That Damn Dirty F-Word

Here are some brilliant quotes by brilliant women about feminism. (That was sarcasm.)

The first three are taken from here.

Lady Gaga:
''I think it's great to be a sexy, beautiful woman who can f--- her man after she makes him dinner,'' she says. ''There's a stigma around feminism that's a little bit man-hating. And I don't promote hatred, ever. That's not to say that I don't appreciate women who feel that way. I've got a lot of gay women friends that are like, 'Put your clothes on.' People just have different views about it. I'm not wrong. I'm free. And if it's wrong to be free, then I don't want to be right. Things are changing. We've got a black president, people.''

Kelis:
"There's a really negative connotation with the word feminist. I have no penis envy. I love being a woman, I love women. I think we are special and spectacular in so many different ways, but the connotation behind feminism is generally that we hate men; you know, we don't shave our legs. But if the word feminist just means a female who is comfortable in her own skin and doesn't apologise for it, then yes. I don't apologise for being a woman or being who I am."

Hillary Duff:
"I'm not, like, a crazy feminist. I think women definitely need men. Like, I couldn't imagine having a girlfriend!"

Kelly Clarkson:
Would you call yourself a feminist?

"No, not at all. I mean, that was the first time in my life -- which maybe I'm naïve and I've not been put in any situations like that -- but that's the first time in my life I've ever even heard someone use that mentality. I'm like, "Hey, knock-knock, 2008." Most of the men in my life have been very highly supportive. I've never had to even think like a feminist because no one around me even thinks one [sex] is higher than the other."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's really interesting how feminism is STILL getting such a bad wrap. And even though a majority of people understand gender bias exists, they can't imagine referring to themselves as feminists. I mean, feminists all burn bras, hate men, and don't shave their arm pits, right?

Needless to say, I don't burn bras (I LOVE BRAS!) I don't hate me (I LOVE MEN...well the ones in my life, at least) and I do shave my armpits (I LOVE 'EM SILKY SMOOTH). I can admit that shaving might just be a tool of oppression, but I digress.

There is an interesting phenomena in the world. And let's call it "I'm not a feminist but..." Basically, women are so afraid of being labeled a feminist, that they'll go to any length to distance themselves from the term, despite holding and espousing feminist values. Just so long as before saying feminist things, they can tack on the phrase "I'm not a feminist but..." they're in the clear. PHEW! That was a close one...someone almost thought you were a feminist. *Insert horror movie scream.*

It all comes down to the denigration of feminism in the popular area. I think the most clever thing that was done to feminists by oppressors was to associate feminism with hating men. It's so simple and seemingly logical. You're pro-woman? Well then you must be anti-men! (Although any reasonable person knows that the world is not so binary as that... there's a lot of "gray," my friends.) This made it less attractive to women and nearly impossible for men to associate themselves with feminism. Which further broke the movement, and let the oppression continue. Think about it...if feminism had been widely embraced, things probably would be much more equitable by now, right? (Of course to agree to that, you'd have to actually understand what feminism is about and not buy the hype.)

Similar things have happened to the black power movement and the gay rights movement. By stereotyping black power leaders as white-hating, militant, and dangerous...fear was created and the mainstream didn't trust them. By portraying gay right activists as people who want to "teach" homosexuality to your children, they were not trusted.

I don't want to get off on a crazy tangent about the man, but come on...can't we see what's happening? Any time a group rises to challenge the status quo, we're made to fear and hate them.

Same holds true for feminism.

I don't know what hopeful conclusions I can draw to end this on, except to say that for those of us who are feminists, we've got to let the people around us know that we are. Eventually they'll have to admit that we don't fit that stereotype.

A few random thoughts...

1. I like the contributor style of this here blog. Now if only I had more feminist friends to contribute...We could have a regular feminist dialogue going on here! Myranda and I can only do so much.
   
