper's Almanac, which, as it happens, was written by one of the Mousehunter's characters.

If your kids are young (PK is seven), don't be put off by the prologue, which is quite dark, what with gibbets and a creepy beachcomber and a dead body. The main story is lighter: Emiline is a young mousekeeper who works for Lovelock, the renowned author of the Mousekeeper's Almanac himself. Emiline's lost control of a Sharpclaw Mouse and is having trouble recapturing the razor-clawed beastie; and Mr. Spires, the butler, isn't helping matters much by scolding her about it, either. Meanwhile, Mr. Droob, the creepy beachcomber, shows up at the door with . . . something that makes Lovelock angry and perhaps a little bit afraid.

Lovelock sends Spires down to the docks (a dangerous place to go after dark) in search of Drewshank, a rakish and somewhat conceited young captain. Drewshank agrees, for a good price, to go in search of the infamous pirate Mousebeard for Lovelock. Emiline, overhearing this plan (she still hasn't found that darned Sharpclaw), decides to tag along and get a taste of adventure.

And from there we get ghostly ships, a deceitful woman, a blowhard admiral, a mysterious island, a giant, two rival mousekeepers,* a crazy inventor, sea battles, a dungeon, and, eventually, Mousebeard himself. PK, of course, enamored of the idea of a pirate who keeps mice in his beard, kept begging me to ensure that Mousebeard would turn out to be not *too* evil; it would be wrong, though, to spoil the ending, so I won't. I will say that I thoroughly enjoyed the story, so much so that I ended up reading chunks of it to PK in the afternoons as well as at bedtime just so that he wouldn't get too far ahead and force me to skip parts of it. There were two instances of mouse-related collateral damage during sea battles, which I had to edit slightly on the fly in order to change dead mice to merely injured ones, but I doubt that those scenes would bother any kid who isn't PK (and the scenes were brief enough that the editing was quite easy).

I understand that the second book, The Curse of Mousebeard, is *just* out in the UK; the first one is supposed not to be available in the US until February, but it's on Amazon's site now (see the link at the beginning). Please don't tell PK that I've preordered the The Curse of Mousebeard or he'll pester me about it every day until it arrives.



*One of the rival mousekeepers is a girl, and she and Emiline do speak to one another about things other than men; the book thus satisfies Bechdel's rule.

Labels:

Monday, July 21, 2008

Here, have some links


posted by bitchphd
I have been up all night with hideous insomnia. Therefore you get some links I've been collecting for the last week or so.

This deserves its own feature-type post, but I suck: The Conquest and Theft of America. Here's a li'l bit of news background on the subject of recent INS raids; look around that blog for more coverage.

More about how much McCain values women, no really:

Depressing/heartening/depressing story about internet abortions.

The "Christian right" is starting to do the right thing.

The ACLU is filing suit about FISA, bless them. Join up here.

Why are you a democrat? The democrats want to know.

Cool list of women's magazines online, from the Aphra Behn Society Newsletter to Elle.

1 out of 4 California high school students drops out before graduating. One. In four.

A fabulous librarian blogger writes a very kind and thoughtful letter to the kind of person I am unable to be kind and thoughtful to.

Economics, newspapers, and moms.

I really liked this article about why "teen pregnancy" is a prejudicial term.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Mr. B. and the hysterical racist


posted by bitchphd
Scene: outside Peet's coffee this morning. Mr. B. pulls up in the "Obama-mobile," wearing his Obama tshirt. There is a man about Mr. B.'s age sitting outside Peet's talking to a friend.

Man, in a kind of incredulous voice: So you're supporting Obama?!?
Mr. B.: Yes I am.
Man: And why is that?
Mr. B.: For a lot of reasons, but primarily because I think he's right about the war.
Man: But what about America?! This Jeremiah Wright . . .
Mr. B.: There have been a lot of pastors who've said a lot of things about America being on the wrong path. Jerry Falwell, for instance.
Man: We're not talking about Jerry Falwell! We're talking about Jeremiah Wright! He said "goddamn America!"
Mr. B.: Well, I'm not voting for Jeremiah Wright. I'm voting for Obama. He left that church.
Man: But he attended it! With that black pastor saying "goddamn America" . . .
Mr. B.: Wait a minute. Why is it important that the pastor is black?
Man: . . . .
Mr. B.: You made a point of saying that. Does it matter to you?
Man, aggressively: Well, maybe it does.
Mr. B.: Well then, you can vote for John McCain. Even his hair is white.



(Apparently Racist McCain supporter then went on to try the "you liberals want higher taxes" angle, but Mr. B. was essentially done with him. During the retelling, I shrieked at the "well, maybe it does" bit: "oh my god, he actually said that!?!" Just, wow. I hope McCain's proud of his supporters. And now we are off to try to catch the end of Pirate Days.)

Labels: , , ,

The Bechdel Rule and The Dark Knight


posted by M. LeBlanc
I'm a little shocked that I hadn't heard of The Bechdel Rule until this morning. The rule is that movies should have 1) at least two women, 2) who talk to each other, 3) about something other than a man. I know, you guys have already heard this before. But it's brilliant!

It's a perfect explanation of the sort of movie that would meet my feminist criteria for having fully-formed female characters. I remember having this frustrating conversation with my boyfriend after we went to see Iron Man, which we both liked a lot (maybe me even more than him, but that could have been because my expectations were low and he was super-psyched about it) where I was complaining about Gwyneth Paltrow's character, Pepper Potts, and how I thought the writers could have done a lot more with her. She's a good actor, and the character is kind of interesting (she's not just a love interest, but one with her own moral code and a job that sometimes compromises that), but I came out of the movie wanting more from her. Trying to explain what exactly would have helped to flesh out her character, however, was driving me crazy (my only thought was "more dialogue." "But it's an action film, and it was already pretty damn long." Both of which are true.)

