I’ve been really busy with school, planning this “surprise, we got married and didn’t tell you for a year” party, and trying to manage all the “wait, so you got married? When?” and the “Huh?” and the “…Wait, what’s your last name?” and the “WHAT THE FUCK?!” and the “wait, what?” questions, that I haven’t been paying much attention to the blogosphere lately. I have, however, thought of a million things to blog about later, when I have more time, and I’ve also read a couple of great articles that I would like to forward onward in the meantime.

Jos at Feministing writes about a new Kotex ad that makes fun of tampon commercials, but still can’t manage to say “vagina” once.

Shout out to the now-public husband, who’s started a blog where you ask for his advice about anything, and he gives it to you. Like Dear Abby, but modern and better. And it’s fun and anonymous.

An author on Feministing Community highlights how she is at odds with the frequency in which feminism is presented as a “members only” club to interested, but new women and men. I especially love this article because, as anyone who’s read other blog posts I’ve written previously would know, I’m especially interested in making sure that we don’t place obstacles in front of people who want to learn about feminism.

Oh my god. I can hardly contain my laughter. This is the best, most well-played response I can think of to the recent Supreme Court ruling.

This just in (why is the internet so full of hilarity today?!); check out A Trailer for Every Academy Award-Winning Movie Ever.

Jesse and I got married a year ago and kept it a secret from everyone we knew for a year. We informed most people by mailing them an invitation to our one-year wedding anniversary. The reaction was certainly mixed among family and friends, but overwhelmingly, everyone seems happy for us (once we got them to believe it wasn’t a joke). I wanted to share this because the story itself it cute and adorable.

Check out the officiant’s LJ post about it here for a nice summary of the event. I announced it at work today, and the reactions were hilarious and interesting enough that I’m sure they’ll find their way into an upcoming post about men and women announcing to their communities that they’re married. Not that announcing a marriage a year after it occurred is exactly a common societal practice…

Keeping a secret like that for a year was fucking hard. I’m relieved to finally be able to say it out loud now

So, all over the news these days are blurbs about Obama’s recent physical. Being especially over-discussed was a bit about urging Obama to practice moderation in drinking.

The Guardian, somehow or another (are privacy laws waived in Presidency or something?) was able to obtain the actual report:

Summary
The President is in excellent health and “fit for duty”. All clinical data indicate that he will remain so for the duration of his presidency.

The President completed all age-appropriate screening tests, to include colorectal cancer screening. A CT-colonography was performed with normal results.

Recommendations
Follow-up colorectal cancer screening is recommended in 5 years for routine colon cancer screening.

Continue smoking cessation efforts, a daily exercise program, healthy diet, moderation in alcohol intake, periodic dental care, and remain up to date with recommend immunizations.

Continue modified exercise regimen, and lower extremity muscle strengthening program, for occasional left patella-femoral pain secondary to chronic tendonitis.

Recommend dietry modification to reduce LDL cholesterol below 130.

(emphasis mine)

Well, that looks pretty obvious. Every other recommendation listed around “moderation in alcohol intake” were other things that he was clearly already doing.

And anyway, if the President of the United States wants a damn beer, I think he should be allowed.

From amandaw at FWD, arguing that feminism objectifies women:

You’ve heard the term “choice feminism” right? Usually used derisively by a person who is arguing: Just because a woman makes a choice does not make it a feminist choice, we have to be able to examine issues on a systemic rather than individual level, some choices that individual feels are good for them are actually going to be bad for the group as a whole and even bad for that individual when systemic issues are taken into consideration.

Here’s what annoys me about this argument. It always comes from the perspective of a white, cisgendered, currently nondisabled, middle-to-upper-class, heteronormative, and otherwise socially privileged person.

I understand that feminism has historically been a club for white, middle-class, able-bodied women. This is a very valid criticism to make. Whether the perspective of the “white, cisgendered, currently nondisabled, middle-to-upper-class, heteronormative, and otherwise socially privileged person” is valid, though, is another issue entirely.

She goes on to list many of the common feminist talking points to illustrate how they are not representative of all women:

* Women have been historically locked in their homes tending their houses and families, and larger society pushes against women’s ability to participate in the workforce, and women should participate in the workforce at the highest level possible.

* Women are oversexualized, and that sexualization takes specific forms, such as high heels, lipstick, makeup, dresses.

* Women are stereotyped as demure and submissive, soft and giving, caring and intuitive.

* Women are forced into roles as family carers, encouraged to have as many children as possible and to be the primary carer to those children, stereotyped as having special natural ability to raise children.

