Tuesday, September 28, 2010
If you're wondering what I've been up to...
I've been monitoring the Shit Symone Does. Seriously...weird that I keep a blog about someone who is not me?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
I just turned this in for my English seminar tomorrow morning
Nietzsche is such a perfect example of filthy fucking misogynistic swine, and I mean swine in the sense not only of a farm animal that wallows in its own filth, but also in the context of having cloven hooves and being unclean for human consumption even when blessed by a rabbi. A quick waltz through Wikipedia reveals the varied responses feminists have had to Nietzsche throughout the years, but just because many critics seem to have dismissed his misogyny as a product of his time does not at all excuse the fact that he dedicates several sections of The Gay Science to thoroughly imprisoning women within the narrow gender roles he views appropriate for us.
In sections 59 and 60, for example, a woman is a “ghostly beauty” that “magically...touches me” and causes man to feel he is “not yet to be dead, but also no longer alive,” (71) as well as causing a man to “easily come to hate nature because of all the repulsive natural functions to which every woman is subject” (70). Women, then, are somehow simultaneously slaves to our nature and biological functions (of which men, clearly, have long since rid themselves) and yet still supernatural beings with an eerie power over the men who fall in love with them. Clearly, as Nietzsche states, this is largely because women live such simple and happy lives—undoubtedly because we are, by nature, the simpler sex—and because women are “silent, magical creatures whose happiness and seclusion [man] yearns for” (71).
Nietzsche also very kindly takes the time to point out a few other fascinating tidbits about the womanly sex, when we're not busy with our “action at a distance” and “moving over existence” (71), I mean. In section 63, Nietzsche very correctly mentions that all women are so fickle that even “warm and rainy winds...give women thoughts of love” (72), and in section 66, he enlightens his male readers with the insight that “all women are subtle at exaggerating their weaknesses...in order to appear as utterly fragile ornaments” (73). Actually, Nietzsche, it's men who have constructed the gender roles that dictate women behave as though they “are harmed by even a speck of dust” (73), and if a man were ever to say that to my face, I'd show him exactly how “utterly fragile” I am.
But to his credit, Nietzsche does have some kind things to say about women. For example, he applauds how we have “such calm confidence, like a cow” (73). Cows are, arguably, at least marginally less offensive barnyard animals than the swine to which I compared Nietzsche at the opening of this response, so I suppose he can have a point or two for that one. In section 68, Nietzsche also comes to our defense with an adorable little anecdote about how women aren't corrupting men, but that men are corrupting women—after all, it is men who control society, and the poor little womanly folk and just too fragile and ghostly to be capable of corrupting anyone! And he even tries to keep men from being too harsh with us, stating that “one cannot be too gentle towards women!” (75). Always looking out for the best interests of women everywhere, Nietzsche goes on to offer relationship advice to the “poor women” of the world: they “are always unsuccessful who, in the presence of the one they love, become restless and insecure and talk too much.” That's right, ladies! Nietzschean men want their women silent, secret, and with “phlegmatic tenderness” (76). Where Nietzsche really shows what a compassionate lover of women he is, though, is when he's discussing motherhood in section 72. “Pregnancy has made women gentler,” Nietzsche writes, “more patient, more timid, more pleased to submit” (75). More pleased to submit...or more likely to be forced to submit through centuries of oppression by male assholes like this guy? Yeah, clearly the first one.
In sections 59 and 60, for example, a woman is a “ghostly beauty” that “magically...touches me” and causes man to feel he is “not yet to be dead, but also no longer alive,” (71) as well as causing a man to “easily come to hate nature because of all the repulsive natural functions to which every woman is subject” (70). Women, then, are somehow simultaneously slaves to our nature and biological functions (of which men, clearly, have long since rid themselves) and yet still supernatural beings with an eerie power over the men who fall in love with them. Clearly, as Nietzsche states, this is largely because women live such simple and happy lives—undoubtedly because we are, by nature, the simpler sex—and because women are “silent, magical creatures whose happiness and seclusion [man] yearns for” (71).