2. On the same note, I wish we had female readers... and more readers in general.
3. Myranda and I are actually attempting to write a book together. At some point. Not a whole lot has been done on that front yet...
4. Some shows/movies I've seen recently have had some strong gender/sexuality themes, but I'm not sure how to approach them in some form of a cohesive blog.
   

What's in a Name?

So I've written a little bit before about my choice not to change my name and how I'm continuously questioned about this...and how it's one of those "little things" that helps keep sexism alive.

I started to think about this, because when Ronald and I came back into the U.S. from Mexico on Saturday, we had to declare our purchases through U.S. customs. At first, I read the form and it explained clearly that families could declare their purchases together, so long as they reside at the same address.

I didn't even think twice after reading that. It makes sense. They have a written record on the form of the address of the family traveling back into the U.S. and everything they brought. So I proceeded to fill out the form for Ronald and I and that was that...

Until I started watching the channel on the cruise ship where they tell you everything that you need to know about getting off the ship at port. And the guy there mentioned that in order to qualify as a "family" in the eyes of U.S. customs, you have to live at the same address AND have the same last name.

WOW. Really?

Not only is it stupid that to be considered a family by U.S. customs you have to have the same last name, but it's also *SO* "logical," that it's not even worth noting this fact on the form. You should just assume that if your last names are different, then you're not family.

Ok, I'm overreacting, I admit it. But this was annoying, since I had to fill out a whole other new form and Ronald did too...AND since they only give each cabin one form (if you're staying in the same cabin, you must be family, right?) Ronald had to go hunt more forms down.

This wasn't my only run in with name changes on the trip. At our "honeymooners lunch" the other couples started a conversation about what the wives' names used to be and what they are now. (Ronald and I just avoided that conversation...we actually avoided socializing much in general, but that's not the point.)

So I got to thinking about how annoying it is that name changes are so ingrained in our society. The pressure is small enough here and there to be a bother, but taken all together, it's no wonder that so many women, who otherwise might have kept their names, go ahead and make the change anyway. And then i got to thinking about how, as is often the case with inequalities, name changes don't only affect women and keep sexism alive: It's also one of those things that keeps heterosexism alive and well.

It goes hand in hand with the gay marriage problem: all the 1,008 legal benefits that are denied to homosexual couples. In fact, the sexism and heterosexism here are rampant. If a woman gets married and changes her name it costs a nominal fee and requires some annoyances like getting a new social security card and notifying your credit bureau. If a homosexual person, or any man in general (like a heterosexual one changing his name to his wife's) wants to share a family name with their partner, then they must pay a much higher fee and even announce their name change in the paper (an old law that was never changed) in addition to all the other annoyances.

So the message: If you want to fit the "norm" for our society, you better be heterosexual, and you better stick to traditional name changes. And hell, you'll be rewarded with lower fees and less annoyances.

In the case of the stupid U.S. customs form that assumes way too much about what constitutes a "family," I at least had the choice not to change my name when I got married. So yeah, I'm going to encounter some frustrating issues along the way since my name doesn't fit the partiarchial paradigm. But a homosexual couple didn't even have the option to get married and have a legally recognized "family."

I guess I'll count my blessings on this one for now, but I just don't see what U.S. customs stands to gain from their system.

Furious at "Sexting" Story

I saw the following story on WTHR today reported by Steve Jefferson:

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?S=10037502

If you read all of the comments, you saw what I had to say about the injustice taking place in the case at John Marshall. Two kids, one fifteen-year-old girl and one fourteen-year-old boy were taped (or taped themselves) having sex. The boy decided to show this tape off to his friends at school. They got caught. The phone was confiscated from the boy and the girl was "referred to mental health services" according to the statement put out by the IPS school district. The boy loses his phone and the girl has to go to therapy. Am I the only one who sees something wrong here? At first, I got mad at how this story was reported, because maybe IPS did say some action was being taken with/against the boy and Mr. Jefferson just left that out. No. This was the reply I received to my comment. First there was a very prompt (which I highly appreciate) e-mail in reply to my comment that said:

"I've put in a call to the reporter on this story to see if he has any information on what, if anything, will happen to the 14-year-old. If I get that information, it will be added to this story. Thanks for your comment."

