If you’re still subscribed to this blog over here on WordPress, you’ll want to change the address to ethecofem.blogspot.com. All content and comments have been moved over to that site, and we’re up and running.
We won’t be updating this one anymore.
Thanks!!
We’re up and running over at the Blogger site. It should be ethecofem.com again soon,
but in the meantime, please update any subscriptions or reader feeds to http://ethecofem.blogspot.com.
I’m moving ethecofem to Blogger so I can better customize the layout of the blog, and we’ll be using Disqus for comments over there, so sign up if you aren’t already registered! It’s really, really simple and easy. We should be up and running over there in a little while! I’ll have this blog redirect traffic over there, but the new site (for the time being) will be at ethecofem.blogspot.com, until I can get the domain transferred from WordPress to Blogger. If things are slow or kinda wonky over here, that’s why. I’ve also deleted some unpopular, irrelevant, or very old and dumb posts, and you can find all of the rest of ethecofem content, with original comments, at aprilstreich.com, but keep in mind, while the comments all imported over to that site, it’s effectively an inactive site. I don’t want any continuations of ethecofem discussions to happen on their mirror posts at aprilstreich.com, because it’s just too much to pay attention to. Please use ethecofem.blogspot.com’s posts and comment threads to continue any ongoing discussions. I’ll be turning off comments on the WordPress site shortly… probably after I am able to successfully import the remaining ethecofem posts over to the new site.
If you check out the Blogger site, and it looks like poo, don’t be sad. It will look better soon.
Well, I don’t really believe that. At all. But I am starting to wonder if it is at all necessary to participate in said education in a brick and mortar building. Of course, lots of people before me have pondered and resolved that very question, taken online classes, and gone about their lives. I, however, naysayed online classes for a while, figured they were all a big cop out, probably not challenging, hardly even “real,” etc. I also failed to stay put in any standard brick and mortar school longer than a year at a time after graduating high school.
This year, I’m back in school again, and taking two online classes. As I noted a little while ago, my online classes pretty much consist of forum-based discussions about assigned readings, a few short quizzes, and a couple of essays or projects. Essentially, stuff I’m already doing. It’s only the beginning of the semester, but I’ve noticed some pros and cons to both on-campus and online classes. Online is great for some obvious reasons: I took a quiz yesterday at 9pm in my pajamas, with a glass of wine in my hand. While showing up to an on-campus class with alcohol is certainly not unheard of (in fact, I’d almost call it common), it’s usually quite explicitly grounds for punishment of varying severity, depending on the circumstances.
One definite benefit to being on-campus is doing your learning and working in a place that is both designated for those very things, and is largely free from distractions like Facebook, Nintendo, your Netflix queue, or the rest of the bottle of wine you’ve just corked. I also personally get a lot of benefit out of talented instructors’ lectures.
The arguments in favor of taking online classes over on-campus classes tend to revolve around convenience, in one way or another, but I think we may be missing a vital piece in this dialog. In my current online classes, I am usually, at minimum, at least aware of the general information we’re learning about. American Radicalism, for example, incorporates the history of oppressed and marginalized people in the US since 1492, and the radicalism each of these groups used to gain equal social, economic, and legal power. It’s a fascinating class, and for it I’m reading A People’s History of the United States and The Radical Reader, both very interesting and illuminating for someone who usually finds history to be a challenging subject in which to remain engaged. What I’ve noticed, though, is that I already knew about a lot of the things I’m learning about, and what I’m benefiting from most are two things: someone with authority telling me I need to read something or I will suffer negative consequences; and my instructor is a great lecturer who puts things into perspective in that really great-teacher sort of way. Otherwise, though, what I’m learning isn’t anything that can’t be learned in ways that I’ve already been getting an education: from the internet.
That’s the best and most amazing thing about the internet. If you can afford an internet connection, or have regular access to the internet, you can learn just about anything you want. Even given Wikipedia’s occasional criticisms, or the elitist nature of the blogosphere, one can find a wealth of information if you look hard enough. All you really need these days is one of those obnoxious Facebook friends (cough, sorry friends) who constantly posts links to topical stories, blog posts, talks, and petitions to get you started. And I’m not even talking about reading links people post and agreeing with them; mostly, I think that following links to blogs is vital, because people always have blogrolls, and you can go nuts with all the access to all the information you could possibly ask for to find counterpoints, opposing arguments, new and exciting ideas whose existence you were, until that very moment, unaware of… the list goes on.
I’ve spent a while feeling somewhat inferior for not having a degree, so, every couple years, I attempt to remedy the situation by enrolling in some school or another. Since getting a grownup job and having more responsibilities and all that good stuff that comes with being an adult, I’ve also found that I have less and less patience with what “going back to school” actually means. Right now, it means driving 36 miles round trip and walking what feels like miles in wickedly frozen wind and snow two days a week, acquiring several tickets for expired car tabs, and dealing with the rowdy, inconsiderate, loud masses of people in the common areas. I look at my more academically-inclined friends and family, and I feel a mix of envy and awe. For one thing, they’ve usually been in college since the fall after graduating high school, so they aren’t 27, stuck in community college classes with 19-year-olds who still think the White House is in Washington State, doing assignments on things they already learned on their own in the blogosphere two years ago. Also, they’ve stuck with it. They have managed not only to get their asses out of bed and to a class at the right time, but also to focus their energy on completing assignments, learning material, and engaging in the learning process.
Realizing the redundant nature of my current “official” education is making me feel strongly about democratizing our education. An article in the Washington Times, while a couple years old, remains relevant in its theories:
Abraham Lincoln did not attend a formal law school, yet he practiced law. While I do not advocate going backward and allowing just anyone to put up a shingle, I suggest people might be able to meet certain academic goals and objectives through nontraditional means, at less cost, and be able to prove their level of education without receiving a degree from a traditional institution. It is worth exploring.
Why not allow people to prove their knowledge and experience in a way that does not require money, or access to money, or prestige, or access to prestige? It’s elitist snobbery at its finest, and I am officially opposed to any such thing. In the meantime, practically anyone, practically anywhere, can learn practically anything, by just looking.