Nietzsche also very kindly takes the time to point out a few other fascinating tidbits about the womanly sex, when we're not busy with our “action at a distance” and “moving over existence” (71), I mean. In section 63, Nietzsche very correctly mentions that all women are so fickle that even “warm and rainy winds...give women thoughts of love” (72), and in section 66, he enlightens his male readers with the insight that “all women are subtle at exaggerating their weaknesses...in order to appear as utterly fragile ornaments” (73). Actually, Nietzsche, it's men who have constructed the gender roles that dictate women behave as though they “are harmed by even a speck of dust” (73), and if a man were ever to say that to my face, I'd show him exactly how “utterly fragile” I am.
But to his credit, Nietzsche does have some kind things to say about women. For example, he applauds how we have “such calm confidence, like a cow” (73). Cows are, arguably, at least marginally less offensive barnyard animals than the swine to which I compared Nietzsche at the opening of this response, so I suppose he can have a point or two for that one. In section 68, Nietzsche also comes to our defense with an adorable little anecdote about how women aren't corrupting men, but that men are corrupting women—after all, it is men who control society, and the poor little womanly folk and just too fragile and ghostly to be capable of corrupting anyone! And he even tries to keep men from being too harsh with us, stating that “one cannot be too gentle towards women!” (75). Always looking out for the best interests of women everywhere, Nietzsche goes on to offer relationship advice to the “poor women” of the world: they “are always unsuccessful who, in the presence of the one they love, become restless and insecure and talk too much.” That's right, ladies! Nietzschean men want their women silent, secret, and with “phlegmatic tenderness” (76). Where Nietzsche really shows what a compassionate lover of women he is, though, is when he's discussing motherhood in section 72. “Pregnancy has made women gentler,” Nietzsche writes, “more patient, more timid, more pleased to submit” (75). More pleased to submit...or more likely to be forced to submit through centuries of oppression by male assholes like this guy? Yeah, clearly the first one.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Inequality is worldwide (and wordwide web)
I'm angry about gender inequality.
Actually I'm angry about all inequality, and for some reason I picked tonight to feel this anger so acutely. It all started, more or less, when I read an article this afternoon posted on one of my favorite blogs, which mostly focuses on what I like to call "non-news": celebrity gossip, relationship advice, fashion articles, and periodic real news updates on "women's issues" around the world. The blog has a definitive left lean and tends to cater towards an educated audience of working women and college students, and usually their rants against paycheck inequality or pro-lifers or objectification of women in advertisement provide me with some nourishing food for thought. Today, however, they posted an article entitled "20 Things Men Don't Know About Women," or something along those lines. I'm fairly certain the article was meant to be taken lightheartedly, but I found it so offensive and it made me so angry that hours later, I still haven't recovered from seeing red.
My issue with the article--other than the fact that the author was making gross generalizations about women, and the vast majority of items on the list did not even remotely apply to me (the first was about how much women enjoy peeing outside and in the shower. Um. No. Pretty sure I haven't done that since I was potty trained)--was that about half the things on the list involved the objectification of women in one way or another. For example, the author claims that one thing men don't know about women is that we all enjoy catcalls from construction workers, as long as they aren't too lewd. Another claim was that all women secretly want their guy friends to lust after them, so we deliberately dress up so that they'll want to sleep with us even though we don't want to sleep with them. Yet another was that all women hate waxing body hair, really, really, utterly hate it, but do it anyway so that guys will go down on them. Her bottom line, perhaps without intending it to be, was that women actually like to be objectified.
Catcalls aren't innocent, even when they aren't lewd--they're disrespectful, and designed to remind a woman of "her place." They aren't compliments, even if taken out of context they might sound like they are. A construction worker--even a female construction worker--would never whistle or yell at a man in the same way he would a woman, and for that and that alone, it's not okay. I put up with more catcalls than I can even count when I was in Morocco, and let me tell you, they were not flattering, they were not intended to flatter me, and I did not enjoy them in the least. They made me feel intimidated and nervous when I walked by a group of men, and I spent so much time wishing I were invisible so that strange men would leave me allow that I finally called it quits and left the country three weeks early...which was likely exactly the thing they wanted me to do. A catcall is intended to relegate a woman to the same position in a man's mind as a mostly-naked pin-up girl in a motorcycle calendar: an object to be drooled over and fantasized about, not a human being who would, at least in my case, be much more likely to confront a catcaller and give him a piece of my mind than to sleep with him.
