Interlude: Babes in Real Life

Clare:i’m too scared

i don’t want to die
i know i will die

Christine: uh, why?
Clare: [deep-fried burger joint] sounds too good
  it would kill me
Christine: a little death
  OKAY I’M DONE
 Clare: NO DON’T STOP
Christine: CAN’T STOP WON’T STOP
  ALL CAPS
  CAPS LOCK
Clare: why aren’t you ever in new york
Christine: SLANT RHYME
Clare: HOOKED ON CAPS LOCK
  FEMININE RHYME
  not really though
Christine: PATRIARCHAL PENTAMETER
Clare: WHAT IS THAT A THING HOW DO I KILL IT
Christine: Shakespeare in the park
Clare: poisoning shakespeare in the park
Christine: with a Shakespeare hologram like Tupac at Coachella
  kill the hologram
  make a science fiction movie about it?
  one that passes the Bechdel test
Clare: an all female cast
  IN SPACE
Christine: “SALLY RIDES AGAIN”
  too soon.
 Clare: ……….
  is it though??
***
Pop culture, rhyme schemes, and off-color jokes…  All in one charmingly beribboned package.
We could be less weird, but would it be as fun?

Related.

“It is well worth the efforts of a lifetime to have attained knowledge which justifies an attack on the root of all evil—viz. the deadly atheism which asserts that because forms of evil have always existed in society, therefore they must always exist; and that the attainment of a high ideal is a hopeless chimera.”

-Elizabeth Blackwell

&

That villain!

The New Criterion vs. Sluts, Pt. II

A few less trigger-y notes:

I do think it’s a bit presumptuous for James Bowman to tell me what nice girls are and aren’t. But then I arrived at this line, and I had to laugh and keep reading:
“What set the self-proclaimed but (one supposes) ironic sluts off in their perambulations was the hideous gaffe of a Toronto policeman […]”

I mean, perambulating sluts. It’s funny.

***

“The struggle to turn “slut” from dysphemism to euphemism thus seems doomed to the same realms of unreality inhabited by a right to act like a slut without being perceived as a slut. After all, women can hardly hope to “reclaim” the word for good rather than evil so long as they themselves continue to find it so deeply offensive […]

On the one hand, the protestors wanted to celebrate the behavior, and, on the other, to damn the language traditionally used to describe it. […]”

I think this is a bit of a misunderstanding. The slutwalkers weren’t trying to “damn” the word, they were trying to turn it into a neutral: “Yes, I’m a slut. I’m also blonde. Chicagoan. Female. Being a slut is neither positive nor negative, and thus should not be an invitation to molestation.”

It seems that the marchers and their sympathizers thought that the best way to relieve the term of its historically negative connotation was to run it all the way to the other end of the field — from “sluts are awful!” to “sluts are awesome!” They assumed, I suppose, that the two would eventually cancel out and the term would fall into the middle — “sluts are…eh.”

Good thought, but I’m not sure that’s how meaning works.

***

“Either way, the feminist line appears to be that any woman’s sexual behavior, so long as it is self-chosen, is OK as a corollary to the right to privacy, but also that it should be immune from negative comment from those holding a different point of view, even when she herself makes it public. Freedom of speech, like freedom of religion (as noted in this space last month), must take a back seat to the putative freedom of women from any judgment that might be passed by others, particularly on their sexual behavior.

Doesn’t such an expectation belong to just as much of a fantasy world as the slutwalkers’ belief that acting as sluts will either discourage others from thinking of them as sluts or encourage them to start believing that sluttishness is a good thing—or perhaps both?”

Even if someone is acting as sluttishly as the lowest scullery maid, they should have the “freedom” not to be raped. Resolved.

But where is the line prior to that? Am I allowed to hold negative views of someone else’s behavior or presentation, or is that too much of a slippery slope? Is it that I can have my own standards but just shouldn’t do or say anything with them? If so, what’s the point?

Presumably, the idea behind the “right to privacy” is that what I do is none of your business since it has no effect on you; thus, you should leave me alone and let me do what I want without poking your nose in and looking down it at me.

None of us live in a vacuum, though, and we never have. (Although some would say that we’re closer or further apart then we ever have been, which is a topic for some later post…) So in some way this right to privacy is unfounded. Or is it? In what areas is it valid?

This isn’t a new question, but I’m always interested in new answers.

I really like this picture

Elizabeth Hawkins-Whitshed, climbingBehold, Elizabeth Hawkins-Whitshed.

In 1907, she became the first president of the Ladies Alpine Club. She wrote seven books on mountain climbing and over her lifetime climbed twenty peaks that no one had climbed before. Under the name Mrs. Aubrey Le Blond she made at least 10 films of alpine activities in the Engadine Valley of Switzerland, including ice hockey at St. Moritz and tobogganing on the Cresta Run. She is probably among the world’s first three female film-makers, after Alice Guy and contemporary with Laura Bayley.

The more you know!

***

It’s an eyecatching combination of  angle, posture, and bustle.  She cuts quite a stately figure in such an unexpected place.


(thanks, TS)

Empowerment!

Celebrate Female Empowerment by Becoming a Sugar Baby

“Sugar Daddy Website Celebrates Women’s Month with an Empowering 2-For-1 Sugar Baby Offer

March is the National Women’s Month in the United States and the United Kingdom. This year, the focus of the National Women’s History Month will be on “Women’s Education and Women’s Empowerment”. As the only Sugar Daddy dating website that encourages Women’s Education and Women’s Empowerment through their dating relationships, SeekingArrangement.com is celebrating this year’s Women’s History Month by offering all female members 2-for-1 discounts on any Sugar Baby or Sugar Mommy membership package.”

This is right up there with the argument that strippers and burlesque dancers* are empowered because they’re owning their feminity and sexuality.  Oh wait.  They are?

 

*What makes burlesque dancers classier than strippers? Is there something I’m missing? The only difference I can see is that burlesque is what it’s called when it’s done by chic alt-grrrls and involves better costumes.

The Wisdom of Downton

We must have a care for feminine sensibilities. They are finer and more fragile than our own.”

-Lord Grantham

Since we’re doing quote analysis… This line is actually a bit ironic in the context of the episode, but I tend to agree with it on face value. Reflexively, it seems a bit anti-feminist. Discuss?

Also if you aren’t watching Downton Abbey,  START. IT IS AMAZING.

[imported this mini-post from my personal blog

Mushaboom? Or, “A House of One’s Own”

We all like to rant about how we won’t be forced into restrictive gender roles, how we’re more than our wombs, how marriage and motherhood aren’t necessarily the pinnacle of a woman’s life.

But then there are songs like these, and our visceral reactions.  There’s something incredibly compelling about the picture Leslie Feist paints — the kids, the man, the homestead, the hearth.

Discussion questions!

1) What makes this particular future  so attractive?   (If you don’t think it is at all, tell me why. I can’t promise I’ll believe you, though)

2) Why are we afraid or dismissive of said attraction?

Let’s fight it out in the comments.