Then I went to the story and saw that the WTHR administrator (same person? i dunno) replied to my comment with a comment saying:

"Myranda, I checked with Steve Jefferson, the reporter who covered this story today, and he says it appears there won't be any repercussions for the 14-year-old boy, at least in the Indianapolis case."

I replied to both replies with this:

"Thanks for getting back with me. I truly appreciate it. I saw the administrator comment that no repercussions are being taken against the 14-year-old boy. Do you have any information on who should be contacted to protest this decision? IPS? Also, can that be added to the story? A simple statement that no action is being taken against the boy involved. I find it so incredibly unfair, to say the least, that the girl is being referred "to mental health services" and the boy who was just as involved in the incident (even more so, if you consider the fact that he was the one showing off the video to his friends) is receiving no treatment or punishment.

Thanks again for taking the initiative to check this out and reply so quickly. That is highly admirable and appreciated."

And believe you me, there will be letters written and phone calls made to IPS administrators who have treated this girl like a head case, while the boy gets off scotch-free. I understand the girl, at first, claimed it was a forced act. The videotape, I'm assuming, refutes that statement. I'm not saying the girl is right in claiming a false rape. She's not. But for her to be framed as having "obvious issues" when the boy involved apparently has none? Because it is acceptable behavior for a fourteen-year-old boy to show off his sex tape to his friends. But it is not acceptable for a girl in her situation to lie about what happened. Both are unacceptable. And BOTH should be dealt with. That's all I'm saying.

Also from LJ: On Katy Perry...

Subtitle: Otherwise Known as the 4th Horsewoman of The Feminist Apocalypse

I've been composing this entry in my mind for a while now. I didn't know what it was about her, but something about Ms. Perry just rubbed me the wrong way from the start. So the more I looked at her, the more I came to realize that she is an embodiment of everything that is wrong with women in the media. Ok, maybe not everything...but certainly a lot of things.

Let's take a look at her first super-mega hit single "I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It." I've had a few discussions with Myranda about this song, because as characteristic examples of feminism, we had different ways of viewing it. She saw it as an empowering song, along the lines of experimentation, finding who you truly are, and possibly coming out. She saw the song as making themes like these are more commonplace in society, and therefore an ultimately good thing for equality and the safety of homosexuals. (Did I get that right, I don't really remember the conversation in detail, Myranda.)

I can see the merits of this view, but I think it is making the song out to be something more than it is. I think it is anything but liberating. To put it simply, I think it reduces women to the bisexual play things of men. Let me reference some excerpts of her *artistically beautiful* lyrics.

I got so brave, drink in hand
Lost my discretion
-----
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don't mean I'm in love tonight
-----
No I don't even know your name
It doesn't matter

I selected these verses to hit at a few points. First, to my claim that it's not about coming out or realizing something about herself...she still has a boyfriend, and indicates no intention of leaving him. She doesn't know the girl's name, and she says it's not love, so it's not as if we are meant to believe anything real will come of this. And lastly, it really is just about being flirty and slutty, and making "bad decisions" while drinking.

This, right here, is a prime example of the type of media messages that prompt a group of SIXTH GRADE GIRLS to tell me that boys want them to be bisexual (not just straight or gay) and to drink or smoke pot. That's a real story friends, that's what I heard when I asked them what "boxes" boys try to put them in. (FYI: When you are in 6th grade you're usually 12).