Some of my favorite places:
TED.com and PBS’s Forum Network for lectures and talks about new ideas about anything you can think of, from religion, scientific breakthroughs, current events, philosophy, and more;
Netflix, obviously, because there are scores of documentaries from reputable sources about everything;
Bankers Online, which I realize is a little industry-specific for me and my job-related experience, but seriously, it’s an amazingly valuable resource to learn about anything banking-industry related;
GovTrack, which will inform you of everything Congress is up to, summaries and full text of pending legislation, etc.;
Wikipedia! Of course! The place where no one can visit just one page.
Wikileaks, too, if you understand WTF a “cable” is;
Google! Where it all begins!
MIT Open Courseware. I have yet to try this, but I think it’s fantastic, and I hear other schools are climbing aboard this trend. And it raises the question, yet again, of why someone completing MIT courses and possibly coursework can’t get professional recognition for their work just because they aren’t paying anyone.
How Stuff Works, which also has a podcast that I used to love listening to at work, is great. It’s basic-but-interesting information on topics you wouldn’t otherwise have a reason to understand, like How Quicksand Works, among many, countless others.
Of course, if education as we know it now were to become easily accessible to everyone, how instructors and professors earned a living would dramatically change, as well. That is a complex issue in itself, but the idea of democratizing education is a powerful one, and worth really digging into.
What are some valuable educational websites or forums in which you participate? Do you think there is a value to maintaining the prestige of Ivy League schools? How do you feel about easily and affordably allowing people who are largely self-taught to receive academic and/or professional credit for their work?
Do you see any benefits to maintaining the educational system as it exists right now, thereby restricting access to certain people who are unable to meet certain demands, like tuition?
This post is from Most Wine Is Good.
I’ll answer the question first, and expound second. Yes. The world of wine is certainly an exemplary account of women breaking barriers and uniting for positive change. The examples are numerous, and I’ll get to some articles in a second which really flesh the issue out well, but I want to give an unusually informal mini-essay on the matter.
Firstly, I want to impress upon the reader that I am deeply concerned with social justice, and in the pursuit of a meaningless college degree I have had ample opportunity to study and analyze major issues and events which the United States has seen. Slavery, freedom of religion/speech, capitalism (it wasn’t the only option on the table), sexual equality, temperance, gay rights, etc., etc. I’ve also had the honor of studying women’s issues under the former National Women’s Studies Association president, Judith Roy. So the context I’m framing this whole issue from is one of historical struggles and triumphs. (NERD ALERT: skip this post and read THIS instead… more facts)
With that said, wine was once a gentleman’s club. Actually, even that generalization is too modern. Wine was once a disgusting, muddy, tart and somewhat rancid indulgence. The refinement of which finally saw the courts of kings. With financial backing from these kings, wine-makers began perfecting methods of producing more pleasurable and elegant wines. As wine became a full blown commodity, monasteries grew eager (ctrl+F : monks ) to realize some of the profits, and began introducing wine-making as one potential life path for monks. Since monastic life provided an abundance of time and a devoted workforce, monasteries began informing wine-making methods in general and came to produce some of the most sought after vintages. Even though monasteries are strictly inhabited by men, this would certainly not be the peak of wine’s patriarchal days.
Skipping ahead, grape vines from all over the world began traveling. News of the greatness of a particular vine and it’s geo-climate needs would spread and, with money, so would cuttings of the vine. If successful, these traveling cuttings would yield brave new worlds in terms of blended wines and wines that could cellar longer due to increasing acidity levels and better fermentation practices. As humankind around the globe began to clash and civilize, wine came to rule supreme (beer makes a comeback in the mid-1700′s).
Colonial forces, primarily British, are somewhat to thank (though in no sense of nobility) for the further cultivation of what were becoming increasingly “fine wines”. I credit the British colonialists hesitantly as this occurs during a particularly dreadful time for the British in terms of human rights violations and all-out greed. Their Empire ever-expanding, the British aimed to bring fine wine to any place Her Royal Army should lay base (this generously parallel’s with the history of Tea and black pepper, to name a few). This promulgation of wine across the British empire was the peak of wine’s patriarchal days.
That we now have a Robinson for antiquity’s Parker is clearer than a windsock indicating the feminist winds that have blown in since the dark days of male dominated wine-making. In fact, vocal and respected female wine critics are more of a symptom than a condition. The overall trend in wine today is that of a veritable takeover. Some of the most important wineries in the world are run and maintained by powerful women. Over recent decades women have become so influential in the world of wine that marketers now see that they have no choice but to bring on top paid female executives. Women in today’s wine industry can fill any role they desire with enough hard work (sure, maybe even harder work than men put in, but there’s only anecdotal evidence of this), yet the wave only crests there, the full expanse of the social body of said wave is depicted very well in this article published by Food & Wine.
While it’s true that women have proven to be both effective and innovative in the world of wine-making, evaluating and selling – like all other struggles women are currently engaged in, there is still a distance to travel to flat equality. The nature of the struggle will likely vary by setting, but in each setting there will undoubtedly be a struggle. For example, males and females in my local market are equally open to wine suggestions from either male or female retailers (exceptions exist), yet male servers (in restaurants or bars) are seen as having less culinary/wine-pairing authority as their female counterparts (exceptions exist). Additionally, males tend to act as though price is less of a concern when choosing a wine than females. Females are typically quick to name a price point and are usually suspicious of bottles costing more than $30, while males respond positively to higher priced wines and hesitate to name their cost-ceiling.
Those last couple of examples are fairly porous, but I trust you can see the point. How men and women interact varies by setting, and this invariably affects the speed at which social roles change, as well as the impetuses that can cause such changes. All things considered… make no mistake: women have an upward momentum in wine that is reaching a stronghold, and I think that’s fantastic. We’ve heard enough from men who declare sentiments such as, “Pinotage is as untenable as child rape (ctrl+F : pinotage)”.
If I’m off on my historical lineage, citation or analysis, by all means email me at mostwineisgood@gmail.com. I’ll happily give you credit for any corrections I make, and would rather not have a public argument over it. My take is: if your research is better, let’s go with that!
