On the recent community firestorm...

As you may have noticed, there was a bit of an internal fight in the feminist blogging community these last two weeks. It started with this post and ended, as much as it could, anyway, with an apology from the authors. If you missed it (and you very well might have - more proof of how wrong it was!), it was basically an attempt to show how the big feminist blogs exploit little blogs/WOC. A couple of the best analysis/rebuttals can be found here and here.

I really wanted to say something about the whole mess, but just don't feel I have anything to add. I think I'll play a song instead:

Target Women: Oscar Ex-Plosion

I promise that besides this and my Kate Winslet post to not talk about the Oscars anymore. It's over, I know. It's been almost a week. But who can resist Sarah Haskins?

Rock on Obama with your bad self!

From The Washington Post (and many, many other sources), Obama Administration to Reverse Bush Rule on 'Conscience' Regulation:

The Obama administration has begun the process of rescinding sweeping new federal protections that were granted in December to health-care workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The Office of Management and Budget announced this morning that it was reviewing a proposal to lift the controversial "conscience" regulation, the first step toward reversing the policy. Once the OMB has reviewed the proposal it will be published in Federal Register for a 30-day public comment period.

[...]

The new rule empowers the federal government to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable. The Bush administration adopted the rule at the urging of conservative groups, abortion opponents and others in order to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

Women's health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists and others condemned the regulation, saying it would create a major obstacle to providing many health services, including family planning, infertility treatment and end-of-life care, as well as possibly a wide range of scientific research.

The move marks the latest challenge to the Obama administration's attempt to find more of middle ground on issues related to abortion. President Obama has said repeatedly he hopes those on both sides of the issue can work to reduce the number of abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies and by offering support to women who do get pregnant and want to continue their pregnancies.

I know there's still a whole process to go through, the 30-day comment period, etc., but...Yay.

Privileged

So having just watched what according to reports might be the last episode of Privileged, I thought I would share with you Fourth Wave-ers. I may be one of the only people watching this shiny bubbly series that started in September on the CW. The show is certainly part eye candy, but it is also smart and has a lot of heart. In this week's episode teenager Sage is led to break-up with her Catholic boyfriend because he refuses to go to Marco's (the fabulous and hilarious chef at Sage's house) wedding to his boyfriend. On what other show would the topic of gay marriage be grounds for a break up where rich teens are involved (probably not Gossip Girl)? I have to say this week's episode really reminded me why I've been DVRing and watching all season. Plus Kathy Griffin was appropriately cast as the wedding planner.

The show is about Megan, an Ivy-league grad who wants to be a writer, but has yet to find her dream job. After she is fired from the NYC tabloid she was an assistant at, she moves back to her home town to tutor a pair of wealthy sisters who lost their parent's when they were young. Rose and Sage start out a pair of spoiled rich kids, but as the series has progressed their characters have developed, and their complex relationship has become one of the most interesting on the show. I like the show because it it smart and funny, and as Entertainment Weekly pointed out, while it hasn't really replaced Gilmore Girls, it does bring the banter. Here is their list of reasons the show should stay on the air:

1. Joanna Garcia
As tutor-to-the-rich Megan Smith (pictured, left), Garcia plays cynical and sunny, pretty and goofy, dark and funny. Think Lorelai and Rory Gilmore in one, with a little Veronica Mars on top.

2. The Gilmore vibe
Nothing can replace the Girls, but Privileged comes close, with heartfelt family stories, endearing side characters (Allan Louis' chef Marco -- pictured, right -- has his own series' worth of drama!), and sparkling banter.

3. The Twins
Megan's wealthy charges, Rose (Lucy Kate Hale) and Sage (Ashley Newbrough), struggle with Paris Hilton urges, date dorks and the help, and might even want to be a little smart.

4. Its Dark Side
Megan's mom, who ditched her when she was a kid, suddenly reappeared. She then stole $25,000 from Megan's boyfriend. Who was planning to use it as bail money for Megan's sister. Who was accused of running drugs.

5. Underrated Actors
Anne Archer as matriarch Laurel, Sharon Lawrence as Megan's mom, and cougar bait Robert Buckley (Lipstick Jungle) as her editor...they've earned their job security!

You can watch the show online at CWtv.com

Kate Winslet

With the exception of Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black's incredibly moving Oscar acceptance speech ("Most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he’d want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told they are less than by their churches, or by the government, or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value. And that no matter what everyone tells you, God does love you, and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally across this great nation of ours."), Kate Winslet's Best Actress win was my favorite moment of the night:




She's so poised and self-possessed for someone so young (33), and yet it's also clear how thrilled she is and how nervous and giddy and grateful. In case, I've always liked Winslet in a casual sort of way, but a series of factors have conspired recently to make me love her (not the least of which is her refusal to conform to standard conventions of Hollywood anorexia). In any case, I thought I'd share a segment from the cover article on Winslet from the the March 2 issue of Time Magazine (H/T Women and Hollywood):

In an industry that insists that most actresses remain giggly, pliable and princessy well into middle age, Winslet has somehow avoided that pigeonhole entirely. She doesn't play girls; she never really has. She plays women. Unsentimentalized, restless, troubled, discontented, disconcerted, difficult women. And clearly, it's working for her. Her two most recent performances — as Hanna Schmitz, the illiterate former concentration-camp guard in The Reader, and as April Wheeler, the anguished, rageful 1950s wife and mother in Revolutionary Road — have earned her two Golden Globes, a Screen Actors Guild prize, a British Academy Award (BAFTA) and her sixth Oscar nomination, a benchmark that no actor so young has ever before reached.

At 33, Winslet has become not only the finest actress of her generation but in many ways also the perfect actress for this moment. She's intense without being humorless. She's international in outlook (though raised in Reading, England, in a middle-class family of working actors, she now lives in New York City and won those Oscar nominations for playing three Americans, two Brits and a German). She's ambitious but cheerfully self-deflating, capable of glamour but also expressive of a kind of jolting common sense. She has a strong professional ethic, which she somehow balances with her domestic life (she and Mendes have a son, Joe, 5, and Winslet has a daughter, Mia, 8, from her first marriage — she takes both kids to school most days). And, cementing her status as an icon of the Era of New Seriousness, she really likes hard work. Assuming she's paid her taxes, are there still any openings in the Cabinet?

What are you favorite Winslet movies/roles? I especially love her in Heavenly Creatures (1994), her first major role, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), which is just generally an amazing film.