Now, as if this wasn't bad enough Ms. Perry has come out with a new mentally stimulating follow up song which opens with:

You change your mind
Like a girl changes clothes
Yeah you, PMS
Like a bitch
I would know

GREAT! I've got an idea, let's all play into stereotypes that women have been trying to fight for years. Sounds good, huh? Here's a little secret out there for all the sexists in the world: The best way to continue oppression is to get the oppressed to play a role in their subjugation. Now, I know I'm throwing around some pretty strong words for a silly little song like this, but it just makes me sick to see this kind of thing. How can we expect men to strop rapping about bitches and hos when we are calling ourselves the same thing? And don't give me the whole "in-group" argument this time! Nothing makes me sicker than imagining little girls...MY girls singing the opening lines of this song and it soaking into their brains that girls are just supposed t be obsessed with clothes and that any time we act "bitchy" (read: standing up for ourselves) we must be PMS'ing.

*SIGH*

The problem is what Katy Perry represents. It goes beyond her, and she is certainly not the first nor will she be the last. The formula is the same, the face and name are different. You could probably name a hundred women right now who have gained some level of celebrity due CHIEFLY to their looks (and often their willingness to play the game--ie. wear a little as possible) as opposed to being recognize for any amount of talent they may have. (As talent is often lacking in them, while less attractive powerhouses of song, dance, acting, etc. are overlooked.)

The other problem with Katy Perry and the others like her is their prevalence. We often ask in our program "Redefining Beauty" for the girls to name as many famous female singers, actresses, and models as they can, which is simple. Then to name as many famous female doctors, scientists, and judges as they can, and this part is very difficult for them to do, if not impossible. I mean, think back to this summer/fall. How many times did you hear about a famous female mathematician? Then, how many times did you hear "I Kissed a Girl and I Liked It"? You couldn't escape it! And let's be damn honest here, her songs are catchy! Despite her lack of vocal talent, they're toe-tappers. You can't deny it. But the point is that society rewards women like Katy Perry with media exposure and denies the same to women like Mary Edwards Walker. (Look her up.) And without a counter voice to challenge girls to think beyond the boxes that society tries to place them in (like the prototypical bitch vs. slut dichotomy) the world would be a very sad and scary place for us all. So while my subtitle was very ominous, I don't actually believe we are at the death of feminism...Rather far from it. Women like Katy Perry give women like me the drive to keep speaking out and writing ignorantly long posts.

From LJ

I've decided to put all of my feminist rants in one place from now on. LJ will be about my personal life, feminist rants here. Here's an entry I wrote on LJ not long ago.

So while I'm on the topic of feminism...I'm going to link to this blog I came across and have been reading, and getting infuriated about...

MANY of her entries are about the evils of Barack Obama...and this woman, who owns the domain name RECLUSIVE LEFTIST was encouraging her readership to vote against the Democratic candidate. She does so under the guise of the higher calling of voting for feminism. And vehemently repeats how Barack Obama is misogynist. I have a few thoughts about this, as I do everything.

For one, I am happy that someone is talking about how sexist Obama's campaign was against Hillary Clinton in the primary. Many people were eager to jump on how racist Clinton was (which is true) but unfortunately, they are both to blame for their respective -isms. This particular blogger is more than happy to ignore Clinton's -ism. Next, because this writer is so thoroughly convinced of Obama's sexism, and because Palin was on the other ticket, she implicitly* endorsed McCain/Palin. This is where she has TOTALLY lost me. It goes to the whole mindless side of feminist policitcs...aka "Let's vote for a woman, because a woman is inherently less sexist than a man." I mean, if she was going to endorse someone, through this route, shouldn't it at least be a third party candidate (like McKinney/Clemente, the Green Party...two women)? And aren't we forgetting a little someone, named John McCain. McCain is NOT (and I repeat) NOT a feminist. Additionally, as I have discussed at length, a vote for Palin is a vote *against* women. Why hasn't this blogger noticed this? She writes at length about reproductive rights, but endorsed Palin? She even writes that if Obama was a supreme court apointee, he'd be in the Scalia block! No mention of McCain again? What??

Now, I am all for not blindly voting along party lines. Just because she is liberal doesn't mean she has to vote for Obama, but with her every word, she just seems to negate any reason in my mind that she should have voted for McCain. She espouses "Democrats for principle before party." What's the principle? I don't get it.