When I was 19, I worked as a cashier at SuperAmerica. It was, by far, the most obnoxiously boring job I have ever had in my life. That is, until I got my very first Gas Station Stalker.
You see, if you’re a gas station employee and female, you are guaranteed at least one stalker. The Stalker is someone who comes in to buy his daily 3.2% alcohol 40oz malt liquor and two packs of Marlboro reds, and notices the new cashier– you! He kindly informs you that he finds you pretty (swooooon), and on the spot declares you to be his favorite cashier. You smile and say thanks as you take his smelly, wadded-up singles and give him his change. He leaves.
Cut to the next week. Since your first meeting with your new stalker, he’s managed to memorize the days you work, and which shifts. He now makes sure that he waits until you’re there to buy his smokes and watered-down booze, and stands off to the side while you ring up other people, to ensure that he gets some face time with you. You still naively think it’s a little cute, and maybe he’s kind of gross, but mostly, he seems harmless, so you just deal with it.
Cut to a month later. Dude no longer gives a shit that you don’t want to give him your number, or that you have a boyfriend. He continues trying his best to convince you to go on a date with him and his Marlboros and 40s. You complain about this to your coworkers, who tell you about their own stalkers, who are nearly identical to yours. Next time you see Stalker Man coming up to the store, you announce to your coworkers, “I’m going to hide in the cooler! If he asks, I’m dead.” Your coworker complies. You do the same for her when her stalker comes in an hour later. You notice, resentfully, that your male coworkers lack stalkers.
Sometimes, you’re a girl who doesn’t work at a gas station, but instead, you’re a girl who goes to a gas station on a regular basis. Maybe you’re my sister, who lives half a block away from a gas station and has a reason to go there nearly every day. And maybe the slimy douchebag who seems to be the only one working there won’t leave you the bloody hell alone, to the point where you refuse to go to this gas station unless you know for sure that he is not there. Maybe you ask your sister to go for you.
So. That’s where I come in. I frequently go next door to the gas station to buy my sister a pack of cigarettes, because Slimy Douche has made her that uncomfortable by repeatedly trying to get in her pants (which, had he been successful, would have been the second pair of pants in our town-home complex into which he’s managed to get). This does not fool Slimy Douche, who has memorized my sister’s preferred brands of cigarettes and soda, so he asks where she is. “The Girl,” he calls her. I politely tell him she’s busy, not wanting to make things awkward for her if she were to come in again later when he’s working. He says “aww, that’s too bad.”
This continues on a frequent basis, as me, my mom, and husband trade off buying my sister cigarettes. See, he doesn’t bother me, because I come into the store with my husband on a regular basis, so he knows I’m already someone else’s property not likely to be interested. One night, I go in to buy her smokes. She’s waiting in the car, as we are about to go out. He is finally fed up with this and asks why she won’t come in. Is she scared of him? For the most part, he seems like a decent enough guy, if not utterly fucking clueless, so I figure I’ll try to help him out a little. He seems to feel genuinely bad. I kindly explain that his frequent flirtatious behavior started to make her uncomfortable, so she prefers to avoid him. He kind of laughs, and explains that he wasn’t trying to be serious, he just liked to get a rise out of people. He seems nervous, and keeps rambling. I interrupt him to politely explain that most women tend to get hit on just about everywhere they go, or whistled at, or rudely leered at, so it may be something she’s very tired of dealing with. He doesn’t let me finish, but instead interjects to inform me that he would be thrilled if he got hit on every day by women. Not wanting to go into a Feminist Theory 101 lecture with him about street harassment and how insulting and ridiculous it is to expect women to take all this shit as a fucking compliment, I smile tightly, take my purchases, and say ‘bye.’
Yesterday, I go into the gas station. I changed my hair (got bangs), and he noticed. “You did something… your hair? Is your hair different?” I tell him it is, I just cut bangs. I smile, because I’m always so damn nice to everyone all the time, especially people who don’t deserve it. He is about to say something, but stops himself. He then restarts, and says in a frowny-face voice I hadn’t yet heard from Slimy Douche, “well, I would tell you it looks nice, but I wouldn’t want to offend you.”
Motherfucking son of a…
Nadra Kareem Nittle of Bitch Magazine recalls a friend who is Latina who only wishes to date men who share her ethnic background.
Would my friend’s dating pool expand if she chose not to solely date Latinos? Probably. Is she racist for dating solely Latinos? No. And before I say more, I want to point out that I know Latinos can be of any race. The friend in question is mestiza, however, and she typically dates others who share her combination of Native American and Spanish heritage. So, why isn’t she wrong for making this move? Because wanting to pass on one’s cultural heritage to children isn’t racist, nor is wanting a mate who understands what it’s like to experience the same kind of oppression you have.
I don’t think it’s racist to choose to only be romantically involved with someone of the same race or ethic background… necessarily. Really, it depends on the reason. Clearly, if the woman discussed in the article were going to only date others who shared her ethic background because she doesn’t like white people or black people or anyone else who doesn’t share her ethnic background, that’s racist. But there are a lot of reasons someone might make this conscious choice. For example,
It’s common knowledge that in this society, people of color have the burden of educating others about their culture. They have this burden at school and at work, so some want a reprieve from this in their intimate relationships. They don’t want to spend family functions explaining customs to a mate or translating from one language to another. They also don’t want to have to explain why it’s important for children to partake in certain cultural practices.
Also mentioned is the common belief that if a white person were to make the same decision, they would likely be viewed as racist. Well, I don’t think that’s necessarily true, either. Again, it depends on why the person is deliberately limiting their dating pool to only one race or ethnic background. And the reasons that white people may choose to do this can be very different than the reasons why a person of color might, as described above.
But why would a white person only want to date other white people? Well, first we have to break that apart a little. Is it that those white people only want to date other people with the same color skin, or are they only looking to be with someone who shares a common cultural heritage? I can’t think of a good reason to deliberately decide never to be romantically involved with someone who has a different skin color, if there is chemistry, shared values, and all of the other things people use to decide who to be involved with.
On the other hand, say I am of German heritage, and that cultural heritage is important to me, and I want someone to share that with, who understands the importance I place on my heritage. That wouldn’t be racist, and obviously, there are people of all racial backgrounds in Germany, so if all I was looking for was someone whose ancestors came from the same country, there isn’t a “racial” element to it.