We're backing to stoning the gays...again

As Jon Stewart said during the Democratic National Convention, "In Colorado, you're either a rapture-awaiting promise keeper, or you drive a car that runs on gorp," and, yet again, a Colorado politician proves he is the former.

From The Colorado Independent:

A prominent national gay rights organization on Tuesday blasted Colorado state Sen. Scott Renfroe for comparing homosexuality to murder when he spoke Monday against a bill that would extend health benefits to same-sex domestic partners of state employees.

After quoting Scripture to call homosexual behavior a “detestable act,” the Greeley Republican said it would be “an abomination according to Scripture” for the Legislature to “(take) sins and (make) them to be legally OK.”

He continued: “I’m not saying (homosexuality) is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin — we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal.”

You can express your dismay to Senator Renfoe here, at ProgressNow Colorado.

In a turn of poetic justice, the bill passed the Colorado Senate with a relatively wide margin.

Postcards to the President

Another cute idea for mass political action (and I mean "cute" in a positive, pleasantly-innovative way, not as a diminutive).

Send a postcard to President Obama asking him to repeal DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act):



(H/T Your Daily Lesbian Moment)

Squeeing with the stars

Since I'm in LA for a couple more days--hence the lack of posting--it seems only right that I share with you all some completely uncritical, fangirly squee-age for the day. I promise that this won't happen too often here; I'll go back to being a dour and cranky feminist (joking!) posthaste.

Three relatively-recent blogging ventures by actors I enjoy have sprouted up recently, and while I'm not usually into fan culture in the sense of virtually stalking certain celebrities, I'm actually finding myself fairly excited about the increased interweb exposure of the following lovely ladies...

Firstly, Amber Benson's Official Blog, where she actually posts fairly frequently, is pretty compelling, and she's already introduced me to a great photographer I may not have otherwise discovered and gotten me kind of excited to check out her new fantasy novel, Death's Daughter. She covers a lot of things on her blog, although it's mostly day-to-day life sort of stuff. She did recently write a bit about her experiences in Hollywood--pretty typical expectations for a young female actor, unfortunately, but I like how Benson recounts refusing to conform:

Anyway, I quickly learned that no matter what you do, you can't please everyone all the time. So, I stopped trying to compete with girls that just naturally understood how to dress themselves to extol their boobalicious virtues and concentrated more on the quirkier parts that just felt more like the real me.

And it worked. I just did what made me feel good about myself–and what made me happy–and the work I wanted FOUND ME.

I didn't have an uncle in the business, I never dated anyone famous or powerful and I kept my boobs pretty much where they belonged (for me at least) in my top. I just threw myself into what I wanted–and after a bit of soul-searching–found what suited me most. Then I just persisted. I didn't take the rejection personally and I did stuff for myself.

Secondly, there's Jill Bennett's blog (thanks, Brianna), which is primarily a home for her new web series, We Have to Stop Now, about a couple of lesbian therapists who wrote the book on maintaining a loving marriage but whose own marriage is falling apart. The web series stars Bennett, Cathy DuBuono and comedian Suzanne Westenhoefer, whom I adore. (Along those lines, I should add that my other favorite comedian, Bridget McManus, also has a blog, but it's been around for a while, which is why I didn't feature it here.)

You can watch the pilot of We Have to Stop Now on Jill's site or below:


We Have To Stop Now: Pilot Episode from Jill Bennett on Vimeo.

Lastly, but certainly not least, Kirsten Vangness, who plays my favorite character on my favorite crime show, Criminal Minds, and whom I totally want to be my best friend, just took up blogging again (after her CBS-sponsored blog went permanently missing last year shortly after the Writer's Strike began). You can check out her guest post over at Criminal Minds Fanatic. I'd love it if she started blogging independently again, but I'll take what I can get.

Have a lovely Tuesday everyone!

Feminist Anthems: Lily Allen - LDN

Feminists like to talk about a 'click' moment, a instant of realization in which everything about feminism comes together and makes sense. For some, it's a speaker, piece of music, a college course, or simple exposure to sexism. My own 'click' moment came after reading (at random, curiously) one of bell hooks' works.

Lily Allen's "LDN" presents some 'click' moments, albeit not overtly feminist ones:

(Quick disclaimer: I'm fairly certain Allen didn't intend this song in the way that I'm about to interpret it. Still, that's the beauty of art - so long as the artist observes truth without forcing judgement, the audience is free to apply as they see fit!)


So the city is a nasty place, huh? But notice that however bad the character's in the song get, the song is upbeat, the singer apparently happy. Happy, that is, until the end, when she realizes that she's in the same boat as the others. I think that it's easy to intellectualize problems, to recognize that they exist for other people. It's quite another to realize they affect you. Wait - that's sexism? I can be a tool of the patriarchy, too? And suddenly, everything is sad and depressing. Click, click. Click, click. Everything good is bad, everything right is wrong.

Another thing: In real life, pimps and muggings are fairly obvious. They are also relatively rare in the overall scheme of things. But people who behave in the same ways, who hide their inner pimp or mugger (if you will) are not so rare. In the song, they first appear to be normal, even a pleasant sort of person, right up until the second look. In the same way, a date, or even a marriage might appear to be happy, but really be a thin excuse for prostitution. And someone helping an elderly or poor person may appear to be honest enough - but recall that 'philanthropy' is usually a trick to keep the powerful in power.

Finally, while the subject might be rather bleak, the overall sound of the song is upbeat, positive. It's better to be happy and a bit sarcastic then depressed and miserable! At least, it is better so long as we don't stop working to end injustice and inequality.

Feminist Flashback #25

Was anyone else as obsessed as I was with Nickelodeon's 1991-1994 show Clarissa Explains It All? I remember it being one of the first shows I saw for girls/teens where the protagonist was a smart, witty teenage girl who wasn't ridiculously into boys, was self-assured and had a handle on her life. I totally loved this show and Melissa Joan Hart.



(H/T Shakesville)

Target Women: Skin Care

Since I'll be in transit the rest of the day, on my way to LA to do some research, I thought I'd leave you all with the newest Target Women. As always, Sarah Haskins is awesome.

"I need products to fix it. Products that use pictures of science."

Enjoy!

Girls Agenda 2009

Check out the National Council for Research on Women's blog The Real Deal and their round-up of exciting posts about the issues that most affect girls' lives today. Activists, scholars and young girls themselves wrote impassioned posts about their visions for Girls Agenda 2009. Truth be told, I was asked to write something, but my hectic schedule (and just generally being a doofus when it comes to missing good opportunties) prevented me from doing so; however, another FWF blogger, Joe Kelley contributed, so check out his post and all the other great responses.