The whole blog just reeks of an out dated form of feminism...the kind that's hyper-focused on the middle aged white female experience. So while, it takes all kinds of feminists to make the movement push forward, and I'm happy she's talking very frankly about feminism in an open forum...it's just not for me. Of course, she'd try to strip me of my feminist badge for voting for Obama, but I won't give it up that easy. NO ONE is perfect...not even Obama. The smartest people are the ones who realize that and who are going to keep asking the Obama administration the hard questions and compel him to be a better leader...and keep his sexism in check. Just like we'd have to do with Clinton's racism, had she been president.


*I have read several of her blogs, none of which openly endorsed McCain/Palin, so I'm going with "implictly" since I don't know for sure. She bashes McCain a little here and there...but because Palin is on the ticket seems to not mind him too much.

Popular Music and the White Horse Myth

So I don't think I've written about Rhianna and Chris Brown, because everyone else has talked it to death. I guess all I will say is that I was really upset when I first heard about it because my girls *IDOLIZE* him.

This post is really about Taylor Swift, however. I'll make the connection to Rhianna later...

Taylor Swift is a squeaky clean, upbeat, happy-go-lucky, young kind of musical "artist." For that, most people would applaud her. She hasn't fallen into any of the "bad girl" activities that many of her counterparts have. Thus far, she's avoided trashy photos, public intoxication, breast implants, or drug use...that we know of. So YAY, she's not a complete disaster.

Here's the thing: Taylor Swift's lyrics, in my opinion, are as damaging to young girls as seeing Britney Spears' personal life all over the media. Take a look at "Love Song." The message? You can be rescued by a Romeo. He'll ask your dad for your hand in marriage...you'll get to wear a white dress, and all your troubles will melt away.

Awww...how sweet and misogynist!

Her next song, which I saw in a commercial the other day, is called "White Horse." Here's the chorus:

That I'm not a princess
This ain't a fairytale
I'm not the one you'll sweep off her feet
Lead her up the stairwell
This ain't Hollywood
This is a small town
I was a dreamer before you went and let me down
Now it's too late for you and your white horse
To come around

Maybe I was naive
Got lost in your eyes and never really had a chance
My mistake I didn't know to be in love
You had to fight to have the upper hand

I had so many dreams about you and me
Happy endings,
Now I know

Ok, so now she's figured out that knights in shining armor don't really exist. That's a little more realistic. But the problem here is that this sends the message that a savior on a white horse is what the guy should be. Additionally, she sings that basically she had been dreaming of happy endings but came to realize that she had believed in a fantasy, and that reality was very different.

So I'm thinking how about we NOT teach our girls to believe in fantasies? How about we NOT teach them to want to be princesses looking for a man in shining armor to save them? The fact of the matter is that NO ONE CAN SAVE YOU BUT YOURSELF. Until we teach girls that they are full and total people in and of themselves who do not require anyone to fix them, save them, help them, or complete them, girls will forever be living in a fantasy.

Try to stay with me on this one…if we tell girls that “Mr. Right” will come along and save them, then girls (and women) begin to make out every man they love to be this perfect savior. They create a fantasy world, as described in the lyrics, and believe in their “savior” men. Even when the men, as Ms. Swift puts it, let you down and have to fight to have the upper hand.

This is where beaten and battered young women like Rhianna come in. As we’ve heard in the latest news, she and Chris are back together and even potentially collaborating in the studio on a love song.

If we teach young women that they are full and complete people on their own, they wouldn’t stay with an abusive person, they would know that love should never hurt, and they wouldn’t think they can stay with their abuser and “change him.” They would be realistic about the faults of the men in their lives and know when to get out! (And by saying this, I am in NO WAY trying to blame the victim! I’m just saying that such young women would expect better for themselves, and get out.)

