summer reading

I have mentioned before that I'm only reading women authors this year. Actually, my Year of Women Authors was supposed to start in January 09 (it was a rare New Years' Resolution), but at the time I was in the middle of a half-dozen books by dude authors. So I finished those up and commenced in June of last year. Just yesterday I was looking around the house for something to read, and found I was fresh out of new stuff by women, so I picked up one of my abandoned books by male authors. "The Art Thief" by Mansplainy Mansplainerson is what I picked up, and it's like reading an Art History 101 lecture, only without pictures. Criminy. Have I mentioned that I've been teaching Art History 101 since the mid-90s? Yeah, I don't need a lecture on van Eyck's Arnolfini portrait, which by the way is no longer called the Marriage Contract. Just, FYI. 30 pages in and I'm already skipping entire pages. Coincidentally, The Rejectionist, over at Tiger Beatdown, just posted about ManFiction and how tedious it is. For example:

"What’s a manfiction book, exactly? It is indeed, almost but not entirely exclusively, a book by a man; but it is a particular kind of book by a particular kind of man, a Real Man, a virile, manly man, who gallops around on horses in between penning great works."

Go, read the whole thing.

Now, just as I finished THAT, what appears in my google reader but this little gem:

Hot Summer Reads from 12 Literary Stars

Let's do a Guerrilla Girls style breakdown:

all 12 literary stars appear to be white, though one has a Hispanic name**
4 of them are female
10 recommended books by men
1 of the books by women was about getting your baby to sleep through the night
so! only ONE of the books recommended was a narrative work by a woman about something besides traditional lady-business*

In conclusion, well, you know: it's all about the white people. I note with interest that Mother Jones is supposed to be a progressive publication.



*I kind of want to give the one narrative book by a woman bonus points for being about teen Latinas, but then again it's a book by a nice white lady sociologist about teen Latinas, so, you know, that could go either way, right?

**Vendela Vida, whose wikipedia entry mentions her husband, a pretentious author whose name rhymes with Wave Weggers (whose first big deal famous bestseller book was so loathesomely self-absorbed I couldn't finish it) almost immediately, and then constantly, throughout her bio.

moment of clarity

So I've been trying to sort out what the fuck it is with Ann Coulter: why do the right-wingers love her so much? I mean, sure, she's a racist, homophobic, right-wing hate-monger, and they like THAT, obviously. But, she is also tall, leggy, blonde, miniskirted tanned, thin, polished, painted, buffed, and waxed. Normally this sexbot look adds up, for dudes, to someone they want to just shut up and look good. But they seem to like it when she says stuff. A lot. But then Mearl, a commenter over at IBTP said, “There is almost no way to be Dude-Approved hawt and be taken seriously." And she is absolutely right.

I had a light-bulb moment. I haven’t been able to parse it before, but I think I’ve got it now: they really *don’t* take her seriously. She is popular to the right-wing dudes the way a monkey singing opera might be popular: it’s not what she’s saying, but the fact that she is *saying it at all*. It’s like, “Look! Barbie TALKS!!” They surely, to a man, don’t think she actually writes her own books or thinks her own thoughts.

I feel so much better now.

oh, jeebus.

pole dancing parties

That liberal-media-bastion, the New York Times, is at it again. Herewith, a story about women going to "pole dancing parties," learning to pole dance because it's good exercise, because it'll make their men happy, and of course buying some new shoes in the process. Christ. Where do you start with crap like this?

Let's start with this lovely quote:

It taps into this kind of exhibitionism, or show-womanship, among younger women who did not grow up with the gender politics of the sexual revolution

Uh-huh, right: the sexual revolution ended in 1973, and there have been NO GENDER POLITICS since then. This is code for: "young women who have been fooled into thinking feminism has done its job because women are allowed to have jobs & votes." I call bullshit. I also note that most of the women interviewed were over 35, and many were in their 40s and 50s. I'm guessing most of these women remember the fight for ERA, women's liberation, and the sexual revolution. Hell, *I* remember the sexual revolution, or at least phase two of it.

Here's another choice nugget:

...most of its instructors were stay-at-home mothers looking to earn a little extra at night after their children were in bed — though one man signed up with his wife, she said.

“He knows how the men benefit after the party,” Ms. Huitema said.

Ah, yes, because men with stay-at-home wives don't get any benefits at ALL from that relationship, right, until mommy tucks the kids in, straps on a g-string and some stilettos, and starts hanging off a greased pole. Woohoo! Suddenly, the life of the husband has some bright little light in it: he can get his pornified sexbot at home, in his own bedroom, instead of online or at the titty bar!

This, however, takes the cake:

"Their entire world is reduced to caretaking, and this is sort of the opposite of that"

Actually, NO, it's exactly the same thing as that: it's taking care of their husbands' sexual desires, not their own. They're just going from taking care of children to taking care of men.

Naturally, it's being billed as "empowering," because, as we all know, conforming to the sexbot ideal is empowerful. Really! Spend your voluminous spare time acting out your husband's adolescent fantasies! Spend a lot of money on a pole and some trashy shoes! It's GOOD FOR YOU!

Jeezus.

the new york times wants to know...