(H/T Girl w/Pen)

Penetration?

I really don't like the word "penetration" when it pertains to sex. It suggests so much stabbing and unwillingness on the part of the penetratee. Like if you're taking someone inside your body, you're just lying there while they stick something into you. It sounds invasive. It connotes violence.

It's hard to find a word, though, that conveys the same action without being awkward. I find myself referring to intercourse as penetration in public contexts because it's the socially acceptable term for fucking. It's a euphemism, the word you can say on television or in a classroom. It's almost scientific. They use it in textbooks. It's like an official term. I use it all the time, for lack of a better word.

I really don't want to do this anymore.

A few weeks ago, I was reading a book on pornography (I can't remember which one, unfortunately) and instead of calling it penetration, they called it intromission.

Activities like fingering, dick in pussy, and strap-on anal are intromissive. To intromit very simply means "to enter." I don't think it has the same connotation of active and passive roles or of aggression that "penetration" has. It also preserves that scientific quality, the euphemism that's useful in stuffy situations. I definitely like it.

What do you think. Do you like/dislike the word penetration? Would you ever use "intromission" instead? I'm curious to see if it's something that could ever catch on.

Cross posted at Paper Cuts and Plastic.

Musical Androgyny - One Last Time

Rock music with chorused vocals is often very androgynous.

I tend to dislike the way most popular male singers sound. This is just a personal preference - I prefer altos and basses over sopranos and tenors generally. Most music features tenors, and most 'tenors' in pop music sound rather poor (they're often really baritones, singing out of their range).

Put enough singers together, and use enough vocal effects, though, and something curious happens:

This is the original, by Sweet:

This is a cover, by Girlschool:

Notice that the singing sounds almost exactly the same. It's at the same pitch, with the same inflection, and the same overall sound. (Even the hair is similar!) To be sure, you can still tell the difference between the two - the song obviously falls more easily under Girlschool's range, and they sing en masse the entire duration.

Why is this interesting? So much of music is focused, either directly or indirectly, on sexual attraction. Rock music in particular has this characteristic. A single voice is an individual. We can be attracted to that individual, and their voice. They will seem to be singing directly to the audience. Add another, and the effect diminishes, I think - but it still remains. When we get to the massed chorus effect present in these songs, though, and individual gender and sexual expression is completely gone, faded into the group sound. It's just a step away from the asexuality of the classical or church choir.

In this case, though, the music is still rock music, and it still has that sexual component. (As far as I can tell, Fox on the Run has something to do with groupies.) And yet, an all-female band and an all-male band can play it to essentially the same effect. Musical androygny.

Feminist Web Resource for Girls 8-12

IMHO, New Moon Girls is a resource without parallel for girls ages 8 to 12. It’s very unusual to find such a perfect resource for girls in this crazy, often toxic world they inhabit. So, I can’t recommend it enough!

This is a feminist-informed web community and magazine that “allows girls to develop their full potential through self-discovery, creativity, and community in an environment designed to build self-esteem and promote positive body image in the important tween years.” Not only is it award-winning, safe, and educational…it has no advertising, which is a big plus in my book. Plus, the magazine is created BY girls.

So if you have girls, work with girls, or know girls, I strongly suggest you look at signing them up for New Moon Girls.

Dollhouse, some answers and more questions

Earlier today, Jacyln over at Bitch Ph.D., posted a compelling series of questions about Whedon's Dollhouse. And I just responded to her post with an absurdly long comment, so I thought I would replicate it here, bringing my answers to her questions (and I few questions of my own) to Fourth Wave readers. The questions in italics are Jacyln's questions from her post. My responses and questions (at the bottom) are in normal type.

1) Did you watch? What did you think?
Yes, I saw it. As a fan of Buffy and Firefly, but not an obsessive fan of Whedon in general, I liked it with some serious caveats. The premise still disturbs me and the pilot did little to mitigate that feeling. I'm uncomfortable not only with Echo's tabula rasa imprintability, but also with the way viewers are (at least in the pilot) encouraged to like her handler and the geeky guy operating the imprinting machine (these people have names, which I don't remember, and I'm sure the machine has a name, too -- anyone care to enlighten me?). They're complicit in Echo's imprisonment and exploitation, and I'm uncomfortable with the fact that I already sort of like them even though they haven't (yet?) shown any signs of remorse.

2) Were you as psyched as I was to see that Mutant Enemy tag at the end?
Yeah, kinda, in spite of myself.

3) How did you feel about Eliza D as Faith in Buffy? How have you felt about everything she's done since Buffy? What did you think about her performance as Echo?
I loved Faith. I haven't really seen much of what she's done since Buffy. I actually thought she was a little flat as Echo, and not just in the moments when she's supposed to be flat because she's a shell. I'm willing to give her a little more time, though. In general, acting in pilots has a tendency to be a bit wonky.

4) Why the hell did Joss agree to work with Fox again? Or ever?
I have no idea. I certainly hope it wasn't so Fox could pair Cameron (Summer Glau) from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Echo together for sexy dual promos during the commercial breaks. That was really beyond the pale and made my head swim. (I could only find the outtakes from the Glau/Dushku promos on youtube, but you get the gist; also, in the second video, check out the lovely grindhouse-style joint trailer for TSCC and Dollhouse put out by Fox last week.)





Urgh... Fox... WHY???!!! Oh. Never mind. Because you're Fox.

5) Um... are there still no people of color who want good roles in Hollywood? It's a real problem, isn't it? How on earth can we fix it, so that all the producers and directors aren't forced to only cast white people all the time? (Yes, there's Harry Lennix as Echo's handler, but a) that just makes him the token and b) Driving Miss Daisy, anyone?)
I have no words. It's so infuriating and endemic of television in general that I don't even know how to address this question.

6) Ditto fat people, people with physical disabilities, people who aren't freakishly pretty, etc.?
Ditto my answer to #5. I do feel like certain shows, especially non-action ensemble dramas (e.g. medical shows like ER and Grey's Anatomy, among others) are more likely to cast people of diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds who are less freakishly skinny. However, everyone's still gorgeous, even if there's an occasional woman who wears over a size 10. I don't know. It is television...the "everyone has to be pretty" conundrum is one of those problems where I have the tendency to throw up my hands.

7) Did they really have to start with the girl-is-broken-due-to-sex-abuse-and-requires-the-intervention-of-a-kind-man-to-seek-redemption plotline? Why is that never the secret weak spot for male action stars, huh?
Yes, they did. Because they're idiots. And men never have secret weak spots that stem from sexual abuse, didn't you know? (Except for Derek Morgan in Criminal Minds, which is one of the reasons I love that show.)