What we’ve got to teach our daughters is that they don’t need saving. They are strong. They can take care of themselves and they don’t need anyone to help them. So what’s this mean for love, romance, and being “swept off your feet*”? Nothing! True love comes from people choosing to be together, not from one person needing the other. Romance can be alive and well between two equally situated people in a relationship. In fact, I would argue that romance is BETTER when the individuals enjoy an equal balance of power…but I don’t have experience with it in an unequal relationship to compare against. I just have a hunch.

So in summary, don’t listen to Taylor Swift. And if you’re like me and you can’t avoid her on the radio, then at least don’t buy her music. Being squeaky clean isn’t good enough if the substance is unrealistic, superficial, and damaging.

*I just realized I don’t like the phrase “swept off your feet” because of its literal meaning of being picked up and carried off.

Subtle Sexism

So last week, I was invited to the Indiana Commission on Women's Torchbearer Awards. This annual event is where women from across the state who have made an impact on their communities are honored for their service. I was invited by Girls Inc.'s President and CEO, since she was an award winner, and I just happened to be the person who nominated her.

I had two major take home thoughts about the event.

1) I really want to win this award someday. All of the women's stories were so inspirational. If I could win this award someday waaaay in the future, it would mean that I had dedicated my life to a purpose, and that my work would be validated.
2) Sexism is alive and well.

Now, that second conclusion might be surprising, seeing as how I was attending an event that was so female friendly and empowering. And that's just the thing...even at this event to honor trailblazing women, the sexism was there, alive and well, in at least two places. First, one of the commission's presenters said some inspirational phrase...something to the extent of "When man's dreams are achieved..." Next, all the women were escorted to the stage by two Indiana Guardsmen.

If you're a feminist, you probably see what I'm getting at. If you're not, you're probably wondering, "What's the big deal?" And that's just the thing, these two little things aren't "big deals" in and of themselves, but it's all the "little deals" adding up that allow sexism to continue to thrive.

"Big deal" examples of sexism and misogyny are job and pay discrimination, forced homemaking, rape, domestic violence, and other oppressions. Because these topics aren't as bad as they used to be, many people claim that feminism is over and no longer needed.* However, sexism IS alive in the "little things" which is exactly why feminism is still relevant. Let me explain.

Walking a woman to the podium is, in and of itself, not a "big deal." But the messages underlying it are: Women are weak and need help, women are something to be protected, women are something to be treated specially, women are somehow different from men when it comes to walking to the stage. Saying "man" as a way to address everyone is, in and of itself, not a "big deal." But the messages behind this sexist language are: Men are the measure of personhood, women aren't full people, the only important people are men. And like it or not, while language might not seem that important, it is. Language shapes your reality!

I've been fighting another form of subtle sexism in my personal life lately. Since the marriage, and even before, I have been continuously forced to explain and justify why I haven't taken Ronald's name. Now, this is something I knew I would have to do, and I understand I will continue to have to explain and justify into the future. On its face, a name change is no "big deal." But for the record, here's the real deal: The idea of changing your name comes from the times when women were not considered people, but rather property. The change of name signified a woman's transfer from the ownership of one man (her father) to the ownership of another (her husband.) Does that seem like no "big deal?" Sure, it doesn't mean that anymore, but let's be real about our past! Why should I brand myself? My name is my identity. (Plus it takes more work to change your name that to not.)

These "little things" are all around us, and it is exactly because they are little, that they continue to exist. People should be and are outraged by blatant misogyny, but the subtle sexism around us is shrugged of as nothing to worry about. After all, isn't it more important to fight the big battles over the little ones?

At the end of the day, the answer is yes: It is more important to fight the big battles. But when we continue to allow subtle sexism to exist, we are continuing to implicitly affirm the bigger stereotypes that exist behind them.

Just some food for thought.



*My words here are in no way to claim that any of these evils do not still exist in our society. They are still around...But my intention is to point out some gender issues that a majority of people are vastly against and which have been somewhat improved over time.