Why are there more single women than married women?

why so many single americans?

simple: because marriage is a losing proposition for so many women. Married women have a lower life expectancy than single women. (the reverse is true for men). Because too many men won't do their fair share of housework or child care. Because too many men abuse their wives physically, verbally, and/or emotionally. Because too many men have double standards regarding fidelity and aging and beauty, to name just a few. Because too many men won't compromise in order to make it possible for their wives to pursue a fulfilling career. Because sometimes it's just easier to raise children by yourself than it is to raise them with a man who doesn't understand the concept of co-parenting. Because we are not obligated to stay in unfulfilling, abusive, or empty marriages, now that we have the opportunities that allow us to support ourselves. Because too many men are addicted to porn and infected with the unreasonable, hateful, misogynistic bullshit that comes with porn-sickness.

Because, as Bridget Jones would say, too many men are alcoholics, workaholics, perverts, and/or emotional fuckwits.

Was that so hard to figure out?

samhain in hooterville

My usual Halloween party hostess has decamped to Flagstaff, and besides I was driving home from Nashville until 8:30 Saturday night, so no Halloween party for me. However, I did end up donning a 15-minute costume and drinking with some coworkers til midnight on Tuesday. What do you get when you add together:

one black skirt
one pair overly tall lace-up boots
one Morrissey t-shirt
a lot of black eyeliner and some really dark red lipstick
and a freakin enormous purple wig?

I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards saying I was a Goth Winona Judd.

Did I mention that the wig is FREAKIN ENORMOUS? I bought it for a few bucks at an after-Halloween sale at Kroger's a few years ago, and only just now busted it out. It's large. And purple.

Sartorial Sundays: the ‘Slut-o-ween’ Report at I Blame The Patriarchy

Sartorial Sundays: the ‘Slut-o-ween’ Report at I Blame The Patriarchy

I saw this article on the Times and knew Twisty would handle it for us. She always does. I however am motivated to pontificate about Halloween costumes a bit more than is really necessary on someone else's blog. So here you have it:

Non-slutty costume recommendations that I have had success with in the past:

mongol horde.
pirate (not slutty pirate).
cleopatra (with date as Anubis).
Autumn personified.
my inner child.
Once my date and I went as Steve & Terry Irwin.

Primary considerations for a Halloween costume:

can you drink in it? without a straw? (full-head monster masks are RIGHT OUT)
can you go to the bathroom in it without assistance?
will you be able to use the bathroom alone once you are drunk?
are the shoes comfortable and safe? because, seriously, if you drink, you don't want to be wearing 4" platform mary janes.

These answers should all be YES. You can get to your cocktail, you can pee all on your own (like a big girl!), and you won't fall over and bust your ass because you are wearing ludicrous shoes.

The most important piece of Halloween advice, however, is this:

whatever else happens, don't drink whiskey through a straw.

School Shooters Target Girls, Point to Larger Problem of Violence Against Women

School Shooters Target Girls, Point to Larger Problem of Violence Against Women

Here's Kim Gandy's much more articulate and well-researched response to the girl-killing school shootings I blogged about last week. Still, she's saying what I'm saying, which is why is the media ignoring the fact that these "school shootings" are really about killing girls, not about schools?

"For the most part, reporting on these two recent killings has glossed over the fact that girls were the chosen victims. Had students from a specific racial or religious group been targeted for murder, it seems likely that the killings would have been deemed hate crimes immediately and vigorously. Not so when gender is the target."

and it's a three-fer

Facing Middle Age With No Degree, and No Wife - New York Times

Apparently this week is "Poor Pitiful Me" week for white boys at the New York Times. This article is about guys who won't marry because they're afraid they'll lose their houses. Or because they're afraid they might get divorced. Or because they're afraid they might have to compromise on something, anything, EVER.

Now, really: is this a story? Seriously? So some middle-aged guys aren't married - not because they might have some reprehensible personal habit, or perhaps they just like being single - but because they don't have college degrees? Because, no matter what the interviewees say, the Times reporter keeps harping on the no-college-degree business. Which is a load of crap, in my view. I live in Mississippi where less than 25% of men have college degrees,last I checked, and most people are married.

Maybe it's a pity party. Maybe it's a made-up story where there isn't a story. I don't know, but I'm tired of reading about the woes of gainfully employed, healthy white men who don't have exactly what they want at all times. "I want a boyfriend and a wife!" "I want a good job, not just any job!" "I want a perfect, risk-free marriage, or none at all!" Wah, wah, and wah.

These stories have all been in the top-ten most emailed in the last few weeks. Because, what, there isn't any other news?

Here's another one....

When the Beard Is Too Painful to Remove - New York Times

Oh, these poor gay men who want to have it all - the benefits of marriage AND a boyfriend to boot. This sums it up:

“I love her, but she wants me to be in love with her,” Dr. T. said. “She wants to be my one and only. Everything we have will be at risk if, God forbid, we divorce.’’

What exactly do "we" have in this scenario? HE wants "everything" and SHE wants her husband to be loving and monogamous. I'm not saying an open marriage is impossible, but that isn't what these guys want. There's no mention in this article of the wife's point of view - what she gives up in a sexless marriage to a man who isn't devoted to the marriage. He just likes the benefits (social acceptance, health care, child care, domestic assistance) but I just don't see what a woman would be getting out of it. Personally, I'd bail. I have to say it: these guys sound like selfish whiny bastards who don't give a shit about their wives' happiness & fulfillment. It's disappointing that the author couldn't be bothered to consider it from the point of view of the "beard."

I guess what it comes down to is this: I don't see any real difference between a married man who believes he's entitled to a girlfriend on the side and a married man who believes he's entitled to having a boyfriend on the side.