I had less of that feeling after I came out of The Dark Knight last night, although I suspect that having Maggie Gyllenhall in the role helps--she's nothing but independent and sassy-seeming, no matter what she's saying. But the movie, as much as I loved it, fails the Bechdel test.

You see, the reason the Bechdel criteria are spot-on is that having conversation between women about things other than their romantic relationships with men is that it means that women are driving the story. Dialogue is where you get to the meat of the problem, the heart of the plot, the explanation for why characters act the way they do. Even in action movies. In The Dark Knight, dialogue is where you get the most terrifying, electrifying information about any character in the movie: that the Joker has no agenda, has no plan. He's not after money, or power, he has no purpose, no rules. He merely seeks to create chaos. The terror created by those artifacts of his personality are what drive the terror and the action of the film. In Iron Man you got the explanation of Tony Stark's change of occupation from a weapons-mongerer to a justice vigilante through dialogue, as well. Without dialogue, things just happen—they don't have any meaning. And meaning, whether it's political, moral, or about the nature of evil, is a crucial element that makes movies worth watching.

So now that we've pinpointed dialogue as the locus of meaning in film, we need to think about who's having it. Few movies pass the Bechdel test--most of the dialogue happens between men, or between men and one woman. Most movies who have extended conversations between women tend to be under the umbrella of "chick flicks," or the newly-minted term, "RomComs." But even those movies don't pass the Bechdel test; not only are the conversations about men, the movies are driven by what men do or don't do, what they want or don't want, even when all the principal characters are women.

Men are talking. They are making decisions, they are explaining the motivations of the characters, they are illuminating the world they live in by describing it. And this is because the world the men of The Dark Knight or Iron Man live in, far more than the one we live in, is a man's world, where all the important actors are men.

Okay, so you get it. Women need to be talking to drive the story. But they do talk, right? Maggie Gyllenhall and Gwyneth Paltrow weren't running around mute in these movies. Actually, these character didn't talk much, but even if they had, their ability to drive the story is limited by the fact that when they talk, they're talking to men.

Why? Because the world created in film is even more sexist than the one we live in, and when a man and a woman talk the man's world is the reference point for their conversation. His thoughts, his ideas, his conundrums, his desires. In The Dark Knight, Rachel has conversations with Bruce Wayne about his role as a vigilante and his desire to be with her. She has conversations with Harvey Dent about his career, his plans, his safety. What about her career, her desires, her safety? Well we don't know anything about her career, and her desires we find out about in a 4-sentence letter. As to her safety—we find out about through the male characters' desires to keep her safe.

This is not like my world—I spend lots of time talking to men, and a lot of the time we're talking about me, my thoughts, my ideas, my career, my desires. But when men are primary characters in film and women only hold secondary roles, the conversations between them are bound to be about the principals.

That's why the requirement that women talk to each other is so crucial--because when women talk to each other, and they're not just talking about men, they're driving the story. If they're talking about their ideas, their dilemmas, their motivations and desires, that means that those things are moving the plot.

Otherwise, women in film are just window-dressing, there to be projected upon, there to be married or dumped, to die tragically or to be saved: to function as plot twists rather than plot-participants.

And I'm tired of watching movies like that.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, July 19, 2008

You were saying, sweetie?


posted by bitchphd
I can't help it:

(random guy trips over three-year-old girl's stroller)
Guy: Oops, I'm sorry, honey.
Three-year-old girl in stroller: Don't call me honey!

From Overheard in NY.

Labels: ,

A Sea of Silent Euphoria


posted by M. LeBlanc
I've discovered a really cool website, TED Talks, which has videos of talks, lectures, and songs from TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Conferences, whose subtitle is "Ideas Worth Spreading." What a cool concept—as someone who much prefers to learn by listening to people, rather than reading, I'm sucked in immediately.

When you have some free time, please watch this talk by Jill Bolte Taylor, a brain scientist (more specifically, "neuroanatomist") who undergoes a massive stroke over the course of several hours and lives to describe the experience in fascinating detail. She was written about earlier this year (note: why the fuck is that in the "style" section? I swear to god, to the NYT, woman=fashion news!), but this video is much more affecting. She's a physical, engaging, compelling speaker, and her account is riveting and moving. The video's about 19 minutes, so it's pretty long—take a break and watch it some afternoon. Her science-driven message of peace is worth thinking about.

Labels: ,

Friday, July 18, 2008

To all of those who think I'm shrill on sexual harassment


posted by M. LeBlanc
Validation! Reuters reports on a survey done by the Egyptian Centre for Women's Rights which found not only that 83% of Egyptian women said they had been sexually harassed in public, a stunning two thirds of Egyptian men admitted to having perpetrated harassment (their excuse? The women deserved it.)

This squares with my experience perfectly. I know I've said this before, but it bears saying again: I was harassed on the street nearly every single day between the ages of about 12 and 18. It didn't matter what I was wearing. Not being Muslim, I never wore hijab, but I could be wearing sweats and a baggy sweatshirt, or a tight shirt and knee-length skirt, and I would be leered at. I could be walking alone or with friends, and men would say things about my appearance or what they'd like to do to me, loud or just barely audibly. I could be walking at 1:00 p.m. or 10:30 p.m., and men would follow me, grab me, masturbate in front of me, and start singing love songs as I walked by.