Girl on Girl Crime

I wanted to write about an annoying phenomenon that I have observed in my life countless times (and even used to participate in…): Girl on girl hate.

Here’s what I’m talking about, women saying things like…

· “I’m so glad I’m raising sons and not daughters, I could never do it!”

· “I work with mostly women…so you know how it is.”

· “Well…you know how mean girls can be.”

· “I just don’t get along with women as well as I do men.”

And so on and so forth. Chances are you’ve probably said something along these lines or had a conversation with a woman who has.

What I’m wondering is WHY? Sure, there are probably a few guys who have said something about not getting along well with other men, but they are very few, and very far between. It’s just not commonplace to hear a man talk about how glad he is that he doesn’t work with mostly men, or how happy he is that he’s not raising boys.

I could launch into a whole theorist perspective about how because what is masculine has forever been deemed RIGHT, and what is feminine has forever been deemed WRONG, people tend to overemphasize the virtues of things associated with men, but I’ll spare you. My basic point is that if women want to be equal with men in all the important areas, we have got to stop breaking ourselves down.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it a million times: A woman can be women’s greatest enemy. For a man to hate women and everything considered feminine is one thing (and a problem no doubt). But for a woman to hate women and everything considered feminine is a huge blow toward elevating the situation of ALL women.

It’s one thing men figured out long ago: solidarity. Women are socialized to rage mind battles upon each other, each one trying to socially damage the other, breaking each other down…it’s where we get the gender stereotypes surrounding cattiness, gossip, and other forms of relational aggression. While men are much more prone to physical aggression, they are much less likely to carry on pure hatred toward each other for extended periods of time. (When was the last time you knew of guys who were in a “fight” with their best friend, and not talking to each other?) They are much more likely to adhere to a sense of brotherhood. (A “bro-code” for you How I Met Your Mother fans.)

Now, I’m speaking in sweeping generalizations. We all know there are women who have a strong sense of sisterhood. Nevertheless, relational aggression is undoubtedly socialized in us at a very young age.

What I'm getting at is this: unless and until all women can simply agree to stop the self-bashing speak, it’s going to be very difficult to get everyone to agree that feminism’s purpose is legitimate and needed. So long as there are women who buy into the idea that women are just harder to get along with, women WILL have a harder time getting along together. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts, and one that makes it very difficult to work together toward a common goal.

And trust me, when a group of women come together, truly believe in something, and drop the ideas of how women are “supposed to” act to each other, it can be the best environment of all.

What Superbowl Ads Taught Me...

1) As a woman, it's just best for me to shut the hell up. Thanks, Mr. Potato Head and Bridgestone tires!
2) As a man, your first priority is ripping a sexy woman's clothes off, followed closely by getting tons of money, and destroying authority. Thanks, Doritos!
3) Another important thing for men includes watching Danica Patrick shower 6 times, and hey, for fun, throw in another woman. Thanks, GoDaddy.com!
4) There could be a court hearing prosecuting women for having ridiculously large implants. In this hearing, Danica Patrick will admit to the accusation of enhancements, but only on her website! And a random bimbo will partially take off her top. Thanks again, GoDaddy.com!
5) Danica Patrick is the biggest tool.
6) Misogyny is funny and cool and must be REALLY effective in selling tires, chips, and domain space, right?

Ah, if only Americans were told the same thing...

Japanese workers are being told to go home and make some babies. Allegedly, correcting the low birth rate in Japan is a way to help their failing economy.

Does just practicing help our failing economy?

I know why they call it the "Crackberry"

So I was at a meeting this morning for my graduate assistantship. It was the second in a series put on in part by the city of Indianapolis and INHP (Indianapolis Neighborhood Housing Partnership) to decide what to do with 29 million dollars that the city has been given by the federal government to help with the foreclosure problem.

Aaaanyway, I don't want to get bogged down in the technicalities of WHAT I was at, the point is that a lot of movers and shakers in urban planning/housing/redevelopment were at the meeting. But you would think it was a class of 17 year old high school seniors! It looked like everyone was texting, and not paying attention to a damn thing that was being said.