I know the rebuttal to each of these. Many women are already in the workforce and are single parents who can’t afford the luxury of staying home and keeping house; rejecting that version of sexuality is dangerous when you consider that many trans women need to dress ultra femme in public for their safety; some women are forcibly sterilized or forced to abort, or encouraged not to have children because of a disability. And those are all really… correct. But, again, are we arguing that we should keep this in mind and incorporate all of this into our social justice framework, or are we arguing that really, it’s time to stop caring about women who can’t get abortions when they need them because other women are forced to, or that it’s offensive to constantly discuss the, uh, constant ways in which virginity and “purity” and sexual shame are forced upon little girls from childhood because other women aren’t considered sexual beings? Really? Those other things aren’t important anymore? I don’t buy that. And I would like to believe that that’s not what’s being said, but she just keeps making it so binary during the entirety of the rant. Comparing one oppression to another, criticizing one because it’s focused on more widely, championing the other because it’s under-represented.

Back to the specifics examples, though, housekeeping or being a homemaker and parent is still seen as something that primarily women do, and that primarily women are seen as qualified to do. Women are slowly being less subject to criticism for joining the workforce rather than staying at home with the kids (if she was afforded the luxury of that choice), but homemaking or being a stay-at-home parent is still seen largely of something that only a woman can, or should, do. This is still misogyny for a variety of oft-cited reasons.

Women are still overly sexualized, and those forms of sexualization are still represented as high heels, short skirts, lipstick, blond hair, etc. Those are still the items of clothing that are used against female rape victims, and causes them to be doubted and blamed for the violence committed against them. Women are still seen as demure and soft, and men who are seen that way still get beat up. Women are still harassed by friends and family about starting families, disproportionately to men, and are often passed up for promotions, for example, based on their “family status,” while men are not.

Actually, sensible shoes and baggy desexualized clothing might be clearly problematic for a different set of women who have been historically deprived of their right to any sexuality. Actually, full-time participation in the paid workforce might be clearly problematic for a different set of women who have already been working outside the home for centuries and have historically been denied the right to raise their own children. Actually, being aggressive and dominating or even merely appearing assertive and self-confident might be clearly problematic for a different set of women who are culturally typed as bossy, loud, demanding and unyielding and rarely read as anything but.

She keeps painting these issues that women face– the ones that are commonly associated with generalized “misogyny,” and the ones that are commonly classified as as rooted in “poverty” or otherwise classified– and attempting to make one outweigh the other in terms of what’s more oppressive. “Oh yeah? Well I wish I got to see my kids all the time!” That’s called the Oppression Olympics, which is something we should all be striving to avoid trying to participating in.

These are all still issues that still oppress women. These are still issues that we’ve only just barely scratched the surface of in current public discourse. You don’t get to take issues off the table because they don’t affect you, anymore than I or anyone else can. It’s still feminism, and it’s still important.

It’s been a long time since I’ve posted about Bloody Marys! I’ve been broke, but thanks to tax returns, I recently sampled the Bloody Mary at Cuzzy’s in the Warehouse District.

The drink was very salty, with an extra-thick salt-and-pepper rim. It was garnished with a small pickle spear and an olive. It was simple, but the saltiness gave it a strong enough flavor that extra garnishments weren’t necessary. I added tobasco, and it made it spicy enough for me. It was perfectly thick and a little randomly chunky.

The beer back was negligible, and I didn’t finish it. Sometimes beer in the morning is just kinda gross.

Overall grade: B+

I wonder what would happen if we abolished marriage and replaced it with “family units.” Any 2 or more persons can enter into a single family unit. Two men, two women, a man and a woman, an adult and child, two adults and one or more children, three generations of people.

It sounds like it could get complicated quickly. What if we added tax benefits? For every person registered with a family unit, they would get a tax deduction or break or… whatever. Whatever the benefits to being married currently are. Including, of course, hospital visitation rights and other things.

If someone wanted to leave a family unit, and join another one, for example, they could “divorce” their current family unit– leaving the stigma of what is currently known as “divorce” behind. A family unit could dissolve because everyone started to head their own family units, or a family unit could dissolve because of irreconcilable differences. Two family units could merge after a wedding, too, rather than separating.

This would resolve the issue that anti-gay marriage people have with the “meaning of marriage” being something about a family unit, anyway, because no one can deny that nowhere near all of our current families has a mom, a dad, and 3 biological children. It would automatically allow for polygamous relationships to be legally recognized.

What are some of the inherent flaws of this sort of proposal? I’m sure a lot of people would be annoyed with the idea of getting rid of the concept of marriage = man + woman, but seeing as how one man and woman can still be considered a legal unit, they aren’t being prevented from anything by being “traditional.” And perhaps currently married folks would be “grandfathered in” to the change and not be required to re-register or obtain a “family unit license (?)” unless they wanted to register additional people with their unit.

Hmm.

Update: Looks like this is already being considered in other forms. The difference is just how many people can be included in a “union” or “unit.”

I’ll warn you now this post mentions rape. Tread carefully.

