Red Headed Femme

 "Women who get what they want get it because they refuse to settle for anything less."

“[I]f you seek in every way to minimise my firm beliefs by your anti-feminist attacks, please recall that a small dagger or knife point can pierce a great, bulging sack and that a small fly can attack a great lion and speedily put him to flight.”  ~Christine de Pizan

This actually happened to me once, several years ago.

Women bloggers call for a stop to 'hateful' trolling

I received the usual threats of rape and such, which I promptly deleted--Blogger (and Livejournal) is good for controlling your comments. I don't remember much about it, so it didn't particularly affect me. If I got it every single frakking day, however, like so many female bloggers do, I imagine I would feel quite differently. 

I don't want to come down on anyone if they decide to stop blogging because of it. Everyone reacts differently, threat levels may escalate, and you may have a husband and children to protect, or just become sick of the abuse. However, I have made a decision that I am not going to shut up, threats or no threats. 

Giving in to a bully only encourages them. 

The following is a reply to the Super Bowl Dodge commercial. I didn't see it myself, but there's a wonderful take-down of it here, where I also gakked the aptly named "Woman's Last Stand." 

(EDIT: Arggh---YouTube won't embed. Go here to view.)

(Note: Don't read the comments--for the most part, they're just putrid.)

Transcript:

I will get up and pack your lunch at 6:30 AM.

I will eat half a grapefruit for breakfast.

I will get the kids ready for school.

I will ignore your smelly loser friend who is crashing on our couch.

I will make seventy-five cents for every dollar you make doing the same job.

I will assert myself and get called a bitch.

I will catch you staring at my breasts and pretend not to notice.

I will put my career on hold to raise your children.

I will diet, Botox, and wax everything.

I will assure you that size doesn't matter.

I will be a lady in the street but a freak in the bed.

I will turn a blind eye to your ever-encroaching baldness.

I will humor your fantasy baseball obsession.

I will pretend not to notice when you cry at the end of "Rudy." (This is the only thing I couldn't understand--is this some tear-jerker movie I've never heard of?)

I will watch TV shows where fat, stupid, unattractive men have beautiful wives.

I will allow you to cheat on me with younger women.

I will see "Paul Blart--Mall Cop" twice. (I've never heard of this movie either, but even the title sounds idiotic.)

I will elect male politicians who make decisions about my body.

I will listen to Rush and tell you, "Yes, if there were a gold medal for air-drumming, you would win it." (With all due respect, Rush is a pretty awesome band. Neal Peart is one of the most erudite, well-read lyricists in the rock world. Read the lyrics for "Witch Hunt" if you don't believe me.)

I will get angry and you will ask if it's that time of the month.

I will watch Super Bowl commercials that depict men as emasculated and oppressed and I will feel so fucking sorry for you.

The Dodge guy sounds like a whiny-ass, entitled baby in comparison.

spacefem has written an essay about labels that I think provides a great deal of food for thought. With her permission, here are a few excerpts.

Because I think abortion should be legal, I think it's necessary sometimes, I don't want to live in a world where I get investigated for a miscarriage. But I also think abortion is a horrible thing that should be avoided. So I since I wasn't pro-abortion, I figured I was pro-life. Then one day a little voice in my head said to me, "Abortion is a hugely political issue right now, and your politics are about choice. Every time tell people you're not pro-choice and why, you're also telling them that pro-choice means pro-abortion and that's why you refuse to identify with it. You're telling them that you think pro-choice people love abortions and want to encourage everyone to have them, even though you know that's not true. You want to act like you're above all these labels because you don't need a flag to fly under, but you're hurting the things you care about most, just for your own image."

(snip)

I've always called myself feminist. My reasons have evolved but the label has always been there. And sure, if you really think we can face our culture's fucked up gender issues WITHOUT focusing specifically on women, you don't have to call yourself a feminist. And if you think that the situation for women in this world is just as bad as it is for men, you don't have to call yourself a feminist. If you think we should just work to improve the lives of everyone in countries where there's no consequence for treating women specifically like property, owning them, raping them, abusing them, and you think that we don't need feminism as a specific discipline to pay attention to those facts, then you don't have to call yourself a feminist.

I think this is where third-wave feminism has taken a wrong turn. At one point in time, the people in the movement knew there was a bigger cause than just themselves and their own choices, or even the fate of middle-class women in America. They knew the push for equality could, and should, benefit women across the globe, and they were willing to fight for it. (And yes, I know there was, and still is, considerable issues with women of color and how their concerns were pretty much ignored, but that doesn't mean the early feminists weren't largely united, with definite, tangible goals.)