Ultimately, for white people like myself, whose ethnic background is much more varied than simply German (there’s also English, Irish, and Native American, among others), it would be practically impossible for me to find someone whose ethnic background is identical, or even nearly identical, to mine. And this is sort of embarrassing, but I couldn’t for the life of me tell you what makes up my (white) husband’s ethnic background. I think he mentioned something about Bohemia once, but, also embarrassingly, I really haven’t the slightest idea of what that means (although I think I’ll go figure that out in a minute). So, obviously, this isn’t something that’s very important to me, personally.
Mostly, I’m willing to bet that most people don’t genuinely care, aside from concerns over potential family drama for dating inter-racially. My half-baked theory is that we just date people we are interested in who we find in our social circles, and in my experience, social circles tend to be pretty homogeneous, depending, at least, on where one lives, works, goes to school, etc. My high school, for example, was pretty diverse, and a lot of people dated inter-racially. It was largely no big deal. Ten years later, most of my friends are white, and dating or married to other white people. I wouldn’t say this is intentional, but just a product of our social circles’ demographics.
What do you think? Is the choice to only date a person who shares a racial or ethnic background with you racist, or not?
A while back, a girl made a Facebook page accusing a guy at her school of being a rapist.
A longer while back, the website Girl Don’t Date Him was used not to post pictures of pink bras on large boobs or as a place to house articles (pink ones) about cheating men, but as a place where women could post stories, pictures, and full names of their terrible exes, as a sort of “we’re in it together, sisters” warning to other women.
Legitimate guerrilla warfare against injustice, or terrible idea for a million possible reasons? Well, my answer depends partially on whether or not the accusations are true. If a guy gets drunk and turns into a violent psychopath and sprains his girlfriend’s wrists and leaves her unable to walk for days and makes her fear for her life, I think he deserves to be called every goddamn name in the book, in public, with everyone imaginable given access to it and made to read it. I think he deserves to pay for his motherfucking terrible actions in all ways possible.
But if I don’t know the victim, and I therefore have no reason to believe that either person is lying or telling the truth, I might respond with something like, “Well, this is a very bad idea. It could hurt the victim in court [in the case of rape, domestic assault/abuse, etc.], it could cause hostility toward the accused, who hasn’t been convicted of a crime. And also, that’s probably illegal in some way or another, as well it should be, if you can imagine being the ‘asshole outed on the internet’ who is actually innocent. The very nature of such a thing harms the spirit of “innocent until proven guilty.”
But when I know the victim, that less vindictive, more rational, more practical side isn’t very loud. And then, I only wish I knew how to make a kickass website that everyone would read with pictures and links and addresses and phone numbers and directions to houses.
I’ll admit at first I had a pretty evil thought about this video but after letting that pass I concluded that there is some good stuff going on here and a lot that I agree with. Damn shame it doesn’t get more attention.
So what do you think?
(Borrowed from Pelle Billing.)
Warren discusses American exceptionalism on his blog, Auspicious Scuttlebutt:
There was a time when the Fourth of July was more than a Close-Out-Fire-Sale-Explosion-Spectacular, more than a $20 a head fireworks show, instead more of a family gathering, a picnic and some easily entertaining sparklers, flowers and a few bottle rockets.
Today every day is the Fourth of July. Monster Chevy Trucks with Huge American Flags festooned across the back window (presumably to obscure the well hung gun rack in the back); self-proclaimed “true Americans” participating in reality TV shows, shooting endangered wolves from helicopters and decrying the excesses of our Socialist government, who’s apparently demanding we don’t eat dessert anymore; Extreme politics is becoming extreme domestic terrorism in light of today’s shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
A well-timed and expertly-executed take-down if I’ve ever seen one, complete with the promise of more.
Innocent Smith discusses Robert Wyman’s lecture on the biology and history of abortion, and the circular nature of the debate itself.
Erin Matson on the tragedy of eating disorders, after the announcement of French model Isabelle Caro’s death from anorexia.
imnotme on red vs. white wine:
Next, and less importantly is that I find a certain affinity with red over white wine that is something akin to gender bias. I won’t lie, drinking white wine or blushes has always seemed more of a feminine choice to me, even though I know that is ridiculous.
All right, the whole post isn’t about gender bias and wine, but it’s an interesting thought, anyway. Gender-based stereotypes about types of wine people drink? Can’t we just have a fucking glass of wine without thinking about gender? It’s interesting because no, we really can’t, sometimes. And also, sometimes it’s fun.
I sometimes go on these stretches where I just look for the most delicious-looking food on the internet and drool over it for a while. I recently found a few, and today I even made one. It turned out all right. I used both cream of chicken and cream of broccoli instead of just one can cream of chicken (it only wanted 1 can for 4 chicken breasts– I used 3 chicken breasts and one can wasn’t anywhere near enough) so the flavor may have been a little different. Canned cream of broccoli is never very satisfying.
Sady Doyle candidly discusses some of her reservations on maintaining a public space that includes details of her personal life that have been historically proven to put their publishers in danger.
My former employer’s future isn’t looking too good anymore, what with ongoing lawsuits, regulators, caps on profits, and poor people getting a small measure of justice in banking. I can’t say I’m terribly sad about the news. I’ll probably write more in-depth about this later.
We should really all just quit Facebook, immediately.
In the world’s most (hopefully) obvious news ever, watching women cry doesn’t give men erections.
In a moment of glaring hypocrisy, Keith Olbermann calls for Palin & Co. to accept responsibility for their part in the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. He falt-out ignored, refused, nearly scrubbed his “tangential” part of perpetuating rape apologism and victim-blaming during all of #mooreandme. Didn’t mean to talk about this again, and hardly have an opinion on Olbermann, but this is just too overt and unchecked. You want transparency and accountability? That means you are subject to it, too! Why haven’t you repudiated your brush-off of the charges against Assange? Moore had the decency to go on television and show his support, even if he didn’t ultimately own up to what he did. Another way in which issues primarily affecting, or at least perceived to be only affecting, women are so often thrown under the bus, which means that they aren’t taken seriously as human issues, but just as extras, ad then, only when politically convenient.