It's wonderful not to have to deal with that every day, now that I live here. But I still have to face harassment, and not just once in a blue moon, either. And the fact that I describe not being harassed and "wonderful" will tell you just how fucked up this world is.

Harassment is not a compliment. It's not flattering or fun, even when the things people say are benign. It's just a reminder that however autonomous and professional, powerful and self-assured I feel, a big chunk of the rest of the world, upon seeing me for the first time, thinks I'm just another piece of ass so low on the totem pole that I can be leered and jeered at with impunity.

Now that I'm on the subject of harassment, I have a question for y'all. I've already figured out what to do with street harassers (I yell at them, tell them off, or are otherwise rude, depending on the situation). But sometimes people I'm generally non-adversarial with do things that piss me off, and I don't know how to make it known without turning an otherwise friendly relationship sour. Like today, I was at the court trying to get some information. A very friendly clerk in his mid-thirties was extremely helpful to me, working with me for over 30 minutes trying to help me find what I wanted. He was a nice guy, but throughout, he was very flirtatious and kept calling me "sweetie" and "honey." I really don't like that. I like to be treated like a professional when I'm acting in my professional capacity. It's patronizing, condescending, and sexist.

What do you guys do in a situation like that? I considered saying something like "don't call me sweetie," but the urge not to be combative is so strong. Sigh.

Labels:

"What is interesting and important is the Republicans' long battle to use racism to stop class politics."


posted by bitchphd
We are going to have to deal with lying apologists for Republican racism for the rest of this election cycle, at least.

Eric Rauchway gives a definitive response. It's not simply an aside to say that I think his essay demonstrates academic training at its very best: it combines a mastery of facts and depth of knowledge with a sense of moral purpose and controlled civility to make years of study and accumulated knowledge available, "simple," as Eric puts it, to others.


Here's a more casual example of much the same thing. The money quote is this:
The New York Times would have us believe, however, that Senator Obama should have fixed this by now. “Obama isn’t closing the divide on race”, reads the accusing headline.

Right after turning water into wine at the next reception he attends, Senator Obama will get right on eliminating 250 years or more of racial disparities. It is absurd for these Times reporters to subtly imply that somehow the Obama candidacy should have eliminated differing opinions on race by now.
Make sure you read Eric's piece, though, to really see *why* Thistlethwait is right here. And also because it's a beautiful essay.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, July 17, 2008

quick hit: dork version


posted by ding
You know you've been waiting for it.
Joss Whedon's supervillain musical: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, Acts 1 & 2.



(Oh, I'm sorry. I've been the only one waiting for it?)

Labels: ,

Open letter to various people at the restaurant with me and my kid last night


posted by Sybil Vane
Teenage kid out with your dad:  Stop texting. Stop. Your dad is trying to ask you about your life.

Dad out with your teenage kid:  If you weren't such a brusque bossy asshole to the waiter, your kid might have better manners.

Guy from across the patio:  You're an asshole. If you are really so worried about my kid's chair toppling that you can't swallow, come over and say something to me. Maybe, "Hey, I can't help but notice that this chair is a little cockeyed and wobbly. Wanted to make sure you knew." I would've been irritated, but whatever. When you walk over and GRAB my kid's shoulders from behind and start jamming her into the middle of the chair, I want to punch you in the neck.  OF COURSE she is freaking out: you walked up behind her and put your hands all over her person to move her around. Back off. 

My kid: Really, please quit wiggling so much in that chair. It's unnerving and now if you fall that guy will have license to helicopter-parent other people's kids all over the place. And stop throwing rice.

Sybil: If you think a taco tastes sort of wonky, there's really no reason to press on through. You might want to trust your instincts on this one, preferably before you get to the third taco.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Quick Hit


posted by M. LeBlanc
Am I just delirious, drunk, totally off my rocker, or did Maureen Dowd actually write a column that is basically coherent and seems to have a point?

No way, right?

Preznit Bush: I suck at my job, why shouldn't everyone else?


posted by bitchphd
Apparently being a fundamentalist woman-hating know-nothing counts, in Bush's world, as a medical qualification: Georgie the asshole wants to make it illegal for women's clinics to fire or refuse to hire practitioners who won't talk about or dispense birth control. With luck, we won't even *have* women's clinics soon! But just in case any other doctors or nurses get any bright ideas, the law applies to anyone who gets aid under federal health programs: hospitals, hospital pharmacies, public health centers. Presumably also doctors in private practice who take medicare or medicaid.


Oh, plus bonus extra-specialness: the proposed law specifically defines birth control that works after fertilization but "before implantation"--which is to say, before pregnancy, which is to say pretty much any form of hormonal birth control, which is to say most of the methods women have control over, which is to say pretty much all of the most reliable methods--as a subset of abortion.

Update: Ding suggests writing the Dept of Health and Human Services:

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201
Telephone: 202-619-0257
Toll Free: 1-877-696-6775

They also have a feedback page.

Labels: , ,

Malaizey


posted by Sybil Vane
My daughter used to be really into her Maisy books. They are, as children's books go, pretty dull.  I would read the 6 words per page, over and over, and always wanted to call the protagonist "Malaizey." That's how the books made me feel - a combination of malaise-ridden and lazy.

And that's how I find myself feeling at the summer midpoint - pretty malaizey. People talk about loving the academic gig in part for the summers, but man I really need to have students. The summers fill me with a sense of impotence. Not really writing, not teaching, just futzing with stuff, to ends that are not entirely clear. 