As for the notion that all women want our guy friends to want to sleep with us even when we don't want to sleep with them, well, there's a very thin line between that and the fundamentalist notion that all women are hedonists who exist solely to tempt men into sin with our sexuality. The author of this article was implying that, yes, women do have a secret agenda and are trying to lure men into lust, that we're incapable of conducting a platonic relationship with a man without ulterior motives. Personally, I want my friends--male or female--to treat me as a human being, not a sex object; how on earth is dressing myself up and trying to subliminally hint that they should sleep with me working toward accomplishing that goal in any way? Not to mention the fact that the author is betraying a very low sense of self-esteem and self-respect on her part, and then imparting that same lack of confidence onto all women: it's not enough for a man to like you as a friend and enjoy your company and conversation; he should want to sleep with you, too.
And finally, the issue of the waxing. Having grown up in the Midwest with a prohibitionist prude for a mother, I'm somewhat uncomfortable discussing the details of genital grooming, so I'll treat this one in more general terms. The decisions you make about your body--hairstyles, clothing, even what you put into it--you should make for yourself, not for your friends, or your boyfriend, and certainly not because you want sex. I would never dream of changing my appearance by, say, getting a different haircut, because some guy wanted me to. Ultimately, the only one who has to be happy with my appearance is me, so why would I--as the author of the article claims--be willing to do something I really, truly hate, for the sake of someone else? To bring it back to precise terms, if a woman really hates getting Brazilians, then she should damn well stop getting Brazilians and instead just find a sexual partner who doesn't mind a bit of hair. Why on earth would you cost yourself time, money, and pain for something you don't even want to do? Because you're a woman, that's why--according to this author, anyway.
You know what makes me the most angry, though? Even more than ignorant articles like this that are posing as humor, even more than the fact that people think it's okay to write degrading and objectifying things in the name of humor, it's the fact that if I were to point out to someone how unprogressive and anti-feminist this article is, they'd berate me for being too PC and taking a humorous article too seriously. I'm angry about gender inequality, and articles like this--just as much as people like Sharron Angle--are upholding that very inequality, whether they intend to or not. But by expressing my anger, I suddenly am labeled a radical. It's okay to want equality, but when I express anger at the continued marginalization, objectification, and lack of equality that so many people face, or when--heaven forbid--I try to speak out and stop those things, somehow that makes me irrational. So yeah, I'm angry about gender inequality, but I'm even more angry at being told I have no reason to be.
Actually I'm angry about all inequality, and for some reason I picked tonight to feel this anger so acutely. It all started, more or less, when I read an article this afternoon posted on one of my favorite blogs, which mostly focuses on what I like to call "non-news": celebrity gossip, relationship advice, fashion articles, and periodic real news updates on "women's issues" around the world. The blog has a definitive left lean and tends to cater towards an educated audience of working women and college students, and usually their rants against paycheck inequality or pro-lifers or objectification of women in advertisement provide me with some nourishing food for thought. Today, however, they posted an article entitled "20 Things Men Don't Know About Women," or something along those lines. I'm fairly certain the article was meant to be taken lightheartedly, but I found it so offensive and it made me so angry that hours later, I still haven't recovered from seeing red.
My issue with the article--other than the fact that the author was making gross generalizations about women, and the vast majority of items on the list did not even remotely apply to me (the first was about how much women enjoy peeing outside and in the shower. Um. No. Pretty sure I haven't done that since I was potty trained)--was that about half the things on the list involved the objectification of women in one way or another. For example, the author claims that one thing men don't know about women is that we all enjoy catcalls from construction workers, as long as they aren't too lewd. Another claim was that all women secretly want their guy friends to lust after them, so we deliberately dress up so that they'll want to sleep with us even though we don't want to sleep with them. Yet another was that all women hate waxing body hair, really, really, utterly hate it, but do it anyway so that guys will go down on them. Her bottom line, perhaps without intending it to be, was that women actually like to be objectified.