8) If Person A is desperate and out of options, and is coerced into fully giving up her agency and identity, and if, after making that one decision, Person A no longer has any meaningful ability to consent to anything, nor does she have the ability to withdraw her consent from the original agreement -- under those circumstances, if Person C pays Person B money to have sex with Person A, is that really prostitution, as Joss and Eliza have said it is? Or is that sexual slavery?
I love this question. It's (sexual) slavery. If Person A lacks consent because her personality has been wiped and there is no way to establish her consent for every various task she is asked to perform, then it's not just prostitution. Consent can't be given as a blanket endorsement of any and all activities of the body from now until eternity.

9) Can someone tell me that Joss is going somewhere good with this? I want to believe...
I would love to, but I'm concerned as well. Petpluto over at Art of the Auction says the show could offer a compelling discourse about identity, authenticity and identify formation, but I'm withholding judgment until I've seen a few more episodes.

Now, I have a few more questions of my own:

a) Can a disturbing premise be mitigated by the subjugated character developing agency and control over her oppressors? If so, to what degree? Does she need to escape? Seek retribution? Take over?

b) How long can a show like Dollhouse continue on with this same "she can be anything you want her to be" shtick before something has to give?

c) Is it possible to maintain narrative interest if Echo escapes or if Dollhouse (the place, not the show) is shut down? If so, how? If not, then doesn't the continued need for the Dollhouse as an element of narrative interest necessitate the continued exploitation of the "actives" for our viewing pleasure?

As you can see, I've been thinking about this a bit too much.

Tell It WOC Speak Carnival

The first WOC and ally carnival is up at Renee's awesome new blog Tell It WOC Speak.

By way of introduction, Renee writes

Welcome everyone to what I hope will be the first of many blog carnivals dedicated to the voices of women of colour and our allies. In every sphere of life women of colour are marginalized and exploited. Often, when we attempt to engage to change our circumstances we are silenced. This carnival is our attempt to give voice to our shared issues. We have a strong history of activism and organizing and it is in this vein that we have chosen this space to highlight the various ways we have attempted to carve out a niche in the online world. We shall not be silenced, and our dreams shall be realized. We are women of quality and worth.

It's an impressive collection of posts and I highly recommend everyone hop on over and visit it now and not a moment later.

Feminist Flashback #24

For this week's (second) Feminist Flashback, I present to you all Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis. The film was fantastic, but the books are really phenomenal. If you haven't read the books, I suggest you go out and do so right now. For your viewing and reading pleasure, first, a panel from the 2003 book (click to enlarge) and, second, the trailer for the 2007 film adaptation:

Feminist Flashback #23

There will be two feminist flashbacks this weekend, because I completely forgot(!) last week and I can't stand to mess up my schedule (I'm weird like that). So here's a special V-day Flashblack from 1950: a PSA about why marriages fail and how to avoid divorce.

The Orgasm Gap

Just in time for Valentine's Day, check out this interesting article by Hannah Seligson over at The Daily Beast about "the orgasm gap":

Women are shattering political glass ceilings, surpassing men in the workforce, and even winning Indy-car races. But there’s one area where the gender gap has proved particularly stubborn.

“The orgasm gap is an inequity that’s as serious as the pay gap, and it’s producing a rampant culture of sexual asymmetry,” says Paula England, a professor of sociology at Stanford University.

New academic research conducted by England and others is shedding light on one of the world's most familiar bedroom problems. In a study to be published later this year by W.W. Norton in the book Families as They Really Are, researchers found that college women have orgasms half as often as men on repeat hookups (meaning hooking up more than twice) and only a third of the time in first-time hookups. And they concluded that a lack of sexual reciprocity could be a key reason for this orgasm gap. The study was conducted by a team of researchers from Stanford and Indiana University.
[...]
The bright spot of the study is this: Even though folklore has it that women don’t achieve orgasms with strangers because they need emotional attachment to feel that sort of pleasure, the truth is that women’s orgasms are not usually the result of emotional attachments, but simple physicality. Which is why Angier says she believes the sexual paradigm of women as passive receiver and man as sexual agent needs to be stamped out if women are going to get serious about their orgasms.

“The woman really has to be the boss of the sexual experience, because it’s harder for women to have an orgasm through a straightforward sexual position. Women need to start understanding how their clitoral nerves are positioned,” says Angier. Speaking from her own experience, she says multi-orgasmic women take responsibility for their own pleasure. “Personally, I made that my pet project.”

Although Sigmund Freud argued that a clitoral orgasm was adolescent and that the vagina was the fountain of the more “mature” orgasm, there’s evidence that theory is not only misguided, but is also fueling the orgasm gap.

Compelling statistical evidence, but nothing new as far as what I and many people I know already know about female sexuality. What do you all think?

Feminist Blogger Fridays #2: Interview with Renee of Womanist Musings

Today, I'm pleased to present to Fourth Wave readers the second interview in our Feminist Blogger Fridays interview series (the first can be found here). This month, I interviewed the intrepid and inspiring Renee who writes prodigiously over at Womanist Musings and just began new blog Tell It WOC Speak. As a great admirer of Renee's courage to tackle controversial subjects and articulate way of handling difficult issues, I'm honored to be able to include our interview as part of the series.

And without further ado...


1. Renee, in your very first post on Womanist Musings—your “Womanist Manifesto”—you establish your blog’s premise in relation to Alice Walker’s term “womanist,” which she describes as comparable to “feminist” the way “purple is to lavender.” That said, where do you see your blog fitting within the vast domain of the feminist/womanist blogosphere?

I think that Womanist Musings is unique in that I am fearless in the topics I choose to take on. I don’t specifically look for something controversial; rather I seek topics that allow me to reify one basic theme – all people matter. I think many blogs get caught up in being hip and rely on catch phrases to draw attention, rather than continually affirming a commitment to all of humanity. Womanism to me speaks not only for all WOC [women of color], but for all of those who know the sting of oppression. Instead of arguing about whether or not something is a feminist/womanist issue, I seek to continually point out that these are human issues because someone somewhere is suffering.

2. So, how would you characterize your relationship to feminism? Can you speak to why you prefer the term “womanist”?

I prefer to identify as a Womanist because I don’t find feminism to be inclusive enough. One example of this would be the murder of Sean Bell. Many feminist blogs were slow to cover this because they could not see how this was a woman’s issue. As a mother of two black sons who worries that one day some police officer will cut short the life of my precious child, this was very much my fight.