I was born in 1983, making me too young to remember (or have been alive for) any American political assassination or assassination attempts. Hell, I wasn’t even around when John Lennon was killed, and only barely remember Selena’s murder, and I couldn’t be bothered to care about Nirvana until a couple years after Kurt Cobain’s suicide, because when grunge really started to become influential, I was still young enough that I was still listening primarily to whatever my mom played in the car, and hadn’t yet started to develop my own musical tastes.
So today, when I saw that a US Congressperson had been deliberately shot on my Twitter feed on my phone this morning, while half asleep, I thought, “oh my god, things are really getting out of control. This shit is scary. The Tea Partiers are inciting violence all over the country. I live a couple of blocks away from the very people who are responsible for Michele Bachmann’s continued employment, what if I look too ‘progressive’ in the checkout at Cub? It’s finally come down to it; people like me are going to be targeted as ‘the enemy’!”
Then I realized that that’s just a little melodramatic, and that in real life, even if people voted for Michele Bachmann, they’re more likely to be simply misguided rather than malicious, if one were to attach a judgment to their political ideologies, which I’m wont to do. They’ll probably still help you push your car out of a snow bank or let you go ahead of them in line when you only have a head of lettuce and they have a months’ worth of groceries in their cart. People aren’t that bad, usually. But sometimes, they really are.
I posted a link to (one of) the NPR story(ies) about the shooting on my Facebook page, noting, “This is becoming a scary place.” But it’s not, really. Becoming one, that is. If it’s scary, it’s been that way, and we’ve just had a three-decade or so long break from it. And of course, the years since the assassination attempt on Reagan haven’t been free from controversy related to (alleged) political assassinations, but for the most part, they’ve been free from events that shake our collective trust in our fellow citizens. Until today, I did not consider a politician to be terribly in danger when they walk around in public or hold speaking events or town hall meetings; I expect this of presidents and presidential candidates, and people in higher offices, but I didn’t think that a member of the House of Representatives would have to worry for their lives about simply being in public. It’s a terrible thing for the future of the accessibility of government, too, as others have noted.
And a lot of people are quick to blame violent Tea Party rhetoric for the motivation behind the shootings, and a lot of other people are quick to condemn those who are doing it because they’re supposedly politicizing a terrible, tragic event. In my opinion, which I think is pretty well in line with most people’s opinion at this point, the shooting was clearly politically motivated, regardless of the mental state of the suspect, and that makes it open to political analysis and debate. And the claims that Tea Party rhetoric is going too far is completely warranted, in my opinion. Even though Keith Olbermann is being the king of double-standards here*, he explains his views on the shooting, and his insistence that Palin & Co. take responsibility for the possibility that their violent rhetoric was a motivator in the shooting.
My generation, having not yet dealt with the collective blow that happens as a result of the assassination (or attempted assassination) of a political figure, can use this opportunity as a reminder that people can get fucking out of control, which is all the more reason to keep fighting (PEACEFULLY! NON-VIOLENTLY!) for civility and tolerance, as well as accountability, transparency, and access to information.
Tragedies like this don’t need to happen, and really, we all know that. None of us needs to be reminded of that. But we can help make sure that they don’t keep happening, by leading by example and not contributing to discussions that alienate and ostracize groups of people, people of certain religions, genders, biological sexes, skin colors, sexual orientations, or any other superficial difference. We can encourage our friends and family to stop perpetuating these damaging behaviors, too, and we can actively work toward a more peaceful future. Hopefully, those of us with differences can come together on the point that none of us wants bloodshed to be the way we resolve our differences; there must be a better way.
*more on that later.
A lot of words are collectively agreed to be off-limits to feminists, including “bitch,” “cunt,” “slut,” and a myriad of other words that are said to be female-specific with no male equivalent. If there is no male equivalent for an insult used primarily against women, then it is rightly argued to be sexist. It’s not often that we find or discuss words or labels that work in the opposite direction (i.e., a word that insults men but for which there is no female equivalent), although some people have been doing so recently. What I’d like to talk about specifically, though, is the term “bitch.”
Wikipedia defines “bitch” as follows:
The term “bitch” comes from the 1150 word bicche, which was developed from the Old English word bicce. It also may have been derived from the Old Norse word bikkja for “female dog.” The Oxford English Dictionary dates the term meaning “female dog” to around 1000 A.D.
As a derogatory term for women, it has been in use since the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Its earliest slang meaning mainly referred to sexual behavior, according to the English language historian Geoffrey Hughes: The early applications were to a promiscuous or sensual woman, a metaphorical extension of the behavior of a bitch in heat. Herein lies the original point of the powerful insult son of a bitch, found as biche sone ca. 1330 in Arthur and Merlin … while in a spirited exchange in the Chester Play (ca. 1400) a character demands: “Whom callest thou queine, skabde bitch?” (“Who are you calling a whore, you miserable bitch?”).
Modern usage of the term describes someone who is “belligerent, unreasonable, rudely intrusive or aggressive.” Of course, a man can easily be belligerent, unreasonable, rudely intrusive or aggressive, but when the term is applied to a man, it “is a derogatory term for a subordinate.”
So, let’s break this down. A female bitch is someone who acts in a traditionally masculine manner, and a male bitch is someone who acts in a traditionally feminine manner. While the history of the usage of the word clearly shows its female-specific and misogynist roots, it was later expanded as a way to apply to everyone who acted in a manner at odds with traditional gender roles.
Although I don’t use the word often (I usually only use it to jokingly decribe myself during PMS or in some other humorously self-deprecating way), I prefer the de-connotative usage, summarized (by me) to describe someone who is unnecessarily rude, hostile, or critical. But when I use it, I am much less likely to call a man a bitch for the same reason. I’m also not at all likely to call a man a “bitch” and mean it in the modern context of “subordinate.” In fact, I’m just wholly unlikely to ever call a man a bitch, for any reason. Why is that? I think it is because I don’t want anyone I’m talking to to misunderstand and think that I am calling a man a bitch to illustrate how I think he is acting in a traditionally feminine manner, because using a pejorative against someone for not adhering to traditional gender roles is pretty much against everything I stand for. For some reason, though, I assume people will understand that if I refer to a woman as a bitch, that I’m not calling her a canine in heat.
