Robert Jensen

On the future:

There is no easy route to a different future. In our laziness and greed we have narrowed the range of our choices and eliminated too many options for us to pretend there are easy solutions. I can’t predict the future, but I am relatively certain that the future will be hard. There is sorrow in coming to terms with all of this, but sorrow is not the same thing as despair. Sorrow need not lead to paralysis; sorrow isn’t the end. Sorrow is simply a part of life, which can help us understand where we’ve been and in what direction we must move.

Brilliance in the Southern Hemisphere

Via IBtP, HellOnHairyLegs.

Two posts jump out as favorites - this on high school, and this:

Between the towns and fast food restaurants lay sparely grassed country side which featured cows and the occasional stunted tree. I finally got to see the Australian countryside which has inspired so many dog-awful country ballads. If I lived there and attempted to farm such a desolate area I would make bad music too.

It was a fun trip; I really bonded with my family. I would point out the misogyny in song lyrics and be ignored. Heartened by this I would point out the racism in song lyrics and be ignored. Then, for an encore I suggested that a Guy A could be singing about Person X, not Girl B. It was a totally epic family vacation. I think the highlight was having my dad throw hissy fits and having his Giant Baby ego soothed by everyone else in the car. I’m practically doing cartwheels thinking about it all.

The week without the feminist blogosphere? It was awful, depressing and a trial on my sanity. The problem with interacting with sane people for hours is that you expect people in RL to act sane. I’ve never got the hang of RL; hopefully a decent tutorial will come out soon.

That sarcasm in that last paragraph is so dry I need a drink.

Piling on Althouse

Lots of the feminist blogs I read have an intense dislike for Ann Althouse, and it's been present since before I started reading them, so I have never been quite sure what the deal is.

I think I understand now, thanks to Stoller's post about the pink locker room. Check out her comments in this Inside Higher Ed piece:

Ann Althouse...“It just seems to me that you’ve got a long tradition at a big football school and you’re picking on something that’s going to make people think that feminists are very prickly and touchy and have no sense of humor or they don’t respect the male tradition of sports. I just don’t think that that’s helpful to the feminist cause to pick that battle,” said Althouse...

Translation: Feminists shouldn't object to things that bother men, because then men will think feminists aren't any fun.

What the hell kind of argument is that? And she's a law professor?

The last time I checked, feminism was about justice, not making friends with the boys on the playground.

Feminist Movement Appoints Man As Leader

I've shared at least one post that links to this bit from The Onion, but it's too good not to post on.

Some of the best satire I've seen in a long time:

"All the feminist movement needed to do was bring on someone who had the balls to do something about this glass ceiling business," said McGowan, who quickly closed the 23.5 percent gender wage gap by "making a few calls to the big boys upstairs." "In the world of gender identity and empowered female sexuality, it's all about who you know."

Author Courtney Martin on Feminism

While this is an otherwise straightforward column, I really liked this bit:

Educated choice: Both men and women need to have access to choices and, even more, they need to have the tools necessary to make good choices. It is not enough to just say that women should have access to abortions, for example. They also need to know all of their options and feel like they have a full understanding of the health risks and quality of life issues that each entails; they also need to have the economic provisions to make whichever choice fits their lives and values best.

Exactly.

The whole thing is a quick read, so check it out.

Feminism is Not Your Expectation

Feminism is Not Your Expectation.

Brilliant Post.

Jezebel

...is the name of blog a friend of mine has turned me on to. At first, I was pretty skeptical - it reminded me of Wonkette but with more celebrities. It also reminded me of the biblical character and the resulting stereotype.

However, once I read enough, it penetrated into my tiny brain that the folks behind Jezebel (who I have been assuming are mostly or all women) are pretty critically feminist.

I like that.

They are also incredibly snarky, which I can't help but laugh at.

Anyway, this post is both an endorsement of my new favorite blog and an excuse to post something I read this morning that struck me as being exactly right. This is an excerpt from a suppose IM conversation between two contributors:

YOUNGJEZZY: I'd like to see a study on how the percentage of people who identify as pro-life dwindles after high school. To me, in a lot of ways, being pro-life is just another way of being a "good kid." The reason they get so crazy about it is because it's seriously the only political issue anyone in high school feels directly affected by.

HOTELLOBBYIST: I mean, I think everyone (Code Pink ladies excepted) is more radical in their youth than they are later in life.

Holy crap, does that describe the folks I went to HS with. It was (assumed) common knowledge that lots of the folks in the STARS (Students Today Aren't Ready for Sex, which was a codephrase for abstinence-only) program were having sex. And drinking, but that's another post...

Though I have to say I don't think HS students feel really strongly about abortions because they are affected by it, but because they've been programmed to feel really strongly about it. At least in my experience.

In any case, good on Jezebel for pointing out the - again! - class nature of HS abortion/abstinence debates: "Good" (read: middle class or higher) kids don't have sex. Only poor (read: slutty) women have kids while in school.