My relationship with feminism is stormy at best, simply because I find that it continually ignores issues that are important to WOC and to the poor. In a lot of ways it is a white-led elitist movement that is only interested in promoting the needs of a small section of society. There are many blogs written by WOC and yet none of them could be called a large blog. This is not because we do not have something valid to say but simply because of a failure on the part of feminism to engage with our issues and to value our voices. What ends up happening, is that one or two WOC become token spokeswomen and the rest are largely ignored.

3. Along those lines, during this most recent election, there was a lot debate about race and gender as political identity positions, including constant arguments about whether society oppresses women or people of color more. Personally, I found that line of questioning pretty offensive, but it did speak to the way women and POCs are regarded as separate groups by mainstream culture. As a woman of color, how do you negotiate the race/gender dichotomy? Do you feel torn socially or politically between your race and gender positions, or do you find that this divide has only been constructed by the media and doesn’t impact your day-to-day life?

Personally I refuse to play the oppression Olympics. Both my race and gender play a role in how I am treated. My womanhood and blackness are essential parts of my being and to be asked to choose between the two is highly offensive to me. The desire to split the allegiance of WOC does not stem from an altruistic position. White women want us to identify solely as women, to labour to help them achieve equality with the white male patriarchy and black men continually remind us of our blackness in an attempt to enlist our efforts to help them achieve equality with the white male patriarchy. This is a point I touched on in a post entitled Stuck in the Middle. By asking us to choose, what both white women and black men hope, is that we will be blind to the ways in which we are being used. If black women continue to labour in the service of others, we will never rise above the bottom rung of the race and gender hierarchy.

4. Anyone who’s read anything over at WM knows you’re very passionate about a wide array of issues, from poverty and race to sexism and homophobia. What made you decide to start a blog as opposed to some other form of activism? How do you feel blogging allows you to confront/interrogate problems in the world in a way other venues might not?

I decided to start a blog because of my children. When I brought them into this world, I promised both of them that I would do the best that I could to ensure that they had happy and successful lives. As part of keeping this promise I decided to start a blog so that I could be active about issues that I felt would affect them. Over time it quickly evolved into a place where I would speak out in the cause of justice, as I realized that the interconnectivity of the isms worked to hamper the life chances of many. Since racism is connected to sexism, etc., what might not seem readily relevant quickly became so.

Blogging is a format that allows me to engage with various people that I might not otherwise come into contact with. As the busy mother of two little guys, blogging allows me to divide my time between my activism and taking care of my family.

5. In your first post, but also many times since, you’ve used the phrase “my truth may not be your truth.” I find this particularly compelling as it suggests not only that different people perceive the world differently, but also that “different” does not have to mean “untrue.” Can you say a little more about your philosophy of truths? Do you still sometimes find it difficult to accept the opinions of others if they disagree with you? And how can we (or how do you) differentiate between a “different truth” and just plain wrong?

This falls in line with my belief that our binary modernist mode of thought is damaging on many levels. When we only look at things from one perspective we are necessarily ignoring the ways in which privilege has caused us to read certain situations. My truth is only valid as far as I can not only own my privileges but acknowledge the ways in which I have been socialized to believe that certain thoughts and or ideologies are naturally occurring. The wonderful thing about personal truth is that if we are open to hearing the voices of others and learning, it constantly changes as we grow as human beings.

In terms of someone having a different opinion or perspective, I quite encourage it on the blog. If at some time I have been blind to my own privilege, I expect to be called out. Sometimes it hurts and it is uncomfortable but it is in those times that I realize that perhaps I have not considered the valid experience of others. You know truth when you see it, because it acts on an almost instinctual level. We see so little truth in this life that when actually confronted with it, it has the tendency to cut through the bullshit like a knife.

6. On a related note, you’ve written some pretty contentious posts (and I’m thinking in particular of some of the posts directed at the MRA), which have garnered, in return, some pretty nasty comments and malicious responses on other blogs. One of the things I admire about you and your blog, Renee, is your willingness to speak out regardless of the possible fallout. How do your keep your cool, your integrity and your spirit amidst such occasional vitriol?

I don’t always keep my cool. On more than one occasion I have told the unhusband that had I not paid so much money for my laptop, I would have thrown it across the room reading some of the hateful nonsense people post.

I keep going because every once and a while someone will write me an e-mail thanking me for helping them to see something in a new way. I also will get such a passionate response from a reader to some of the hatred expressed by others, that it is downright inspiring. Most of the regular commenters at Womanist Musings are wonderful, bright, engaging people, and though we may not always agree, their dedication to speaking about the difficult issues with honesty warms my heart.

7. To change the subject slightly, you’ve just started a new blog, Tell It WOC Speak. Can you say a little about what your hopes are for this space and its use?

Tell It WOC speak is a blog I created to host what I hope will be a monthly carnival featuring the work of WOC and our allies. As I said earlier, there are no major blogs written by WOC and it is my hope to rectify that over time. Our work simply does not get the attention that it deserves and this is largely due to racism and sexism. It is my belief that if this is going to change, we need to work with each other and support each other. The carnival is my way of offering support to my sisters and allies that are daily working in the cause of justice.

8. That said, what are your hopes for the future of Womanist Musings? You’ve recently opened the space to guest posts; are there any other changes or expansions you’re planning in the near future? Are you happy with the way the blog is progressing? And do you have any aspirations to collect and publish some of your work?

There is a part of me that is very much considering taking on a few co-bloggers, but Womanist Musings is my baby and being the control freak that I am, I am not sure if I am ready to share my space to that degree. That said I hope to see more guest posts in the future to widen the conversations that are happening. I can only present ideas through my lens and different people with a different frame of reference will see a situation from a completely different point of view.

As a perfectionist I believe that I will always want to improve the blog. Right now my next project is to get a new template and make the blog easier to navigate than it currently is. I hope over the next year to see the readership continue to rise and thus have even more heated debate than we already do.

I do have a side project planned for the summer and that is an e-zine. It is my hope to gather some essays from WOC and our allies and publish them. Once again my goal in doing this is to get people thinking and talking. There are so many issues that we never discuss because we are afraid of offending someone and this leads to stagnation.

It is definitely my hope to get published one day. I love to write and it would be great to see my work in print, but, if not, I know that Womanist Musings provides me with an outlet to not only explore my passions but practice a craft that I love.

