i wanna link your hand (6/15-6/21)

how’s everyone getting along with female chauvinist pigs? i’m excited for discussions in a few weeks, and i’m hoping you all are too! so here we go, a few links to jog the feminist mind!

1. the washington post thinks feminism isn’t focused enough to remain successful. we’ve lost our focus by being too inclusive and interested in intersections with race and class. sounds like the debate brought up in not my mother’s sister, no? i don’t agree with the writer (she weeps for the marginalized white upper-class feminists, boo hoo it’s untrue), but it’s an interesting article nonetheless. i would love to hear what you all think.

2. why is it that even as household chores become more egalitarian between men and women, companies still choose to only depict women in their housework ads? an interesting article on a topic that greatly interests me (because jean kilbourne is still my hero).

3. was anyone else horribly offended by the jackasses over at fox news for their story on obama’s supposed terrorist fist jab? are. you. freaking. serious? and then they go and call michelle obama baby mama. hey racism/sexism, glad to see you’re still at home at fox news! for more, check out the newly launched michelle obama watch.

4. planned parenthood of minnesota, north dakota, south dakota have set up a blog so you can keep up with the latest news as the anti-choicers in south dakota are still attempting to curb reproductive rights.

5. a part 2 to a link i shared last week, this time it’s the female version of why we hate the kids in the uk. young women are gettin rowdy in england and damn it, that’s unacceptable! ladies must show self-control at all times! reign it in, amy winehouse!

6. here in new york there was a fashion meets finance event, where the men were in finance and the women were, well, fashionable. because every label-loving-arm-candy-greed-whore needs her a rich man. and that’s sad.

7. turns out that homosexual couples are more egalitarian than heterosexual couples. yet another reason to ban gay marriage, because no one wants equality in the household.

8. this is what a clinic would look like if mccain won the election. watch and consider what it means to support this man.

9. a cute short article reminding women that there is nothing feminist about male-bashing and that if we as women demand respect from men, we should therefore be respectful in return. amen!

10. let’s hope something comes of this: the ever-powerful who’s who of fashion met to discuss the skinny obsession on the runway. let’s try to promote a healthier image on the runways and in print, okay michael kors?

11. almost nothing makes me more upset than the topic of hymenoplasty. new york times did a piece on its growing popularity in europe, and feministing has great commentary about it:

“And it is not about being able to have sex or not, it is the way it makes a man feel on his wedding night to know that another man has had sex with her. It is the control of female sexuality pure and simple because if she did it before she has already been used by another man, she has become property of the one before, as opposed to the one she married. It creates that inexplicable fear and anxiety that is often the basis of misogyny.”

12. i only recently heard about this documentary, the education of shelby knox, earlier this week and i want to watch it now! it’s about a young girl who questions the (church-led) sex education in her small texas hometown and fights for change. anyone know where i can see it?? check out the trailer and be inspired.

13. a great article for our male readers on how to be a male entering into the feminist blogosphere. we’ve discussed this before, but this article is fab, but i’d love to hear what our dudes think of it. agree? disagree?

that’s all i’ve got for the week, i’ve been kind of busy entertaining my aussie houseguest, but i promise more next week! i hope you all thanked your fathers today!

and as usual, the lolcat on my desktop, the real reason i moved to new york, the website i’ve been meaning to read to help me with my LOST withdrawal, and my glorious debut on brooklyn vegan (well…kind of….the sixth picture in you can see my friend’s backs…and my feet….i’m short, ok? they blocked me. still counts.)

Advertisements

5 responses to “i wanna link your hand (6/15-6/21)

  1. that’s you in the gladiator sandals, right?

  2. nope, that’s my friend jess….i’m the mysterious feet to the left of hers that don’t seem attached to a body because i’m so damn short. i told you i was a bit….obstructed….

  3. There’s also a yearly tech-fashion conference put on by TechCrunch and PopSugar called “Geek Meets Chic” that operates on pretty much the same principle except that it’s rich nerds instead of rich bankers. In fairness, they’re waaaaaay less blatant about it than it sounds like this FMF thing was, but let’s be honest, the appeal of the event is pretty transparent. Unless there’s an appeal to meeting nerds for nerd’s sake … in which case, I’m failing to understand why I’m not fending off supermodels left and right.

    Here’s how TechCrunch presented it:
    http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/20/geek-goes-chic-were-partying-with-popsugar/
    “Expect lots of startup geeks commingling with, well, normal people. Who are most likely attractive. And can carry on a conversation.”

    And here’s how PopSugar presented it:
    http://popsugar.com/1059843
    “being married to a geek is a good thing so come and meet your own.”

    Regarding the article on being a male participant on a feminist blog, I thought it was interesting – though most of the concrete suggestions just seemed like pretty obvious common sense. “Don’t use gendered slurs” … “Don’t reflexively dismiss other’s experiences” … the most subtle discussion I thought was about the derailing of conversational threads with faux-relevant points.

    “Think about each comment before you send it. Is it adding something to the conversation? Is it really relevant? Be honest with yourself. If you’re really writing about something else, hit the backspace. A thread about rape is not the place to talk about false convictions. Not with a 6% conviction rate. A thread about street harassment is not the place to talk about genuine friendliness. These are not relevant. Women get more latitude than you to discuss tangents, because they’re never going to derail to such an extent with the ‘what about the men’ argument.”

    It’s pretty easy to slip into the frame of argumentation (even if you mean well) and end up talking about tangential issues as though they counter or subsume the discussion at hand. Personally I don’t really consider myself well-read enough in the area to do much more than pass along things that I find interesting, but it’s worth taking to heart even if you aren’t ‘confronting’ anything in a comment.

  4. P.S. I find the question of why women are so overwhelmingly the majority in housework ads really fascinating. In large part because like very little else in society, advertisements are almost pure reflection – they are so mindlessly profit-driven that they have very little room to harbor innate bias. On the flip side, however, the profit-drive is completely amoral and provides almost no filter what-so-ever to incorporating external bias.

    In other words, the reason that women are the only ones doing housework on advertisements is that for whatever reason, advertisers firmly believe that ads with women doing housework are more effective. The author challenges companies to create more gender-neutral advertising to fight these stereotypes – and while I completely agree that it’s desirable to fight outmoded stereotypes, I think that kind of misses the point. Companies aren’t out to fight any social agenda either for or against the patriarchy. They will follow the dollar regardless of where it leads them.

    So why, in a world where men are doing more and more of the housework, is it still most profitable to target exclusively women in the advertising? I don’t know the answer, but I bet it’s damned interesting.

  5. i understand that advertisers are in it to make money and sell us basic american ideals back to us, thus pandering to the lowest baser stereotypes and rarely make a leap into being progressive. you’re right, it is about the all-mighty buck. but correct me if i’m wrong, those with more socially-progressive gender-equal ideals are usually more educated (feminism only exists in academia, so we’re told!) and therefore usually have more earning and thus spending power. why don’t we play to them instead of the beer-guzzling chauvinist who didn’t graduate and tells his wife to get him another damn pizza? i continually find so many “I AM MAN” commercials so insulting and degrading and i wish things would change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s