Do I even need to say that I've met HS students with kids, and some of them have their shit together far more than their student leader counterparts? No? Good.

Stripping as Liberatory

I've never really liked or understood the claim that women who take pole-dancing classes and/or learn how to strip - often suburban, middle-aged, middle-class women - become more liberated or somehow more free.

Friend BZ shared this Jezebel link with me, in which a writer participates in one of the pole-dancing classes. Predictably, I thought it was kind of silly and very misogynist.... but now I think I have a possible answer to the claim:

Learning to pole-dance is liberating because it frees one from the constant pressure placed on women by the patriarchy to conform to the male gaze, to patriarchal definitions of what women are supposed to be like. Embracing one's own self as as sex object gives the illusion of liberation because it brings one into compliance with patriarchal standards.

I'm sure I'm not the first person to point this out, but I'm the first person I've heard make this point in relation to those bizarre pole dancing classes.

That One About Feminists and Sex That's Making the Rounds

The original item that's causing all the commentary is this:

Contrary to popular opinion, feminism and romance are not incompatible and feminism may actually improve the quality of heterosexual relationships, according to Laurie Rudman and Julie Phelan, from Rutgers University in the US. Their study* also shows that unflattering feminist stereotypes, that tend to stigmatize feminists as unattractive and sexually unappealing, are unsupported.

Imagine my surprise. Utter and complete shock, I tell you.

The best commentary on this I've seen so far is this:

It’s not complicated to figure out why feminists would have more fulfilling relationships and better sex lives. When you see your partner as a human being and not a means to an end, you’re going to pick a partner you actually like, and your partner is going to feel valued for who they are, not for what they can give you. When you think that sex is a mutually pleasurable event where both partners should be comfortable and fully satisfied and neither should feel guilty or mistreated, you’re going to have better sex. When you see women as full-fledged people with full human rights — not baby incubators, not “the fairer sex,” not “compliments” to your existence, not status symbols, not holders of sex, not property, not your own personal support staff — you’re going to enjoy their company more. And they’re going to enjoy yours.

I agree fully.

The Only Bush I Trust is My Own

During my recent Internet hiatus, I read a lot, just sort of whatever was at hand. One of the things I read - quickly, since it's a short book - was Periel Aschenbrand's The Only Bush I Trust Is My Own. It's a quick read filled with a no-bullshit attitude and a dangerous sense of humor. There are two passages I wanted to highlight from the book that stood out to me:

From page 190:

[Walt] Whitman said: I am large, I contain multitudes, and I wallow in my inconsistency.

Perfect. Internal coherency is overrated, anyway, not to mention nearly impossible to achieve. We are human, after all.

The second passage, from later on the same page, is Roland Barthes on what he termed The Fashion System:

Fashion is a social fact; those who exclude themselves "suffer a sanction: the stigma of being unfashionable."

I'd never thought about it that way before, but I think Barthes is essentially correct. I think that goes a long way towards explaining the tension in my style of dress: Just acceptable enough not to be noticed.

Anyway, grab the book some time if you can. It's pretty funny, especially the first section.

Shared Post Trends

Looking at my shared posts, apparently what I feel is important to share are posts containing horrifying stories about women who are being mistreated at the hands of the state, usually after being mistreated at the hands of sexist assholes males.

Given that the shared items list is meant to be a snapshot of what my daily reading is like, I'd say it's fairly accurate, and it may provide y'all with a shred of insight into why I am the way I am.

Has anyone noticed this, or any other trends with the shared items? Are there blogs I always share posts from?

Please leave a comment if you've noticed something.

A Downside of Mandatory Arrest Laws

Again from the NYT, I column about the consequences of mandatory arrest laws:

What the laws did not take into account was that eventually the victims of violence would come to realize that if they called the police, their abuser would certainly be arrested. And over the years, it turns out, that realization seems to have led victims to contact the police less.

The mandatory arrest laws were intended to impose a cost on abusers. But because of psychological, emotional and financial ties that often keep victims loyal to their abusers, the cost of arrest is easily transferred from abusers to victims. Victims want protection, but they do not always want to see their partners put behind bars.

In some cases, victims may favor an arrest, but fear that their abusers will be quickly released. And many victims may avoid calling the police for fear that they, too, will be arrested for physically defending themselves. The possibility of such “dual arrests” is most worrisome for victims who have children at home.

Oops. Then again, I don't think this will be much of a surprise to many of the feminist women I know. How about this:

But in states with mandatory arrest laws, the homicides are about 50 percent higher today than they are in states without the laws.

Damn. Problem.

I'm thinking that maybe this whole "mandatory" anything when it comes to law enforcement is a bad idea.

I'm also remembering that since police officers and military folks tend to be 50% more abusive than anyone else, maybe there's a far deeper problem here.

I Blame The Patriarchy.