Okay recently I’ve been milling over two posts by Pelle Billing about male disposability. Well one thing that I’ve noticed about male disposability is that it can and sometimes does lead to the belief that a man’s life is worth less than a woman’s and from there can lead to the impression that violence against woman is somehow worse than violence against a man.

Case in point I was watching an old western movie called “Five Savage Men”. Basically five bandits rob a stagecoach that is carrying a load of gold. When they catch up to it the men are killed immediately and after resisting one of the two women was killed (one of the five bandits was actually on the coach meaning it was an inside job). The other woman was taken hostage. I noticed that as the men on the coach were killed I really didn’t feel any concern for their fate. However when the one woman was killed I suddenly cared about the fact that they killed a woman.

After taking the other woman to their camp and after attempting to escape she was chased down and gang raped by the five bandits. Again I felt the expected concern for such a situation. Well like with the killing I began to wonder how I can see a crime be committed against a man and a woman but somehow think that the crime against the woman is somehow worse.

At first I was thinking that desensitization was the answer. On the whole when it comes to seeing murder on tv/movies I frankly I see men killed more often than women.* So maybe the reason I felt more when seeing a woman killed than a man was because I had just gotten used to seeing men killed left and right. Well that really doesn’t fly because of two reasons. One even though they aren’t killed quite as often as men there are still A LOT of women killed in movies and television. The second reason that thought fails me is that when looking at a crime in that happens to women more often than men I still feel more concern for the female victim.

Let’s talk rape for a bit. After being taken to the bandit camp the second woman was gang raped. Now there is no question that when it comes to movies and tv the majority of rape victims are women. Now going by the thought of seeing it so often that it no longer strikes a cord it would stand to reason that seeing a woman raped on tv or in a movie would not illicit much of a response like my reaction to seeing men murdered. But that is not the case. Even comparing that rape scene to say the one in American History X it feels odd to react that way.

For the scene in “Five Savage Men” imagine a camera laying on the ground the five guys doing pushups with their faces going up and down into the camera. The scene ended with showing her unconscious and tied to the ground to five stakes (one on each wrist and ankle and one with her hair tied around it). In American History X two guys are holding him face first against the wall while the rapist penetrates him and you could see everything except the actual penetration itself (I mean as in the four men in this scene were actually naked and the rapist was at least forcefully grinding against his victim giving the allusion of sex). That scene ends with the victim lying on the ground crying with a pool of his blood washing down the drain (it happened in a prison shower). But even with the differing depictions I had more of a response to the scene of the woman being raped.

So I’m left wondering why whether the crime is more likely to happen to a man or woman I’m still inclined to have more of a response to the woman victim.

Any ideas?

* – No I am not trying to say/insinuate/imply or whatever that women are not killed that often in entertainment but frankly men are killed more often. If you look at most of your shows and movies that involve death you’ll see it. In fact the movie that made me think of this is a western. I dare you try to say that women are killed more often that men in westerns.

http://numberedhumanindustries.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/ending-%E2%80%9Cdon%E2%80%99t-ask-don%E2%80%99t-tell%E2%80%9D/

The post itself is worthwhile, its also inspired me to research contemporary and historical GLBT figures outside of the humanities and arts. Any recommendations?

N

Only, I’m going to talk about the ones I did like.

In this commercial, you have a group of women meeting for their book club. The host’s husband comes downstairs and says goodbye, as he’s off to do something more fun than a girly book club, until he sees that the ladies have Bud Light! So in order to get some Bud Light (these commercials act as though these people can never just go get their own), husband sticks around and pretends to be into the book club. Oh, look at how much he’s willing to sacrifice — acting like a girl! — to get some Bud Light! Must be great beer… Not to mention, he’s got a one-track mind, like all men. Beer, and ladies! Those are the desires that drive him, he just can’t help it.

That’s the obvious, run-of-the-mill sexism. What I liked was that the women were not portrayed as superficial airheads, and they were drinking beer. Not beer that was blatantly advertised as “girly,” not beer that over-emphasized it’s lack of carbs or calories, but just beer.

Beer companies never advertise to women! Ever! It’s as though they believe that women are naturally born to loathe anything that doesn’t taste like a strawberry filled with high fructose corn syrup.

Anyway. This pleased me.

And the next:

Once again, Bud Light FTW! I have exactly the same thing to say about this one as the last. There’s the constant reinforcement that men are reckless, one-track-minded idiots, but there’s a non-condescending, non-degrading portrayal of the women in the ad. The woman is the one who is trying to get them off the island, and succeeding in her specialized knowledge of electronics, and she’s not portrayed as un-feminine (to be un-feminine, of course, would mean that she is unattractive and unpleasant).

Well, thanks, Bud Light, for noticing that not only are women not stupid, and not only do we not exist simply as an object of drunk men’s desires, but that we also like beer!

…And next year, can you please try to show men being at least halfway human, as well?