Another interesting phenomenon that I see happening (and that I use often, myself) is eliminating the female-specific insults from our collective vocabulary and replacing them with traditionally male insults, like “asshole,” or even the milder “jerk.” Since, in addition to not using gender-based insults, I also actively avoid genital-related insults like “pussy” or “dick,” I have been embracing “asshole” and “jerk” as general insults, as neither implies a gender and, although traditionally reserved for men, are perfectly descriptive of what I am trying to call out in the other person.
Something, though, makes me feel uncomfortable about taking a term reserved primarily for men and using it for women and men alike, and I’m not sure why. When describing a role that remains identical whether a male or female performs it that English has unnecessarily divided into genders, like actor and actress, for example, I try to default to the “male” word. So, I’m more likely to call Jennifer Connelly an actor rather than an actress, because I see no reason to differentiate. Who cares if Jennifer Connelly is male or female, when “actor” and “actress” mean exactly the same thing?
So, why eliminate “bitch” from my vocabulary? I’m not sure that I will. But in order to be consistent, it seems that I should. But… why not just call everyone who is acting like an asshole a “bitch,” instead? Whether they’re male or female? Maybe it seems easier to say “asshole” or other usually male-specific terms, because we all know that they mean the same thing whether applied to men or women, and even though “bitch” arguably means exactly the same thing as “asshole,” people are likely to be widely misunderstood about the intent of the insult when used against a man.
Again, though, there’s a certain level of discomfort in reverting to historically male-centric language that does not reconcile well with my preference for egalitarianism (with the exception of actor/actress, as can be seen in the Wikipedia link’s “terminology” section). I don’t like male-as-default language, at all, so treating words that originally conjured up an image of a man as if they are for all of us, while treating words that originally conjured up an image of a female as off-limits feels quite misogynist to me. Society already insults men by calling them women; it feels as though avoiding using traditionally feminine terms to describe men is perpetuating the widespread (if not subconscious) belief that the worst thing a man can do is be like a woman.
Do you use the word “bitch”? How do you feel about gender-specific insults or descriptors?
Aside from the other critiques around the blogosphere today of Ross Douthat’s head-bangingly frustrating column, I also found some glaring inconsistencies, and rather problematic themes he’s got going on. I appreciated his arguably (and rather surprisingly) compassionate response to the MTV special, but he goes on to discuss issues that are either wholly unrelated to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, or off-base in terms of quality of analysis. For example,
In every era, there’s been a tragic contrast between the burden of unwanted pregnancies and the burden of infertility. But this gap used to be bridged by adoption far more frequently than it is today. Prior to 1973, 20 percent of births to white, unmarried women (and 9 percent of unwed births over all) led to an adoption. Today, just 1 percent of babies born to unwed mothers are adopted, and would-be adoptive parents face a waiting list that has lengthened beyond reason.
Some of this shift reflects the growing acceptance of single parenting. But some of it reflects the impact of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973, countless lives that might have been welcomed into families like Thernstrom’s — which looked into adoption, and gave it up as hopeless — have been cut short in utero instead.
Leaving aside for now the point that it’s no woman’s responsibility to provide children for infertile couples, he’s forgetting that giving up a baby for adoption — after the birth mother spent at least 9 months gestating it, feeling it move, kick, bond with it, etc. — is no easy feat.
He’s also neglecting the reality that “acceptance of single parenting” is hardly a celebration of it. What else should we do to single parents? Abuse them? Deny their existence? Blame them for their situation? Also forgetting that many single parents — primarily women — who are blamed for not giving their children an ideal household are not doing so by their own choice. Their husbands can abandon the family, die, or even just leave the vast majority of involved parenting up to the other parent, without their say. Or vice versa. It’s not always about a casual decision to get married and have kids, or an equally as casual decision to not make that work out as planned.
Supporting single parents and maintaining his stance that a dual-parent household is ideal for raising and nurturing a child don’t have to be mutually exclusive. He has shown time and time again that he believes the best way to discourage behaviors that are contrary to the common idea (or his idea) of what is ideal, like two-parent households, preventing unplanned pregnancies, “traditional” marriage, and now abortion, is to alienate, criminalize, or just outright ignore the existence of the people who are engaging in, or directly affected by these issues. Clearly, the state, or society at large, acting in this manner in the past caused such joys as women dying of botched illegal abortions, forced pregnancy, poverty, marginalization… I can go on.
There is a reason why people continue to fight ideologues like Douthat. It’s not because we’re hostile to the ideals they set forth, but because we want to avoid the consequences of forcing such ideals on unwilling — or unable — participants.
(…Nearly the entirety of this blog post was originally a comment over at The Innocent Smith Journal. InnocentSmith has also responded to Jill and Amanda’s critiques here.)
Since this is my first official post, I figured I may as well start off with an issue that people hold very strong opinions on: PORNOGRAPHY!
As a feminist, I find the current state of mainstream (and most non-mainstream) pornography to be abhorrent. Most feminists would agree on the same “problems”: women are objectified and often degraded, sex is not portrayed in a way that is conducive to women’s enjoyment, all scenes and actions are clearly designed for the benefit of straight men, these scenes/actions teach men how to be selfish- sometimes cruel- partners, porn perpetuates negative beauty/body standards, it is heteronormative and dismissive of all sorts of varieties/tastes/preferences in an individual’s sexuality, it is too fake. The list goes on and on and on.
OK, so porn, as we know it, right this minute, is pretty bad.
Here’s where I diverge from many other feminists: I don’t think it has to be bad.
I don’t think that pornography is inherently bad for women, or for anyone. Sure, it totally sucks now- but the same things can pretty much be said for all forms of media that involve visual representation of sex acts in particular or gender in general. Now, that’s no excuse to tolerate it, it’s just puts porn on the list of things that could use some revolutionizing, in my opinion. And, I would argue, that creating a space for “feminist” porn could even have a bigger value than say, feminist TV or mainstream movies.
And now, you radfem readers are probably pulling your hair out screaming “WHAAA???”