Sadly, I don't see that anymore. The focus has splintered, and never more so than in this odious brand of "feminism" called choice feminism--which to me is just another word for sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring what is happening around you. Just because you have the freedom to make a so-called "choice"--to stay home with your kids, for example--doesn't mean the majority of women can afford to do so. Just because you have the freedom to make a so-called "choice" to become a stripper or a prostitute, doesn't mean the majority of women and girls aren't forced into that kind of life. Therefore, your trumpeting your "choice," it seems to me, is a slam in the face of other women around the globe, who have no such thing.

The old cliche, "United we stand, divided we fall," would seem to apply in this case. I think people should look outside their own restricted little circles, and see how their "choices" might affect others. We've gotten away from the idea of being our sister's keepers, and I think feminism has suffered for it-

This thread in the Livejournal Feminist community is not really about the cost of daycare and who bears it when both parents work outside the home, and neither is this comment. However, the writer reminded me of something that burns me up whenever I think about it.

It also works because good daycare in my county runs $1500+ a month. When you add up that, gasoline, lunches, work clothes, and other expenses related to full-time employment, I might clear $200-$300 a month. That's not empowering in the slightest. That gives me no power. My power has to come from other places (and fortunately, it does).

This, of course, is the hoary, outdated, insulting and sexist expectation that if the wife works outside the home, her salary should go towards paying the childcare.

That is patently ridiculous. If both parents work, the husband should contribute at least half the cost of daycare out of his check. If he earns more than his wife (which is still the case a great deal of the time) he should contribute proportionately more. Either way, the wife should not pay for daycare completely on her own. It seems to me this is a subtle form of punishment: dare to be anything but a mother, suffer the consequences.

I think issues like this (and at the heart of it, we're really talking about the division of power within the home) should be worked out long before children enter the picture. As in: If you don't help out, there won't be any children, ever. I think some things are worth issuing ultimatums on, and this might be one of them.

This is the kind of e-mail many feminist bloggers get.

( May be triggering... )

I haven't run into this yet, but if I do it will be promptly published. I won't buckle under to this kind of terrorist tactic. This is an attempt to intimidate and silence, using the tactics of misogynist males from time immemorial--rape and murder. I will not stand still for it. (I will also not stand for any comments from and about so-called "nice guys." If you as a man are truly "nice," you won't try to divert the discussion.)

And people dare to say we are in a "post-feminist" world.

I've stumbled on a new online magazine (new to me, anyway) that I would highly recommend to all. It's called Jezebel, and its front page is a treasure trove of articles to peruse.

The article I zeroed in on, however, is Faith Hill and the Disappearing Photoshop Crow's-Feet. This struck home for me as I subscribe to Redbook, and in fact the issue in question is at this moment in the (approximately three feet high) To Be Read pile on my nightstand.

To be frank, it is absolutely abhorrent that a thirty-nine-year-old woman, a woman a few years younger than Yours Truly, should not be allowed to photograph as she naturally is...crows-feet, prominent collarbones, untoned arms, moles and all. This woman has borne three children, had a successful career, snagged a fairly hot-looking husband (although, if I was going for a music man, Blackie Lawless of W.A.S.P. would be my penis of choice) and, in general, lived. She should be allowed to reflect that.

But then again, this is a one of the Big Seven (I believe it's seven--somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) women's magazines, after all. Their lip service to feminism is well known. And I suspect, after my subscription runs out (sometime in '08), Redbook will not be disgracing my TBR pile, either.

This post at Biting Beaver has an interesting discussion of "feminist cred" or lack thereof.

I don't know if I could be said to have honest-to-God "feminist credentials." I''ve never participated in a pro-choice rally or volunteered at a rape crisis clinic. At best, I've stirred up my tiny little corner of the Internet with some (hopefully) pithy commentary. I read a lot, ponder what I've read, and try to work the ideas that appeal to me into my life. I don't try to change the world, because I can't...but I do try to speak up in my limited circle of acquaintances, and maybe introduce a new idea or make someone think.

I don't wear makeup. I used to, years ago, but I finally got frakking tired of it. It's too much work and too much bother (even a tube of mascara is bloody expensive nowadays, and I never seemed to be able to apply it without smearing it all over my eyelids). I colored my hair as well--sadly, I've found out red hair does fade--but I gave that up too. Again, it cost too much, and I got tired of staring at my roots every six weeks to see what was peeking through. Not to mention that there are only so many zigzag parts you can put in your hair (kind of like balding guys and their combovers) before the silver glints can't be hidden anymore. I finally figured that if people don't know a woman my age is going gray, then screw you. I don't have time to worry about it.