9. Well, I'll look forward to that e-zine AND to seeing you in print one day! You say you love to write, so what inspires you? Do you sometimes find yourself fishing for topics or do you feel that you always have a backlog of topics on hand? Also, as a woman with an “unhusband” and two small children, when do you find the time to write so prolifically and articulately about such a wide array of topics?

Actually the readers are really great at forwarding topics to me. There are many times when I have so much to write about in one day, I simply cannot cover it all. Often times as well, my inspiration will come from reading the work of other great feminist/womanist bloggers.

Finding the time to blog can be difficult. There are times days later when I read something I wrote, only to find that it is filled with tiny errors and I can only blame that on blogging with Yo Gabba Gabba or Johnny Test in the background. I try to write when the kids are sleeping but often times I am blogging in my jammies while the boys are watching television. The unhusband is extremely supportive about my blogging. He reads everyday and has occasionally commented, even though he has been cussed out on more than one occasion by my commenters. My family realizes that this is important to me and so each of them in their own way has made an effort to allow me the time and the space to pursue my passion.

10. Something a little less serious to finish up: every once and a while you post about your guilty pleasures. Do you have a current guilty pleasure (or more than one) that completely doesn’t meet your womanist/feminist/humanist expectations but that you love nonetheless? If so, what and why?

I would say that my extreme aversion to physical labour is definitely one of them. I have no problem telling people I’m a girl to opt out of doing anything that is going to make me dirty or sweaty. There is also my well known addiction to reality television. Most of these shows are not woman friendly and I know I should not be watching, but I am simply hooked. I try to justify it as junk food for the brain but really I know better.

Well, I think everyone's allowed a little cerebral junk food now and again. Renee, thank you so much for joining us today. As a loyal reader, I guess I'll see you back over at Womanist Musings now and in the future!

(The next interview will be posted on Friday, March 13. Stay tuned.)

Love Shouldn't Hurt

If you've followed the news about Chris Brown's recent arrest, have you also been thinking about the disgrace of dating violence?

I spent most of Wednesday at the Minnesota State Capitol for 3 rallies related to ending family and partner violence. 1) A “Second Chance” coalition supporting resources for people leaving prison—so that they find work, learn healthier ways to settle conflict, and don’t return to prison. 2) the Men’s Action Network, an alliance to prevent sexual and domestic violence (sadly, even in 2009, there were 10 times as many women as men at this rally) and 3) the MN domestic violence coalition, which honored (under the Capitol rotunda) all those murdered in 2008 because of domestic violence.

Domestic and partner violence doesn’t spring up in a vacuum out of nowhere. It often begins in the beginnings of intimate relationships—dating.

Charles Blow collects and shares some frightening statistics about dating violence on the NY Times blogs this morning. Be sure to read it, and then, be sure to take some action to short circuit dating violence.

More Musical Androgyny

Here's a fun game. Play it with your friends! Here's how it goes. Listen to this:


And try to guess the gender of the singer.

As it turns out, the singer is male, singing in falsetto. If you knew this, either your ears are much, much better than mine, or you've heard the song before! It's "This town ain't big enough for the both of us" by Sparks:


I don't know whether Sparks was (were?) trying to transgress gender boundaries here or not - I've never heard anything to that effect, but then again, look at that album cover! I suppose this could be a gender-ploitation sort of thing, but they seem to be playing fairly honestly. Here's the way I see the song:

A person (of indeterminate gender) wants to ask somebody out on a date. They're too afraid, so they don't - so they console themselves by repeating (to whom I'm not sure - other people? their fear? a stray dog?) the extremely stereotypically masculine staple of the Western, "This town ain't big enough for the both of us!", all the while 'appearing' (via singing) to be feminine. And it's all very non-ironic.

Come to think of it, male singers using falsetto is quite a usual thing in popular music (Queen, anybody?). Using falsetto in conversation is considered quite unacceptable, of course, but somehow singing makes it okay in the eyes of the patriarchy. Curiously enough, the comments page on youtube (always a hotbed of homo/queer-phobia and sexism) contains only one sexist remark, and only a few polite "that guy sounds like a girl" comments.

I suppose that this acceptance of falsetto singing ultimately stems from women not being allowed to sing in the Catholic Church years ago. That was extremely sexist (and weird), of course. But today, it's simply a pleasant exception to the patriarchal, feminine-equals-bad attitude.

Put the Book Back in Scholastic Book Clubs

For many of us who have kids (or who were kids in the last 30 years), Scholastic's book clubs played an important role in childhood by providing the opportunity to purchase low-cost, high-quality literature in schools. We remember the excitement of thumbing through the monthly flyers to make our selections and the thrill when our orders arrived.

But something has changed. Scholastic's book clubs have become a Trojan horse for marketing toys, trinkets, and electronic media-many of which promote popular brands (and often promote the worst gender stereotypes). A review of Scholastic's elementary and middle school book clubs by The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood found that one-third of the items for sale are either not books or are books packaged with other items such as jewelry and toys.

Some non-book items for sale were the M&M's Kart Racing Wii videogame; a remote control car; the American Idol event planner; ("Track this season of American Idol"); the Princess Room Alarm ("A princess needs her privacy!"); a wireless controller for the PS2 gaming system; a make-your-own flip flops kit ("hang out at the pool in style"); and the Monopoly® SpongeBob SquarePants™ Edition computer game.

An additional 19% of the items were books that were marketed with additional toys, gadgets, or jewelry. For example, the book Get Rich Quick is sold with a dollar-shaped money clip ("to hold all your new cash!"); the Friends 4 Ever Style Pack consists of a book and two lip gloss rings; and Hannah Montana: Seeing Green comes with a guitar pick bracelet.

The opportunity to sell directly to children in schools is not a right. It's a privilege - and an extremely profitable one at that. Last year, Scholastic's book clubs generated $336.7 million in revenue.It's bad enough that so many of the books sold by Scholastic are de-facto promotions for media properties like High School Musical and SpongeBob. But there's no justification for marketing an M&M videogame or lip gloss in elementary schools. Teachers should not be enlisted as sales agents for products that have little or no educational value and compete with books for children's attention and families' limited resources. If Scholastic wants to maintain their unique commercial access to young students, they need to do better. And I'd argue that no corporation (Scholastic included) should be allowed use schools to market to children!!!

In the past, Scholastic listened to protest. When 5,000 parents and family professionals wrote them to demand that they stop promoting the highly sexualized Bratz brand in schools, they discontinued their Bratz line. So please click here to let Scholastic know it's time to return to selling books - and only books - through their in-school book clubs.