A slower pace for the summer is fine for me, but the malaise part comes in when I consider the Fall. With dread.  I will have students and a classroom again, which will be great, but I will have the job market again. Consider this: last year was my first on the market. I started working on materials in August 07, spent easily 15 hours a week at minimum tending to them and to applications from August through November. No MLA interviews. In January I started again with Spring postings. Spent 15 hours/wk through April, ended up having exactly 2 choices, both 1yr contracts, final details settled in mid-May. 

That's August through May. 10 months looking for a job, all while *doing* a job.  So I haven't thought about it since mid-May, but now it's nearly August and I need to start again. And let me be clear: I know I should BE GRATEFUL. It's a GREAT GIG. I am SO LUCKY. Please do not feel the need to remind me of this. This can be true at the same time that having only 2 months in a 1 year period where one does not actively look for a job fucking sucks.

So I feel malaizey. It's hot and I am neither living up a summer off nor am I cranking out research and writing. I felt so proud of myself for 2 weeks after graduation, and now I feel dread at proceeding, and both comfort and boredom with what I currently have. The summer seems to give me not a break, but more time to consider my dissatisfaction. Without students to look at every week, I lose my motivation to be proactive about advancing myself, my ideas, etc.  

The only real take away here, I guess, is that you shouldn't tell academics to be grateful for their summers. Unless they are tenured, in which case, fuck 'em. They should never complain.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Wouldn't it have been simpler and clearer to run the illustration with a big X over it so that we knew what they were trying to say?


posted by bitchphd
I love Jon Swift. I worship him and want to have his clever little babies. I could be, like, the Virgin Mary to his, uh, Godhead, or maybe more like the Sin to his Satan. Whichever.

Labels: ,

swiftean? not really.


posted by ding
I swore to myself that I would actually get work done in the office today so I'm going to make this fast:

For the education and edification of all those defensive and clueless editors or writers out there who have found themselves in the middle of a media shitstorm, stammering, 'But-but-but it was satire!!' what exactly are the rules of satire, what makes it work, and why do so many get it so very, very wrong?

This election season (if not the past 8 years) should have given us ripe opportunities for effective satire but, so far, not so much. (Stephen Colbert's The Word segment is a rare exception, I think.)

From undergrad newspaper columnists across the country (too numerous and repulsive to even link) to the once-great Daily Show (and their poorly conceived/implemented Gitmo) - and even to The New Yorker's latest cover - satire's rapier-like point has been blunted by some clumsy man-hands.

I am counting on you literature profs and grad students on Bitch to definitively and thoughtfully parse this for me. Throw out your favorite satirists, satirical pieces, and give these editorial/writing teams some knowledge. Carry on!

It's Funny How Humor Is So Ticklish - washingtonpost.com

Labels: , , ,

Monday, July 14, 2008

the trib talks 'race' and the result is...varied


posted by ding
This is the column in today's Trib from Dawn Turner Trice who's doing a series on race. I suppose we can credit the Year of Obama for being the catalyst for all this racial navel gazing.

Whenever a paper or media outlet decides it's going to tackle race, I gird my loins for a discussion that will derail in seconds, as everyone remembers their one 'black friend' who got into law school even though they didn't have the scores, while they didn't. During these conversations, I prepare myself for the kinds of comments that make me wonder if we're living in 2008 or 1958. This time, I really couldn't allow the conversation to veer off into troll land so I got really into it (if you read the comments, you'll find Ding peppered here and there.) Surprise, surprise, I manage to keep my temper and have a few exchanges that are civilized.

The question of color blindness comes up. Blah di blah, we all know that saying 'I don't see color!' doesn't really work as a racial justice strategy. Racialicious and Too Sense have good posts on color blindness worth looking at.

But the thread made me wonder, if color blindness could actually be achieved, how sure am I that I could be racially color blind (like, skin color carried no semiotic weight for me)?

I gave myself a random 90% - I am 90% sure I could act/behave in a color blind way, considering my ethnic background, how I grew up, who my friends were/are, and my current/past behavior. At first I was going to say 100% but that's not true; I'd have some issues. (Originally, I gave myself an 80%. This might be closer to the truth, if I'm totally honest.)

No, this doesn't have metrics built into it in any way, but as a wholly unscientific assessment, it's at least as worthwhile and revealing as choosing which Sex and the City character you are.

Labels:

Trained Monkeys


posted by bitchphd
The EotAW linked to a This American Life episode I hadn't heard before. And I'm listening to it now.

The second story is about childhood myths; things you thought were true as a kid, but grew out of. Only the focus of the story is on people who never grew out of those beliefs, and then had kind of embarrassing revelations as adults that omg, you mean unicorns aren't real? They're awfully sweet, actually, especially the Harriet Lerner (that Harriet Lerner?) story about the tissue box painted by trained monkeys.

PK told me the other day that his feelings about mice have changed somewhat; he still loves them, but he no longer believes that he can save them, or that they can save him. The thing is, not too long ago--a couple months, maybe--he was crying on the back of my bike as we rode home from school, because he'd gotten in trouble at school for fighting with some kids who were saying things he didn't like about mice. But the cause of the crying was his admission to me that "I don't even know if I still *like* mice all that much." We had to stop by the side of the road, lay the bike down on the sidewalk, and sit down next to it so that he could cuddle until he felt better.

I'm glad he's sorted that out now so that it no longer bothers him, but that makes *me* feel a little sad.