Catcalls aren't innocent, even when they aren't lewd--they're disrespectful, and designed to remind a woman of "her place." They aren't compliments, even if taken out of context they might sound like they are. A construction worker--even a female construction worker--would never whistle or yell at a man in the same way he would a woman, and for that and that alone, it's not okay. I put up with more catcalls than I can even count when I was in Morocco, and let me tell you, they were not flattering, they were not intended to flatter me, and I did not enjoy them in the least. They made me feel intimidated and nervous when I walked by a group of men, and I spent so much time wishing I were invisible so that strange men would leave me allow that I finally called it quits and left the country three weeks early...which was likely exactly the thing they wanted me to do. A catcall is intended to relegate a woman to the same position in a man's mind as a mostly-naked pin-up girl in a motorcycle calendar: an object to be drooled over and fantasized about, not a human being who would, at least in my case, be much more likely to confront a catcaller and give him a piece of my mind than to sleep with him.
As for the notion that all women want our guy friends to want to sleep with us even when we don't want to sleep with them, well, there's a very thin line between that and the fundamentalist notion that all women are hedonists who exist solely to tempt men into sin with our sexuality. The author of this article was implying that, yes, women do have a secret agenda and are trying to lure men into lust, that we're incapable of conducting a platonic relationship with a man without ulterior motives. Personally, I want my friends--male or female--to treat me as a human being, not a sex object; how on earth is dressing myself up and trying to subliminally hint that they should sleep with me working toward accomplishing that goal in any way? Not to mention the fact that the author is betraying a very low sense of self-esteem and self-respect on her part, and then imparting that same lack of confidence onto all women: it's not enough for a man to like you as a friend and enjoy your company and conversation; he should want to sleep with you, too.
And finally, the issue of the waxing. Having grown up in the Midwest with a prohibitionist prude for a mother, I'm somewhat uncomfortable discussing the details of genital grooming, so I'll treat this one in more general terms. The decisions you make about your body--hairstyles, clothing, even what you put into it--you should make for yourself, not for your friends, or your boyfriend, and certainly not because you want sex. I would never dream of changing my appearance by, say, getting a different haircut, because some guy wanted me to. Ultimately, the only one who has to be happy with my appearance is me, so why would I--as the author of the article claims--be willing to do something I really, truly hate, for the sake of someone else? To bring it back to precise terms, if a woman really hates getting Brazilians, then she should damn well stop getting Brazilians and instead just find a sexual partner who doesn't mind a bit of hair. Why on earth would you cost yourself time, money, and pain for something you don't even want to do? Because you're a woman, that's why--according to this author, anyway.
You know what makes me the most angry, though? Even more than ignorant articles like this that are posing as humor, even more than the fact that people think it's okay to write degrading and objectifying things in the name of humor, it's the fact that if I were to point out to someone how unprogressive and anti-feminist this article is, they'd berate me for being too PC and taking a humorous article too seriously. I'm angry about gender inequality, and articles like this--just as much as people like Sharron Angle--are upholding that very inequality, whether they intend to or not. But by expressing my anger, I suddenly am labeled a radical. It's okay to want equality, but when I express anger at the continued marginalization, objectification, and lack of equality that so many people face, or when--heaven forbid--I try to speak out and stop those things, somehow that makes me irrational. So yeah, I'm angry about gender inequality, but I'm even more angry at being told I have no reason to be.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
So funny story...
I almost missed my flight out of O'Hare just now because I spent the
last two hours waiting at gate C7 instead of gate C5. They had to page
me before I realized the mistake.
last two hours waiting at gate C7 instead of gate C5. They had to page
me before I realized the mistake.
Airport Chinese food for dinner, which I figure is appropriate since I
spent the flight from Minneapolis/St Paul irritating the guy sitting
next to me by practicing Chinese phonetics for 50 minutes straight.