I don't obsess about my weight, mainly because I have no idea what it is. I haven't owned a scale in years. I know I weigh a bit more than when I was at my skinniest, namely 123 pounds and all my skirts were slipping from my bony hips. But I must not have gained too much, because I can still get into clothes I bought fifteen years ago, and I tend to wear out jeans rather than outgrow them. I think I don't gain weight because I exercise, and I do so not with the goal of staying thin (or at least healthy) but with the intention of avoiding osteoporosis and heart disease as I get older.

However, I do shave my legs religiously. This is for one compelling reason--I do not like body hair. Certainly not on myself, and I'm not too fond of it on men either. I think competitive swimmers, with their entire bodies shaved and waxed to perfection, are the sexiest men around. If I could afford laser hair removal, I would have it in a heartbeat.

Yes, I listen to misogynistic hard rock--Guns n'Roses, Metallica, Aerosmith--but I also listen to the Indigo Girls and Loreena McKennitt. I don't like high heels because I can't frakking stand up in them, and I don't wear shorts even in summer because I've seen firsthand how sun-exposed skin turns into a cancer factory later in life. As a result, I am as white as any member of the undead. Deal with it.

I'm also a Christian. I know that's a very problematical statement for some, and I might get into it one of these days. All I'm saying right now is that Christianity and feminism are not mutually exclusive concepts.

So, given all that, do I have "feminist cred"? I have no idea. These little individual compromises might diminish my stature in the eyes of some. But as BB says, even so-called radical feminists compromise to some extent. Certainly that would depend upon what issues we're talking about. Rape and pornography would definitely fall under the definition of "you can't give an inch," in my eyes.

Still, feminism is not a faceless patriarchy-crumbling monolith. (Kind of like 2001's black slab, only pointing towards ignorant male jackasses instead of the stars.) We're individuals. We have quirks, faults and flaws.

That's the beauty of it, that we press on to equality anyway.

Okay. Yes, I was feeling sorry for myself yesterday. I was feeling sorry for the Duke LaCrosse victim--I can't imagine what she's going through. All the doubts, the accusations, the male entitlement whores who believe a black woman (or any woman) who, for whatever reason, chooses to work as a stripper, is obligated to submit to sex. I was upset over the athletic culture which thinks that just because these people bring money, attention and prestige to their schools, they should get away with anything.

I don't know if I could do it myself. Push ahead with the case, knowing what it would cost me. The revealing of my entire life, everything I ever did dragged through the mud, my decisions and motivations questioned and under suspicion. And yet....what's the alternative?

Letting these jackasses get away with it??

"Innocent until proven guilty," some cry.  Yet, I wonder if in rape and sexual molestation cases, this shouldn't be reversed. A law was recently passed here in Arizona shifting the burden of proof in self-defense cases. Now, instead of the victim having to prove they were attacked and justify their use of deadly force, the prosecution has to prove the intent was not self-defense, and the victim was not in fear of his or her life. In other words, if you are attacked the rightness of defending yourself--even with a gun--is automatically granted.

(Someone was complaining about this law as applied to domestic violence, but I wonder. It seems to me it could be used to protect battered women, by giving them the presumption of being able to defend themselves against their husbands. God knows a battered woman who feels she has to use deadly force to protect herself would certainly be in fear of her life--or her child's life--and in such a case, she would not be prosecuted. A sentence from the article bolsters this argument, if indirectly: "Critics said a person might get away with murder in a household dispute, for example, because the victim wouldn't be around to defend himself or explain why he was in the home." Emphasis mine. A Freudian slip, perhaps, reflecting the statistics of women being killed by their husbands or boyfriends?)

Now. Let's turn this around. (I know this will never happen--it's a thought experiment.) Instead of the Duke LaCross victim having to prove she was raped...how about if the men involved had to prove they didn't rape her??

I doubt if such a prospect would deter all rapists, but it might make some of them think. It would certainly show women we believed them, and would get rid of this "she asked for it" nonsense. I'm of the opinion that since men do the raping (and don't say anything to me about women raping--that subject is off limits), they should be the ones to control themselves. Men should be the ones held to the higher standard, not women. If men were automatically prosecuted for making unwelcome advances, you'd better believe they would think twice about their speech and actions.

As it is, the Duke LaCrosse victim is being raped twice. Maybe more than twice. Once in reality, once by the media, and once in the courtroom. I certainly wouldn't blame her if she chose to pack it in. But I hope she sticks it out to the bitter end, because only by the example of one woman, and one more woman, and one more, refusing to kowtow to male entitlement whores, will these awful problems be solved.

Here's a sad and horrifying article about the Kobe Bryant case that is just as relevant today. It's sickening to think that he walked, and the perpetuators in the Duke LaCrosse case are more than likely going to get off (if the case ever goes to trial).

You read stuff like this and you get horribly depressed. Despite all the advances made by feminism, society as a whole is still against women, and I don't know if that's ever going to change.

(Will now go bury my face in a shot glass.)