Labels:

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Oh, Jesus Christ


posted by bitchphd
So PZ Myers wrote a blog post about a student who "stole" a communion wafer, which has Bill Donohue and his right-wing nutso Catholic organization up in arms, and in this post PZ asked for readers to send *him* communion wafers so that he could desecreate them and post photos of said blasphemy on the internet.

Needless to say, this freaked out Donohue even more, and he's put his followers onto a campaign to bitch at the president of the University of Minnesota. The grounds? Get this--it's hilariously weak:
“The Myers blog can be accessed from the university’s website. The university has a policy statement on this issue which says that the ‘Contents of all electronic pages must be consistent with University of Minnesota policies, local, state and federal laws.’ One of the school’s policies, ‘Code of Conduct,’ says that ‘When dealing with others,’ faculty et al. must be ‘respectful, fair and civil.’
Dudes, you can access *any page on the internet* from the University's website, one way or another. If that's the best you've got, say a couple of Hail Marys and move on.

But of course, Donohue's not going to do that, and so a bunch of irate Catholics have been writing pissy hate mail to PZ and the U Minn president and complaining about how PZ is oppressing them (bonus hilarity: apparently there's now some folks claiming that PZ constitutes a threat to the upcoming Republican convention in Minneapolis!). PZ, who doesn't back down from a fight despite being a mild-mannered Minnesotan (no, really), says, okay, fine, and asks his readers to write the U Minn president themselves. Politely, etc.

Which I did, and I urge you guys to do so as well. Or at least to go do a li'l rubbernecking and enjoy the hilarity. Sometimes you have to just love, love, love the internets.

Labels: , ,

Friday, July 11, 2008

"I Certainly Do Not Wanna Discuss That Issue . . . it's something that I had not thought much about"


posted by bitchphd


Well, that's a luxury you have, John. But a lot of people--we call those people "women"; you might want to call them "voters"--have to think about it. Pretty much every day.

It does make you wonder about his sex life, though.

Dumbass.

(Follow-up discussion on CNN is here; watching Rachel Maddow discuss it is so worth the click through.)

Labels: , ,

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Ugh; and, Koppel!


posted by Sybil Vane
Feeling an insatiable need for sweets tonight, I decided to bake. But, being premenstrual and impatient and dumb, I did the thing where I ate too much of the dough and now feel disgusting and nauseous before the first batch is even coming out of the oven. Help me internet: what do you do, in lieu of smoking, to quell the nausea of too much cookie dough?


Also , unrelatedly, tonight is the second night (of four) of this Discovery Channel Ted Koppel in China program. Mr. Vane and I watched the first installment last night and were pretty impressed. We lived in China for some time, and while this hardly makes us experts on matter of Chinese economic developments, it does make us sensitive to heavy-handed and simplistic coverage of the region. We both found last night's show sensitive and nuanced. I mean, it wasn't an academic analysis or anything, but for a mainstream cable program, I think it is doing very well. 

So: 
Ted Koppel in China - recommended. 
Binge-eating cookie dough: not recommended.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

We bleg the convention, then we blog it


posted by M. LeBlanc
Remember way back when we found out that, miracle of miracles, Bitch Ph.D. had been granted press credentials for the 2008 Democratic National Convention? We, and you, were all super psyched. Especially given all the other excellent blogs who were denied credentials, it is just fantastic that this blog, and its bitchy outlook, will be represented among those covering the festivities. Then Bitch got an email that said "Number of Press Passes: 1." And I was like "goddamnit!" I don't know how the other bitches felt, but I sure was bummed. And then Bitch came up with an awesome idea, which is that the rest of us should just come anyway, and we would trade off our one press pass, and the people who weren't covering the convention would get a chance to cover everything that's happening outside the convention. Which will all probably be extremely interesting.

So we're all going. This means that we'll be providing a flurry of coverage about things in and outside the convention, and getting to have a little bitch convention of our own. Seeing as that I've never even met two of the other bloggers, much less gotten a chance for us to all hang out at once, I am extremely psyched.

But here's the rub. Awesome as this experience is going to be for us, and provide lots of great coverage for you, the readers, these things cost money. We aren't much of a big media outlet with lots of ad revenue or whatever. So we're asking you guys to, if you can, donate a little bit (or a lot! Hi wealthy benefactors!) to the blog. It doesn't have to be much. And as the big week gets closer, you can help us decide what to do with our time there: events or groups outside the convention you want covered, parties we should scope out, people we should hunt down and talk to (within reason, of course). Some of you have already donated recently, and really, thank you so much for doing it. But if you haven't, perhaps you'll think about tossing a few bucks our way.

You put in, and we'll put out.

To donate, click the "MAKE A DONATION" button in the sidebar. It's orange.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

On Being a Role Model


posted by M. LeBlanc
Even though Sybil already posted about it, I still want to weigh in on the Jezebel Moe/Tracie interview that's kicking up a shitstorm. The obvious: they were way too drunk, and frankly, if you need to drink a shitload of alcohol in order to do a public appearance, then you shouldn't do a public appearance. But that's not really the point. Given that they did appear, and they were drunk, what are we to think about what they said? It seems to me that Lizz Winstead either went there with the intention of getting into a debate about their sex lives, or was so turned off by some of the things they said that she is now trying to make them look as bad as possible. Take, for example, a cited line from Moe, as to why she didn't report her rape: "Because it was a load of trouble and I had better things to do, like drinking more." To cite this as an example of her being flip about rape is just ridiculous; if you watch the clip it's clear that "like drinking more" is poking fun at herself for drinking a lot. Same with "If any of you guys use the pullout method, but you read you know, anything I wrote about Ben Bernanke, or you know, what ever, at least y'll go to the grave with your syphilis, slightly informed, that's all I care about." That's a joke, too. In fact, a lot of the stuff were jokes, but they're jokes that are marginally if at all funny, and--surprise!--jokes that would come off a lot better in a written piece. Which is not shocking given that, you know, they're writers.