And you can find tons more info on marketing to kids at The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, www.commercialfreechildhood.org

Virgin's Sexism?

I read an article from The Guardian (by way of the Huff Post) about this new Virgin Atlantic commercial, which has inspired some protest. Many viewers are decrying the ad's inherent sexism, an accusation that has plagued Virgin Airlines in the past. I thought I'd see if Fourth Wave readers want to weigh in on this minor "controversy."

Don't Divorce Us!

I'm a little late to the band wagon (cue excuses), but better late than never. Check out this fantastic video from the Courage Campaign (and then click on the link to sign the letter):


"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

(H/T pretty much everyone, but especially Alas, A Blog because I saw it there first)

Sex Work and Privilege

There have been a couple of interesting and definitely provocative posts on sex work in the blogosphere in the last week. What else is new, right? This time, though, I'm joining the discussion.

Renegade Evolution does a good job of answering some of buggle's assertions about "special" sex workers, but she leaves out what I think is the most important point.

What we need here is a discussion of privilege.

Those who enter into any industry with lots of privilege are going to be safer, healthier, and less likely to take risks that lead them to brutal experiences. (By privilege, I mean having a penis, white skin, no disabilities, heterosexuality, good health, a supportive family, good education, and/or an already-healthy pocketbook, to name a few.)

If people with the above privileges do experience brutality, they're also more likely to be able to access support systems to help them escape it and recover from it.

People with less privilege have fewer options for making and keeping money. In general, our system puts these people at a disadvantage, systematically and through no fault of their own. If someone desperately needs money, they'll do desperate things to get it. In any line of work, underprivileged folks are more likely to be taken advantage of and harmed.

This definitely applies to sex work, probably even more than many other industries because of the stigma surrounding it.

I would never, ever want to ignore the speech of people who've been brutalized at the hands of prostitution. They need everyone's help and compassion. I also don't want to discredit the people who do have a choice in what they do with their bodies and their decisions to take money for sex.

We absolutely need to talk about the systems of privilege and hardship that cause women (and men, let's not forget they do sex work too) to unwillingly enter an industry where they're raped and abused. The fact that privilege protects people from all kinds of pain (in all aspects of life) and yet leaves others to be trampled is deeply fucked up.

I think, however, that this is a larger issue of helping under-privileged people and not simply getting rid of sex work. (Intersectionality, anyone?) Prostituted women and men are just one group of under-privileged people who need help and need a voice.

It’s Heather’s Birthday

Heather Henderson was born 36 years ago today. Few people have made such an impact in my life—and the lives of many, many others.

For 9 years, I worked for a national nonprofit (now defunct) called Dads & Daughters®. When the amazing Michael Kieschnick and I began building the organization in 1999, we hired this smart, organized, creative and determined young woman named Heather Henderson to help us launch it.

Heather had edited and did marketing for national magazines, been a newspaper reporter and coached gymnastics. This multitalented woman created the Dads & Daughters® website and membership system from scratch, did reams of research, ran the office, did media interviews, and a thousand other things. She quickly established relationships with hundreds of activists around the country, sharing information and promoting this unique organization, dedicated to making the world better through the power and potential of father-daughter relationships. Sometimes it seemed like she did the work of five people!

All the while, she radiated her insight, affection, knowledge, determination, skill and curiosity. And was an incredibly good friend—the kind who is supportive and encouraging, while not being afraid to tell you the truth, no matter what.

One Wednesday morning in the fall of 2000, Heather didn’t come to work, which was very unlike such a punctual, responsible woman. I went up to her house to see if anything was wrong. I found Heather lying facedown on the floor in her kitchen, dead of a heart attack at age twenty-seven.


After eleven years of struggling with anorexia and bulimia, this talented, lovable, and well-loved woman’s heart gave out at a sinfully young age, three days before her sister’s wedding and seven months before her own. Her death crushed her fiancé, family and friends. Activists and professionals nationwide called and emailed our office in shock that such a young and talented person was gone. I get very angry remembering her lifeless body and thinking about how anorexia and bulimia snapped off her life -- and how they take root so readily in our culture.

Serious eating disorders, from bulimia to anorexia, are among this problem’s worst manifestations and may end in permanent health damage or death. Eating disorders have one of the highest death rates of any mental illness. Up to ten percent of the nation’s young women are diagnosed with anorexia, bulimia or some other form of disordered eating. Sadly, Heather’s friends and family have a very human face to put on that cold statistic.

Heather was far more than her eating disorder and her death. It is the rest of her that I remember most—and celebrate—on her birthday today.

I hope that you will celebrate the incredible girls and young women who are part of your life. Always remember that the world can be made better through the power and potential of father-daughter relationships—including yours.

Learn more @ http://www.dadsanddaghters.com/.

Dollhouse

I'm doing a little film production work the next few days, so forgive me if I'm a little lax in posting. (I've been up since 4am today, and my sleep deprivation will probably worsen over the weekend.) So, in lieu of a real post, I'm offering something you all will probably enjoy just as much as my verbiage: the trailer for Joss Whedon's newest television show, Dollhouse, starring Eliza Dushku. It looks like it could be an interesting show, and I love Dushku, but I'm a little disturbed by the premise, as described:

Dollhouse stars Dushku as Echo, one of several "Actives" in a super-secret organization. The Actives can be implanted with memories, personalities, and skills, and serviced out to clients for almost anything--espionage, expertise, and even sex. The best part of the business? When the implant is wiped free, the Active has no memory of what just happened…or so people think.

Superagents who can conveniently be used for anything from espionage to sex? Ummm... Since Whedon is somewhat of a complicated feminist, I guess only time will tell if the show holds non-misogynistic water. While we're waiting for the verdict, check out the preview:



Dollhouse premieres Friday, February 13th at 9/8c on FOX.

Characters Unite

Check out this new campaign from USA Network called Characters Unite:



Click here to sign the pledge, which reads:

As a character of the USA, I hold these truths to be self-evident--that life is richer and we are stronger as a country when we see beyond stereotypes and appreciate each other for the characters that we are. I take this pledge to stand against prejudice, intolerance, and hate, and promote greater acceptance and understanding in my daily life. After all, characters are what makes us USA.

I know that as much as this is a public service announcement for tolerance, understanding and acceptance it's also an advertisement for the USA network. But, you know what? When this is the kind of marketing being used (as opposed to this), when the company is actively showing support for differences of race, ethnicity, sex, gender and sexual orientation, I'm okay with a little self-promotion on the side.