Give me a second, I’ll explain:
Why the importance? Sex is very intrinsic to nearly EVERYONE’S EVERYDAY LIVES. Yeah, you won’t die from lack of sex, certainly not lack of porn, sex is up there in the priorities like food and friends and housing for most people. And here’s the thing- people of all genders are empowered by having a healthy understanding of their sexuality(ies). This is something that I should hope, all feminists can agree on. So porn, as a concept, could be considered a tool that would help everyone learn how to embrace and enjoy sex.
What if porn attempted to teach us some different lessons? Instead of learning that we should have breast implants and need to fake orgasms, we were actually learning the kind of awesome stuff “Our Bodies Ourselves” was putting out there…just in video form?
It stands to reason, that if pornographic material somehow magically became totally egalitarian/inclusive and started showing us real people having really good sex that they were actually enjoying themselves that then….wait for it…people would learn to be better, more honest lovers of others and themselves. And imagine what could happen if suddenly it presented diverse bodies, ethnicities, and ages WITHOUT the insulting characterizations we currently get (see: granny/fatty films)? Maybe, just maybe, we could shift societal beauty standards and help people of all shapes/types believe that they deserve to have sexual fulfillment as well! I know, call me crazy…
So, I guess I’m just asking a lot of dangerous questions here, but I’d love to hear some constructive suggestions and answers- and please- without any hate or judgment, K?
I thought, upon WordPress’ email recommendation, that I would post this summary of ethecofem’s 2010 activity:
The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:
The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads Wow.
A helper monkey made this abstract painting, inspired by your stats.
About 3 million people visit the Taj Mahal every year. This blog was viewed about 40,000 times in 2010. If it were the Taj Mahal, it would take about 5 days for that many people to see it.
In 2010, there were 132 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 167 posts. There were 23 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 1mb. That’s about 2 pictures per month.
The busiest day of the year was December 8th with 1,000 views. The most popular post that day was Trend Piece Tuesday: Men Are Scary.
The top referring sites in 2010 were feministe.us, feministing.com, stumbleupon.com, feministcritics.org, and dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com.
Some visitors came searching, mostly for ethecofem, ethcofem, lena svenson kdwb, lena kdwb, and danny television men violence site:ethecofem.com.
These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.
Trend Piece Tuesday: Men Are Scary December 2010
39 comments
“Girlfriend” is not synonymous with “permanent sex toy” January 2010
19 comments
“Schrödinger’s Rapist”? That’s you! August 2010
50 comments
We don’t need government to defend our morals September 2010
1 comment
Julian Assange: Rapist? December 2010
35 comments
WordPress only listed the top 5 posts, so here are 6 – 10:
6. Gender and Genitals
7. Things people have Googled to get here
8. Who comes up with this material?
9. Did the patriarchy write this?
10. Come on goddesses– let’s confuse the dumb boys again!
Thanks for reading, everyone! 
I was talking with a co-worker this afternoon, and she mentioned how after so much time with her S.O. she was beginning to feel that “everything you do irritates me” feeling. I know this feeling. Fortunately, and thanks in no small part to my wife, I also know what it’s like when that feeling is conquered and begins to fade. While my coworker and I talked, I suggested two sort-of rudimentary ways to approach the issue. Now that I am home and have stepped away from the conversation I thought I would toss it out into the blogoshpere and see what comes back. The two approaches I suggested were fairly polar, and I realize that can be problematic, but a lot of relationship issues do tend to lack a wealth of approaches. I will comment on that more later, for now I’ll recap:
In my opinion, she could A) Listen to her gut (meditate, force-conclusion, ego-mirror, etc) and decide whether or not the relationship she is in is one where the pressure to become a better person is not only there, but mutual. Or, B) Pick something she does which irritates her S.O., catch a moment when she chooses NOT to engage that irritating behavior, and remark out loud about it.
In the first scenario, I am basically suggesting she decide whether or not the relationship is even worth the personal dissection. If it is, then my second approach ought to be a good starting marker for how to recognize change in your partner. This is really difficult without a plan of action because when you spend day in and day out with one person, you don’t see the ways they are changing. You may notice if you go to a party where a large number of people are your S.O.’s friends, many people that your S.O. hasn’t seen in six months or a year may remark on how much your S.O. has matured, while you sit by scratching your head daring the old friend to go ahead and try dating your impossible S.O. for his or her self and see how they like. This thought should be a red flag, because it indicates that you believe you are best suited to meet your damaged partner’s needs. Maybe you are… but the no-no is finding yourself in a place of moral or behavioral superiority in a relationship that should be built on mutual respect and appreciation.
My wife and I use the method I mention above. Even though we had some epic fights and misunderstandings at the get-go, we always have and always will talk about the things we are or are not satisfied with in the relationship in non-blaming (as possible) language, and then try to vocally express when we have acted alternatively to the problem behavior so that the other person knows, at the very least, that you are still thinking about it and still care. For example, my wife really hated it when I used to “help” in the kitchen, because what usually occurred, and I admit it now, was my domination of the whole project. She loves to cook as much as I do, and I was condescending her by jumping in too enthusiastically with my own ideas rather than getting a bearing on where she was headed first. This has changed, but it took time and the effort to point out small milestones for the change to be recognized. Now I ask her if she wants help, and if she does, I ask her specifically what she’d like me to do. Sometimes she will have me just chop some shit up, other times she will actually want my own input.
Over simplified? Sure. But nonetheless applicably sound.
Or, for a different scenario, let’s say that one person in a committed relationship has a drinking “problem”, and I put that in quotes because not everyone said to have one does. That can be somewhat subjective. So let’s, for the sake of ease, say that one person drinks more than other. The one who drinks less would like the other to do the same or at least work towards a middle ground (ok, fine, this is based on personal experience), so the one whose drinking is problematic in the context of the relationship should make it known EACH time they are intentionally curbing a desire for a given quantity or frequency of alcohol; mind you, not in a whining or punitive way. And since I already admitted that I am just talking about my own life, I should also say that this approach has worked for my wife and I. She has a much healthier relationship with day-to-day drinking than I do, and through communicating each effort to reduce my own drinking down to a level that was more acceptable, she began to see that, indeed, even though I still require some wine or what-have-you to get ready for bed, the amount has decreased more than significantly. Of course, her insistence and my acceptance of the issue were key too, but there’s just no reason I can think of to avoid such changes unless the change in question is a “deal breaker”.