But it's pretty clear that what's going on throughout the whole "rape" bit is some seriously defense-mechanism joking. I mean, what are you going to say? I didn't report the rape because I still kind of liked the guy or I didn't really know it was rape or I was traumatized or I was scared or I was anxious about it or I didn't want to deal with it? When you're drunk in front of a crowd of people you don't know, doing an interview which is supposed to be a comedy show? Come the fuck on. It's like suddenly Lizz Winstead wanted them to get all earnest talking about their sex lives and how they feel about rape, and they just weren't going for it. And it's clear that they're reacting against this notion that women are in perpetual danger of being raped, as you can see when Moe says "it's like you never know, and you have to be on guard at all times...it's like the war on terror." She kind of has a point.

Then, Winstead gives away her real reason for asking the question, which is that she thinks that by talking about their devil-may-care sex lives, they are encouraging women to do things that might be unsafe: "When a blanket message gets out in the world that it's okay to have this one kind of amazing lifestyle, because it's always going to be safe for everyone because you've been really fortunate enough not to experience "that guy," I just think there's some kind of middle ground to be had about how to be this really free sexual being and how to realize that we don't live in a world that makes it completely free to be that person." (2nd clip at 3:50).

That's bullshit. Moe and Tracie are not sending out a "message" about sex, and they're certainly not sending out a message that what they're doing is "safe for everyone." How the fuck would they even do that? It's like Winstead wishes that they would keep writing about their sex lives, but make those stories replete with caveats about how what they are doing could have been unsafe or it was dangerous or they have regrets or "don't try this at home."

I don't think such caveats are necessary. And I think regarding Moe and Tracie as "role models" for millions of young women is stupid. They're role models in that they manage to make a living writing about their opinions on the internet. Which is an awesome thing that I wish I could do. They're not role models because they drink a lot and have unsafe sex with people. To compare Moe and Tracie to football players who don't want to be role models is absurd; they're writers who happen to be "cool," not national figures in revered occupations, and I have seen no evidence of people desperately wanting to emulate them.

When all is said and done, I feel for Moe and Tracie. They were blindsided by a serious discussion when they were drunk and thought they were on a comedy show, and they acted defensively and made themselves look stupid and flip. And it was clear they didn't have much experience having serious discussions. The characters that they play on the internet are really not about giving earnest, heartfelt opinions, and they clearly don't have much experience being forced to articulately argue about serious issues on the spot. Would I have done better? Probably, but only because I've argued about these very same issues dozens of times before and I have my arguments honed. Give the chicks a break.

Skirt up, and Sober up while you're at it


posted by Sybil Vane
Insofar as anything that involves bloggers is a Big Deal, there is a Big Deal happening about two Jezebel editors who appeared on Thinking and Drinking. The show is hosted and created by Lizz Winstead, who was a co-creator of The Daily Show, blogs at HuffPo, does a lot of cool things, etc.

So the two guests, Moe and Tracie, are clearly wasted during the show and say increasingly ridiculous things feminism, women, men, and rape. E.g. - Tracie on not ever having been raped: "I think it has to do with the fact that I am, like, smart."  Moe: "It seems like in terms of bad experiences, that you have the worst ones always seem to be in countries where sex is not accepted. That is the good thing about New York, I've never had any problems with anyone here."

You can watch excepts of the thing, as well as read Lizz Winstead's reaction, here at her HuffPo post. (You can also read the official Jezebel reaction here, and Tracie's reaction here.)

Winstead's reaction is moralistic and over-the-top. She's understandably pissed at these women and feels alienated by them. I get that; I feel alienated by them. I feel like they sound like idiots. Winstead's alienation is more dramatic than mine, I think, because she is at several moments during the interview working to exacerbate a generational feminist divide (and the interviewees aren't helping with their declarations of not being oppressed). I am mostly alienated because they sound like offensive idiots.

I do feel irritated that Weinstead lambasts them for "not understanding the influence they have over young women" and touts her own "responsibility to hold these women accountable." It's condescending at the same time that it suggests young women are supposed to be consistent bastions of feminist idealism, which is another version of moral purity. I mean, the show is Thinking and Drinking, right? One expects some irreverence. 

And yet. This version of irreverence on display in Moe and Tracie's sloshy words is more accurately described as antifeminist victim-blaming.  And it's wholly cringeworthy. And maybe it needn't be taken as a statement about the shortcomings of 3rd wave feminism, or even of these two women. But it makes me gag, nonetheless. And, I don't know, I don't want to make any big proclamations about it because unlike Lizz Weinstead I don't think I'm responsible for bitching them out, and I am sure they are catching shit all over the place. So I guess I mostly want to use the opportunity to ask what, if any, *are* the responsibilities of the women in this situation? And how fucking sad is it, you know? Call me humorless, but man, this bummed me out.

Labels: ,

Update: Diplomacy Works


posted by Sybil Vane
I feel indulgent updating here on this situation, but a few of you have emailed asking, so, screw it, I am indulging.