(H/T Queers United)

Separatism is separatism is separatism...

Obviously, I'm all for female solidarity. I'm also all for lesbian solidarity. Gay solidarity. Transsexual solidarity. African American solidarity. Latin American solidarity. The solidarity of feminist dog lovers. Etcetera. Really, any group of people who want to claim solidarity with each other, I'm all for it (as long as they, as a group, are not hurting, harassing or terrorizing any other group or other individuals). On the other hand, I feel tremendous ambivalence towards separatism, as the extreme evolutionary end of solidarity, in pretty much any form. While my discomfort with separatist conservative religious sects/cults has pretty obvious roots, I'm almost (though not quite) as uncomfortable with the idea of lesbian separatism. To wit, from yesterday's New York Times:

THEY called it a lesbian paradise, the pioneering women who made their way to St. Augustine, Fla., in the 1970s to live together in cottages on the beach. Finding one another in the fever of the gay rights and women’s liberation movements, they built a matriarchal community, where no men were allowed, where even a male infant brought by visitors was cause for debate.
[...]
Behind a locked gate whose security code is changed frequently, the women pursue quiet lives in a community they call Alapine, largely unnoticed by their Bible Belt neighbors — a lost tribe from the early ’70s era of communes and radical feminism.
[...]
These days, [they] worry about the future of Alapine, which is one of about 100 below-the-radar lesbian communities in North America, known as womyn’s lands (their preferred spelling), whose guiding philosophies date from a mostly bygone era.

The communities, most in rural areas from Oregon to Florida, have as few as two members; Alapine is one of the largest. Many have steadily lost residents over the decades as members have moved on or died. As the impulse to withdraw from heterosexual society has lost its appeal to younger lesbians, womyn’s lands face some of the same challenges as Catholic convents that struggle to attract women to cloistered lives.

Now, the idea of a peaceful, quiet existence with other women who share my values and hopes and dreams sounds sort of idyllic, I guess. Actually, no, it sounds pretty stifling to me, but I can still understand the appeal for others, particularly women of the second wave generation who were forced to live false lives and endure the very real social stigma of lesbianism for so many years. If the world were still like it was thirty or forty years ago, then I might also be able to get behind women continuing in this tradition. And the idea of lesbian-only or women-only spaces during certain periods of life (e.g. women's colleges, all-female nursing homes) doesn't bother me. However, I agree with Amy over at Appetite for Equal Rights when she writes, "I don't see much of a problem with women spending their final years in a matriarchal community - I just hope that this doesn't trickle down to younger feminists, until, in the most extreme case, the world turns into isolated communities of different demographics, and integration is a thing of the past."

I think the world is a very different place now. It's not perfect by any means, but society isn't going to keep changing for the better if we go into hiding. The idea that women in these communities are worried about "recruiting" young women to their "way of life" so it will "survive"...makes me uncomfortable. Sometimes we have to accept that things which were great innovations of the past, seemingly offering an ideal solution to a very real problem, may not hold up to the test of time. Not all "ways of life" can remain relevant...or should.

In response to the above article, The Bilerco Project's Father Tony asks, "Does growing up mean extending our comfort zone to encompass people of different color and sexual expression and identity? Sure, but do we ever stop pining for a kitchen filled exclusively with the scent of our own kind? Are some of our efforts at inclusion and assimilation deluded?" And I would answer yes, growing up (as an individual and as a [LGBTQ] community) does mean extending our comfort zone, just as we expect others to grow and learn and expand their comfort zone(s). As Miriam of Feministing opines, "My main problem with these communes (besides my lack of desire to be part of one) is that they do nothing to push, challenge or transform the wider society. It's commonly known that when someone knows a queer person they are much more likely to be accepting of queer people overall. If we separate ourselves, what are we doing to change the world for new lesbians growing up?" I agree. As individuals we are obviously free to do as we choose, but as a community I think we should feel compelled not only to broaden the horizons of diversity for future generations, but also to broaden our own horizons so we, too, can learn to understand, accept and communicate with those different than us.

Perhaps we might still occasionally pine for that kitchen filled with "people like us," but the world would be very dull and very insular indeed if we spent all our time there making cupcakes and never wanted to step outside the grounds. As for the inclusion and assimilation bit, sure, sometimes we'll meet a brick wall and we'll have to beat our heads against that wall for a while (which, as John Cage discovered, is sometimes a good way to make music). That doesn't mean it's a delusion, only that it's hard work. If you don't try to change things, you'll never know what could have happened if you did. And I'd take lots of hard work with the possibility of a better future over that any day.

That Martha Washington was one hot first lady!

Can someone please explain to me why we should care about Martha Washington more and/or find her more interesting now because historians have revealed how hot she actually was?

From The Washington Post, "Fresh Look at Martha Washington: Less First Frump, More Foxy Lady":

Our image of the mother of our country, vague and insubstantial as it is, is drawn from portraits painted after her death showing a frumpy, dumpy, plump old lady, a fussy jumble of needlework in her lap, wearing what could pass for a shower cap with pink sponge rollers rolled too tight underneath.

But today, 250 years after Martha and George tied the knot, a handful of historians are seeking to revamp the former first lady's fusty image, using the few surviving records of things she wrote, asking forensic anthropologists to do a computerized age-regression portrait of her in her mid-20s and, perhaps most importantly, displaying for the first time in decades the avant-garde deep purple silk high heels studded with silver sequins that she wore on her wedding day.
[...]
Contrary to popular opinion, even among some historians who should know better, Martha was not fat when she married George. Yes, she liked to read the Bible, but she devoured gothic romance novels, too. She capably ran the five plantations left to her when her first husband died, bargaining with London merchants for the best tobacco prices. And unknown to most, while George was courting her she had another suitor, a Virginia planter with much greater wealth and stature. In a little-known letter, Charles Carter wrote to his brother about what a beauty she was and how he hoped to "arouse a flame in her breast."

I'm not saying we shouldn't care about America's first first lady--in fact, I like the part of the article which describes how she was actually an astute businesswoman--but is the new!surprising!exciting! fact that she was a foxy fashionista really relevant and newsworthy? I guess we should give Martha her due, but the whole article just seems a bit weird to me.

(Thanks to my friend Lauren for the link.)

Feminist Flashback #22

For this week's Feminist Flashback, something decidedly sexist and exploitative, and yet one of my favorite B movies of all time: Barbarella, from 1968, starring Jane Fonda.



Sometimes it's hard for me to explain the contradictions in my feminist psyche. In this case, I don't have anything to say in my defense...