So as I savor my glass of wine over some blog writing tonight, I would encourage others in a similar spot to at least attempt this method, for even if it fails, you will have gained important knowledge either way: Possibly the knowledge that your connection wasn’t that strong after all, possibly the knowledge that it can only get stronger.
Take care.
It seems that men are more excited by the idea of an unplanned pregnancy than their girlfriends:
I would venture to guess that if it were men who were biologically predisposed to do the fetus-gestating for 9 months and worry about the pain of childbirth and the bodily changes that occur during and after pregnancy, the ones surveyed would feel a little less enthusiasm than they currently do. Perhaps, if this were the case, the women surveyed might find themselves a little more excited. But ultimately, given good ol’ biology and the fear of parenting inequities, this really isn’t terribly surprising.
The term “free-market economy” is a misnomer. The name is intended to refer to the fact that if someone wishes to do something to make money, that they have the freedom to pursue that opportunity without impediments. However, what is ignored is the fact that there are inherent costs in everything as well as restrictions put in place for the well being of society. There are reasons that paint is no longer sold with lead, companies are no longer able to dump whatever leftover toxic materials from production into the water supply and why cars are required to meet safety guidelines. This term is bandied about way too often by Republicans and Libertarians when describing their ideal economy without understanding the basics ideas behind the theory. And yes it is a theory because it’s virtually impossible to prove a macroeconomic concept.
I think these are two biggest and most annoying misconceptions about a free-market economy.
First, if Republicans wanted to express their ideology more correctly, they would say “a freer market economy.” The alteration of the one word makes a huge difference. Understanding that we live in a market economy means accepting that restrictions and regulations on business will need to be put in place. There is nothing wrong with wanting less restrictions when they make sense, but reacting as if America would be put on the path to Socialism (read: Communism) each time any sort of new regulation suggested shows true ignorance. It is the prices of goods and services which are determined by the basics of supply and demand. If more people want something of limited supply, they will invariably pay more to get that something. Conversely if there is too much of something, people will be able to look to many places and bargain one seller against another to get the best price. That is the basis of a market economy. It all sounds so simple, and on the person-to-person level it really is, but in a true macroeconomic sense, it really isn’t.
Second, it is often made to sound as if one is against a free-market economy, then you are against freedom, and therefore must hate America. I wish that was an exaggeration, but to cite Dennis Prager:
“The answer is that the American left hates the America that believes in American exceptionalism, is prepared to use force to fight what it deems as dangerous evil, affirms the Judeo-Christian value system, believes in the death penalty, supports male-female marriage, rejects big government, wants lower taxes, prefers free market to governmental solutions, etc. The American left, like the rest of the world’s left, loathes that America.”
It is a nice little trick Prager pulls to create two different America’s, all while stating that one America is better than the other. Sure, that is one voice, but one that has a syndicated radio program. He also had an issue with Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison about using a Koran during his swearing in ceremony. The irony of course is in the US Constitution there no stated religious text that is required to be used when swearing in a representative of the government. The lesson here is: Freedom in the economy? Great. Freedom of religion? Not so much. Also, only the second choice is actually guaranteed by the US Constitution.
There are many, many, many more points that could be made about the fallacy of a “free-market economy,” but recently a situation arose that is relatable. Congress was nearing the end of it’s session and Republicans were threatening to stall every other bill until the “Bush” tax cuts, which were scheduled to expire at the end of 2010, were extended. Democrats were pushing to let only the tax cuts for the wealthiest expire, while the rest were extended. Cries from the right erupted that doing so was an affront to the free market, which again doesn’t actually exist, and that it was class warfare against those who worked hard to earn those large incomes. These same people ignored the fact there is decrease in the inheritance tax, which is really only applicable to those with a large amount of wealth to pass on to their heirs who did nothing to earn that wealth except be born into the right family. You would also hear people say that if these tax cuts were allowed to expire, that capital that would be used to create jobs would disappear and cause the unemployment rate to go higher. There are so many things wrong with that statement, it will need to be left for another day to fully examine.
Wondering about my opinion? I think that the congress was right to extend all of the tax cuts temporarily. So, even though I would consider myself a liberal, I am in favor of something that Republicans were willing to essentially shut down congress unless it was passed? Yes. Even though I absolutely believe that tax rates are too low, especially for the highest income brackets and that any sort of trickle-down economic theory is a complete joke, there is something to be said about not reducing the amount of money in all of the people’s pockets, and how much they were expecting to be putting in their pockets when it is unknown if the global economy is actually recovering.
There was also a key word in that previous statement. Temporarily. There were Republicans who wished to make these tax cuts permanent, but when they knew they didn’t have the votes, they didn’t put up much of a fight. That, in itself shows that for many this is mainly a political trumpet to toot and be heard. So, this issue will be revisited in two years. We know what the make-up of this next congress will be, but we don’t yet know how it will behave in two years. We don’t know how much power, if any, President Obama will be able to exert during an election year, or even if he will still be president the following year, in 2013. If the economy begins to show real progress and unemployment drops, I think a more reasonable debate will be able to be conducted.
Republicans threatened and some might say that Democrats folded, but there are couple of points with which I would like to conclude. After this bill passed, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed, the nuclear treaty with Russia was approved, and the bill for 9/11 responders were approved as well. Would these have happened without this compromise? Also, by demanding that the tax cuts for the richest Americans continue, Republicans have ignored all of their rhetoric that was spewed about the national debt and fiscal responsibility and that it needed to be addressed immediately, for the sake of the children. This bill will increase the debt by almost a trillion dollars, and apparently those on the right were A-OK with that. They pleased their constituents (read: large campaign contributors), but many will now have to hope that their vote isn’t mentioned the next time they criticize a spending bill only because it is not fully paid for by cutting spending on something else. Republicans will also have to admit to themselves that they helped President Obama end the year with three large political victories.
ethecofem RSS feed