In reality, they were all probably working while at this meeting, rather than being 100% devoted to the meeting. Almost *everyone* was on their Blackberries, emailing the whole time. I counted, and at one point 10 of the 30 some attendants were typing on their Blackberries all at once.

Just made me think about what a place we are in our society...how we can be reached at any moment by anyone. It's crazy. Does anyone remember what life before cell phones and the internet was like? I'm sure they do (especially since these people were all MUCH older than me.) But it definitely makes me understand why movies like Eagle Eye come about...

The black hole of shipping that is Indianapolis

I'm not entirely sure why, but as indicated by my title, Indianapolis is a shipping black hole.

Let me explain. Three times now, when I have ordered purchases that I am highly anticipating, I have tracked their progress either through USPS or UPS online. And in all three cases, the items made it from various other states (Ohio, New York, or Pennsylvania) in less than 36 hours. 

I'll be there, at the computer, looking at the screen...and that screen would be telling me that my package was IN Indianapolis...arrived. Here. This state. This city. That I live in. In less than 36 hours.

And yet...somehow  in each case, once they reach my state in record time, they immediately stall from there. It makes no sense what-so-ever! If they can make it across multiple states in one day, why would it take multiple days to then get to me! One package got to Indianapolis from New York really fast, but then took ONE WEEK to make it from one point in Indianapolis all the way to my front door.

I wish the online tracking would just tell you which USPS/UPS office they are at and allow you to go pick them up from there. That would take me all of 1 hour round trip MAX instead of 1 week.

In this case, I'm talking about my laptop. Which I would really like to have, since my other one died an extremely unfortunate death after only a year and 2 months of use. 

Oh Indianapolis...despite my love for you, you have failed me.

My Name is A. Lynn, and I am a Pessimist

For some reason or another, I was just thinking about pessimism/optimism. Frequently, I am poked fun at because I am an eternal pessimist. However, I've decided to embrace this fact about myself, because I have come to realize that nothing is ever as simple as a dichotomy. The way I see it there are several categories of pessimism/optimism.

1) Present optimist: Someone who thinks that things are great right now, and doesn't see any reason for improvement. The "present" part of the title I've given is because this type of person is either not thinking or not concerned about the future. Basically, this is complacency, and incredibly dangerous, in my opinion.

2) Unrelenting pessimist: This is someone who is forever pessimistic. Think: "It all sucks anyway, no matter what we do...what's the point?" kind of mentality. This is essentially the same as someone who is a present optimist, in regards to what they actually do for the world. Present optimists see no room for improvement, and unrelenting pessimists see no point in attempting improvement. Equally dangerous, just a whole lot more depressing to be around.

3) Future optimist: Now this brand of optimist thinks things are great, but they are not so naive as to believe that things couldn't be get better. These are the people out there who are forever striving for more with a smile. This is the kind of optimism that is productive and sees the world through the hope of what it could be.

4) Realistic pessimist: And now you've arrived at me. Realistic pessimists are people who accept the ills of the world as a starting place for potential improvement. They are essentially the same as future optimists in what they want to accomplish, but how the view the state of the world is different. While a future optimist and a present optimist both might say, "Look how far we've come!" Unrelenting pessimists and realistic pessimists would both say, "Yeah, but think about (insert current social ill and a wah-wah Debbie Downer sound)" But where the realistic pessimists and the future optimists unite, is that they both then say, "OK! Let's do something about that!"

So that's me, for those of you playing at home. When I seem like I really emphasize the bad in our world (poverty, sexism, racism, heterosexism, exploitation, control, abuse, genocide, and all the other things I worry about) it's only because I know we could all be doing better.

I like writing strange things like this. Of course, I think there are many other different kinds of people who don't necessarily fit into these categories, but it was fun coming up with the beginnings of a spectrum of pessimism/optimism.