Sent from my iPhone
Saturday, September 4, 2010
I feel like a newb
Going through security--which was alarmingly busy, especially for
Hancock International Airport at 5:15am--TSA sent my backpack through
the machine, then I got preempted with the rest of my stuff in favor
of two full flight crews. That's something I've never had happen
before. And these guys were legit, they stripped down and went through
so quickly that they made me look dumb. Of course, as I'm standing
there waiting for them, one TSAer told me to go through the metal
detector, presumably to stay with the first half of my stuff that had
already gone through. As I'm about to walk to the other side of
security, another TSAer yells at me not to leave my "property"
unattended on the conveyor. Okay, that's all good in theory, but you
already sent one of my properties through and now I'm gonna have to
make a Sophie's choice and pick one of them to sacrifice to potential
terrorists.
Hancock International Airport at 5:15am--TSA sent my backpack through
the machine, then I got preempted with the rest of my stuff in favor
of two full flight crews. That's something I've never had happen
before. And these guys were legit, they stripped down and went through
so quickly that they made me look dumb. Of course, as I'm standing
there waiting for them, one TSAer told me to go through the metal
detector, presumably to stay with the first half of my stuff that had
already gone through. As I'm about to walk to the other side of
security, another TSAer yells at me not to leave my "property"
unattended on the conveyor. Okay, that's all good in theory, but you
already sent one of my properties through and now I'm gonna have to
make a Sophie's choice and pick one of them to sacrifice to potential
terrorists.
In other news, I appreciate that the TSA "expert traveler lane" sign
has an image of a woman. Gotta appreciate the little things...
Sent from my iPhone
A note on my taxi guy
I like this taxi guy. I really do. I discovered him last spring when
he got me out of a hard spot coming back to school from an impromptu
trip to Boston--my bus got into Utica on a Sunday after the last bus
back to Hamilton had already left, and I was dangerously close to
spending the night at the bus station (it was, of course, Valentine's
Day and none of my friends were willing to consider picking me up in
Utica a good alternative to a Valentine's date). Not to mention the
fact he charges half as much as the old Hamilton taxi companies
(except at 4am, which I call a fair deal) but is about ten times
friendlier and more accomodating.
he got me out of a hard spot coming back to school from an impromptu
trip to Boston--my bus got into Utica on a Sunday after the last bus
back to Hamilton had already left, and I was dangerously close to
spending the night at the bus station (it was, of course, Valentine's
Day and none of my friends were willing to consider picking me up in
Utica a good alternative to a Valentine's date). Not to mention the
fact he charges half as much as the old Hamilton taxi companies
(except at 4am, which I call a fair deal) but is about ten times
friendlier and more accomodating.
So I was pleased when he pulled up to my house this morning
in...what's that Kia van/SUV-type thing that's shaped like a shoebox?
One of those. He upgraded his crappy old mini van! Quite a posh
upgrade, too. It was a bittersweet moment; I'm glad to see my favorite
taxi guy doing well, but come on, Madison county, this is MY taxi guy--
I'mma need the rest of you to back off.
I should probably mention that these late night/early morning in-
transit posts are brought to you by my cousin's wedding, which takes
place in Minnesota this afternoon and requires me to catch a plane
from Syracuse at the ripe ol' hour of 6am. Thanks for that itinerary,
United Airlines.
Sent from my iPhone
Not a fashion trend I've missed
I just noticed my cab driver--who is charging me twice as much at 4am
as he would have charged at 4pm--is wearing jorts.
as he would have charged at 4pm--is wearing jorts.
Sent from my iPhone
You remember what I said about novice fliers dressing in too
comfortable a manner when flying? I should have added an exception:
when your plane leaves at 6am, requiring you to leave your house at
3:30am (also known as the time when everyone else is coming home from
the bars), it's perfectly acceptable for even the most experienced of
travelers to dress however she damn well pleases.
comfortable a manner when flying? I should have added an exception:
when your plane leaves at 6am, requiring you to leave your house at
3:30am (also known as the time when everyone else is coming home from
the bars), it's perfectly acceptable for even the most experienced of
travelers to dress however she damn well pleases.
Sent from my iPhone
Friday, September 3, 2010
I wrote commentary for the newspaper and all I got was this blog post about it
I'm not especially proud of this--actually, as soon as I finished it and sent it into the newspaper, I regretted having done so because it's not especially well-written--but whatever, I wrote it so now I have to own it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)