I had a long talk with the other mom, the "Decreeing Mom" as she was called in the other thread, a few nights ago. I was prepared to have an aggressive knock-down about it, but could hear in her tone that she really wanted to have a conversation. So while I told her frankly that I don't share her objections about the presence of our nanny's son, and I strongly objected to the demands she was making of the nanny, I also worked hard to legitimate the possibility that she was entitled to be concerned about different things than I. She explained repeatedly that she had worked very hard to present her concerns to the nanny in a way that did not impugn the nanny as a parent, to which I responded over and over, in measured ways, that I didn't really think any presentation, no matter how nuanced, could avoid such an implication.

I explained how much the nanny means to me and Mr. Vane and how much it means to us to be part of a work relationship wherein a woman can both support her child and be with her child, and that for those reasons among others, I could not be her ally in this. Finally, I emphasized that I feel secure enough in my parenting, my daughter's environment and networks, that I don't worry about all the things she is exposed to that I may not love. 

She thanked me for the conversation. Next morning, she informed the nanny that she no longer felt concerned about the son's presence and was sorry she had been inflexible about it. The Decreeing Mom later told me how much she appreciated our conversation and that it helped her realize she was short-changing her own parenting (this last bit is really annnoying as a central point since the real issue was more that she was being a self-involved bitch, but whatever).*

So. We are still looking for a different family to share our nanny with because of this and other issues, but for now the peace is maintained and I feel *so* relieved. I ended my phone conversation with DM feeling like a bit of a wimp because I didn't fight an out-and-out battle on the nanny's behalf. But the outcome reminds me that while kickin' ass and takin' names may be more of the Bitch Collective's way overall (it's on our business cards), diplomacy, as was suggested by a few commenters, can also make shit happen.

*The other noteworthy thing here is that even mothers who are acting self-important and superior about their kids are insecure about their parenting. We are all insecure about our parenting and would do well to remember as much.

Labels: ,

Monday, July 07, 2008

Heroines of last week


posted by bitchphd
Remember the girls in Massachussets who supposedly had a "pregnancy pact"?

By now everyone's probably heard that the scandal has turned out to be bullshit. Quel surprise.

Anyone with half a brain suspected all along that the real deal was that some young women who were unintentionally pregnant decided, like actual responsible human beings!, to form a mutual support group. See, e.g., this article from Salon: What's so wrong with a pregnancy pact? Because, duh, all parents need support, especially with young children; and single parents--mothers and fathers--need it a lot more than parents who are coupled up, what with not having a built-in support person right there in the house with them. So you know, if you're single and pregnant and you know other people who are single and pregnant, forming a support group like that is a fucking brilliant--and highly responsible--thing to do.

In short, the actual news item isn't TODAY'S TEENS ARE SO IRRESPONSIBLE OMG. Rather, it is PREGNANT WOMEN REALLY WANT TO DO THE BEST THING FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN, EVEN WHEN THEY THEMSELVES ARE PRACTICALLY CHILDREN, AND IF YOU REMOVE THE STIGMA AND GIVE THEM SOME ACTUAL FUCKING SUPPORT IT HELPS A LOT.

But that doesn't fit in a headline, and it doesn't give people an opportunity to feel morally superior.

I used to live in a town that had a downtown center for parents. It provided parenting classes, had a toy library, had regular playgroups, information about child development, etc. Mr. B. and I both took PK there occasionally for playgroups while he was a preschooler. It also had specific programs for teenage pregnant girls and probably helped them figure out how to apply for assistance, etc.--I don't know details because, duh, I wasn't a teeenage pregnant girl.

But I do know that I used to see these pregnant young women hanging out downtown together, near the parenting center and the bus stop where I'd catch my bus. And that these young women would *hang out together*. And yeah, it was clear that a lot of them had a little bit of a chip on their shoulder, and that hanging out with each other helped them brave that feeling of looking pregnant and young in public. And that, seeing them, I always thought how damn glad I was that the center was there to support them and help them meet each other, so they had that mutual support.

Every freaking town should have something like that. Every pregnant woman should be able to make a "pact" with her peers to support each other.

Because god knows, society isn't upholding any kind of social compact for most pregnant girls. They're on their own. Good for the ones who are smart and lucky enough not to have to be.

Labels: ,

Friday, July 04, 2008

GRRRRRR


posted by bitchphd
So Obama, in his masculine entitlement wisdom, doesn't think that "mental distress" is a good reason for a late abortion.

And judging by the comments over here, there are intelligent people who see nothing wrong with that. (Don't go troll Ari's and Eric's comment section, please; they're all civilized and shit, and they get it, even if sometimes their commenters don't.)

I just, grrrrrr. I know his voting record on abortion rights is a good one, and blah blah politics, and blah blah I sure as shit ain't voting for John McCain, and blah blah I still suspect he's a better candidate than Clinton would have been, but GRRRRRRRRR.

Senator Obama, do you trust women or do you not? I'd like to know.


Update

Some facts about third-trimester abortions, because I left this in the comment thread at EoTAW and what the hell, I should post it here too.

Third-trimester abortions are exceedingly rare (1% of all abortions). And it’s been shown that reporting errors actually inflate the number of third-trimester abortions in one state, at least, so they may actually be rarer than that.

You can see a breakdown of abortions after the sixteenth week (i.e., four months of pregnancy--early in the *second* trimeester) here. The law, following Roe v. Wade, already requires women seeking late abortions to satisfy their physician that they have a good reason for doing so; third-trimester abortions are not “on-demand” abortions by any means. There are only two clinics in the U.S. that provide them, and those are located in Wichita, KS and Boulder, CO--so that, obviously, the vast majority of women getting a third-trimester abortion have to travel quite a long way to obtain one. One of the (few) doctors in the US who’ll perform them testified that abortions after 26 weeks are due to “maternal risk, rape, incest, psychiatric or pediatric indications” (this is an anti-abortion site I’m linking, btw, and it points out that “pediatric indications” means, not fetal abnormalities, but that the pregnant woman is a child; the implication at the link is that that's not a good reason).

Obviously it’s the “psychiatric indications” that people gloss as “mental distress.” Non-suicidal “mental distress” might include things like: being worried about the effect of another baby on the child or children one already has–perhaps existing children are poor or high-needs or disabled; worries about abuse; having been under pressure from partner or parents not to abort; being in the process of a divorce; etc.

(Or, you know, just fucking freaking out because you haven't been able to get your shit and money together early enough and now your pregnancy is quite advanced and your doctor is telling you that he can't perform an abortion any more and you have to go to Kansas or Colorado to get one and you are sixteen or thirty-five, for god's sake, who cares, and you cannot have a baby right now for whatever reason, but probably your inability to get your shit and money together are good indicators of potential problems with becoming a mommy.)

I’m going to assume that most decent people can recognize that reasons like that aren’t frivolous, and are really best left to the woman in question. Nu?

Labels: , ,

Happy 4th of July!


posted by bitchphd
Jesse Helms is dead. God bless America.

(And if you need any reminding why being "respectful" of Helms is uncalled for, here 'tis:
Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) ran into Mosely-Braun in a Capitol elevator. Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries." He then proceeded to sing the song about "the good life" during slavery to Mosely-Braun (Gannett News Service, 9/2/93; Time, 8/16/93)
Nope. Can't feel sorry for his death.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Looking like an actual human woman? Boring!


posted by M. LeBlanc
So, I'm basically a huge fan of Jezebel, which is a fucking awesome blog. I have a girlcrush on virtually every blogger there, because they are foul-mouthed, smart, and funny as fuck. Plus, their lives sound more interesting than mine. My life is full of dealing with clients, writing shit, and being frustrated. Can you believe someone dinged my car yesterday while it was parked? But she left her phone number and name under my windshield. No note, though. At first I thought it was someone trying to hit on me. Okay, anyway, at Jezebel I saw this cover of the latest issue of Cosmo:



My first reaction: the fuck? What a hot picture of ScarJo, and what a horrible photoshop job they have done with it. She is so unbelievably smokin' already, why do they have to give her a fake-unnaturally small waist, that looks very weird and draws attention to itself, when she is so goddamn hot already? Why must the fashion industry remind us time and time again that even the hottest women are not nearly hot enough the way they are? For the record, some other pictures of Scarlett:

Hangin' out on the set of her new movie.


A staged shot with Woody Allen.


Hangin' on the beach (that's her on the right).


I selected shots where you can see her waist, but obviously there are zillions of pictures of her on the internet. Suffice it to say her waist in the Cosmo cover was significantly doctored to be all ridiculously slim and dramatic looking. And I think that's bullshit. I know that photoshopping is de rigeur in the fashion industry, but smoothing out skin and making boob shadows a little deeper is a lot different than making someone appear to have a waist that is damn near physically impossible for an actual person to have. And then, after doing all that highly academic ScarJo research, I read the Jezebel comments and discovered this nugget:
Also, just noticed, HER LEFT ARM IS SMALLER AND SHORTER THAN HER RIGHT ONE. Jebus.
And sure enough, it is. The fuck, Cosmo.

comments? also can i please get my shit together?


posted by bitchphd
1. I hear that there's some weird commenting problem? Having to do with needing to login using a gmail blogger address? I don't understand why, what with using Haloscan comments and all, but if anyone wants to email--I'd say comment, but apparently that won't work--(a) describing the problem they're having; and, hopefully, (b) explaining wtf is going on and how to fix it, I'd be most grateful.

2. Please tell me that I'm not the only person for whom the summer schedule is STILL completely disorganized. Not! Getting! Things! Done! At least not in anything resembling a well regulated or efficient manner. I have Things to Blog and Errands to Run and Bikes to Ride and Camps to Sign PK up for and Writing to Do and Gyms to Go to and a House to Clean and Plane Tickets to Buy and a Child to Herd. But all that happens is that the things that need to get done happen at the last possible minute, PK plays video games all day long, and I can't find the books that I want to write reviews of this week. GRR.

It's beginning to drive me batshit, and right now I'm even out of milk but had to do some (last minute!) writing earlier so I couldn't go to the grocery store and therefore I haven't yet eaten anything. Which is not helping.

Labels: , ,

I support Health Care for America Now

Comments are great; obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal.

We are legion
contact Bitch PhD
contact M. LeBlanc
contact Ding
contact Sybil Vane
contact Taddyporter



 

Need emergency contraception? Click here or here.


money to burn?


Wacoal bras & lingerie

Or, if your money is burning a hole in your pocket, here's Bitch PhD's
Amazon Wish List
(If you'd rather send swag to LeBlanc or Sybil or Ding or Taddy, email them and bug them about setting up their own begging baskets.)


Welcome New Readers
So Wait, You Have a Boyfriend???
Ultimate Bra Post part I
Ultimate Bra Post part II Abortion
Planned Parenthood
Do You Trust Women?
Feminisms (including my own)
Feminism 101 (why children are not a lifestyle choice)
Misogyny In Real Life (be sure and check out the comment thread)
Moms At Work--Over There
Professor Mama
My Other Mom
Moms in the Academy
About the Banner Picture



Archives