show me your wits

Tila's bi. Therefore, she can run an entire show based off of gender stereotypes?

I don't want to set my bar too high for MTV-- but was the house split into pink-'n-blue last time? Were girls only regarded as "sensitive and sweet" last time? Maybe I didn't see it so clearly-- but even the gaggle of hot lesbians (hi there, BlueShirt!) couldn't and that OneCuteGuy couldn't distract this viewer from the nauseating gender stereotypes Ms. Tequila bases her entire thought process and show off of.

Please, Tila. I don't expect much. But this? This is too much. (Now, can't you just pay someone to focus the camera on BlueShirt a little more?)

Edit: On futchy Serenity (not as hot as Dani, sorry to say): "I felt this connection right off the bat..." says Tila. Hahaha. You mean that she looks like Dani?

Edit #2: Oh shit. Rada? Mmmm.

Edit #3: Half the contestants are from New Jersey, I think. At least the lesbians. Ha! Maybe bisexuality is in the water? [Also: Lauryn, hi, I think we'd be friends?]

Edit #4: Oh wait, BlueShirt ("Lilli") was sort of a jerk. Nevermind?

Edit #5: Fuck. Why the hell am I watching this show!? X-ING OUT OF MTV.COM BOX RIGHT. NOW.

In the spirit of Bitch's "Jane Petty Criticism Corner," I've got some petty criticism of my own to get to.

Well, first of all, I'll admit I'm slightly ashamed to make this petty criticism, as it means that, yes, I, intelligent, free-willed woman, was voluntarily watching MTV's Spring Break programming. My head is bowed in shame, I'm blushing, etc. But it was late. I was tired. And I saw it. And then I saw her-- yes, her, that dynamite, can't-wait-to-rip-her-hair-out, at-times-nasty bisexual bachelorette. Tila.

If you know anything about my favorite blogging topics, you'll know that I looooove to blog about T. T. Because there's always--always--something to say. For example, last night, when Ms. Tequila was hosting Tila Tequila's Fantasy Couple on MTV Spring Break '08. Here's a little sampling:

In this clip, Tilz has the contestants do some physicalized version of a dirty joke, involving "getting in your pants," hardyharhar. But what irritated me here was the language that Ryan Stout (uh, great name, by the way, bud) and Tila used to explain the "challenges" to their Spring Break Potential Fantasy Couples-- which, at this point, were composed of two straight couples and two gay female couples (more on this later).

Despite these not-even-a-gay-minority numbers (50%, y'all!), Ryan & T.T. say that "in this round, the guys are going to climb into the cage while their girlfriends" shove the inflatable balloon people in their pants blahblahblah. Emphasis on "the guys" and "their girlfriends." Hello!? Tila and Ryan, I know that you had a prepared script of some sort, but shouldn't you be able to uh, I don't know, tweak your language when HALF OF YOUR "GUYS" are WOMEN?! And this wasn't the "hey, you guys" sort of "guys," it was clearly MALE guys, as in "the guys," as in "boyfriends."

I'm probably doing a grand job of moutain-ing a molehill, but let's be frank: TILA IS BI (or so she says, because after this, I'm sort of wondering). Sure, this is MTV Spring Break, not LoGo on demand. But, come on: she was in a fucking committed relationship with another woman. Yet, suddenly, here is this same woman rendering two of the partners invisible because they are supposed to shuffle themselves into the heterosexual norm terminology? "Oh, okay, I guess you guy be the 'boy' while I be the 'girlfriend'..." Which is something that happens everyday. But why was it happening here? When half of the couples were lesbian couples? WITH A BISEXUAL HOST?

I mean, does she not see that the female couples could have easily been her? Perhaps that "gay side" has been forced into hibernation ever since Shot at Love ended and, suddenly, Tila had gone too far into lesbianity-- like, you know, she started actually liking women instead of just kissing and showing for the enjoyment of frat boys worldwide.

And that's the other thing. I know that this may have been "Tila's Fantasy Couple," and I understand that Tila, if she were to be in a same-sex relationship, would be with a woman, but she really is giving the gay guys a tough break. Aka my sociology paper on how gay guys have it harder (oh god, was that dirty?) than gay women in terms of negative prejudice and public opinion. Would it have killed our precious Ms. Tequila and Ryan Stout to have one of these "SEXY SPRING BREAK COUPLES" to be two gay men? I swear, I could have used this episode as support for my thesis.

Either way, I suppose my petty criticism can be summed up in one word: disappointed. I mean, Bathilda and her girlfriend were h-o-t hot. And those other couples were pretty smoking too. But Tila did a pretty good job at leaving everyone all the non-hetero couples out in the cold.

Well, folks, I'll be cheering on Cheerios and pampering with Pampers thanks to this recent commercial:



If chipping away at traditional gender-roles is a marketing device, sign me up (granted, personally, I buy generic everything. But were I to choose between, say, Huggies or Pampers, at equal price, you can bet your diapered ass I'd go Team Pampers). And I know that this commercial does, in fact, hit on a very real reality: that "chipping away" at these traditional roles is way easier said than done. But this commercial, or my perception of it, at least, acknowledges these "speedbumps" and shows that they can be overcome. That male parenting is possible, and worthy even to show on national TV (MTV, at that!) during a company's (TWO companies!) 30-second pitch time...

Apparently, guns and hunting are no longer a “way of life,” and we, well no, not “we,” but West Virigina, has decided to fix this oh-so-devastating loss.

“For us, guns and hunting was a way of life,” said Mr. Helms, the manager of Marstiller’s Gun Shop here. “A lot of places seem to be losing that, and we need to bring it back.”

Now what, you may ask, is the grand solution to this travesty? Oh, oh! I know! Teach hunting in school! Yes! Instruct the kiddies on how to hunt!

Continue reading...

It's all about time and place.

Back in middle school and even during parts of high school, I had an Israeli pen-pal, though, comically enough, a Gilmore Girls fansite (hey, nothing like being a dramedy dork, at least it was relatively harmless 'passion'). We emailed back-and-forth about our schools, our homework, our "squee!" Gilmore Girls moments, our favorite parts of the episodes, and our livesin general. She's a year older than me. She had to join the army. But the people killed in this attack were between 15-26. I repeat: that could been her. But more strikingly: it could have been us.

Scary.

Melissa Ferrick wasn't mentioned explictly in SNL skit, but she as hell could have. I heard this song for the first time today, and honestly, you could turn a room full of women into Ellen-Page-skit "lesbians." Enjoy:

"Just because something seems absolutely inevitable from the little, ant-sized perspective from your liberal, Obama-worshipping college, it doesn't mean that the rest of the nation has ruled out Hillary Clinton yet."

Hillary won BOTH Ohio and Texas tonight... color me surprised!

It's (nearly, but close enough to) finals week. Meaning, I'm covered in papers, not posts (and I've been more at WordPress). BUT, I thought this was worthy of a shout-out:

Ellen Page on SNL

(It's only slightly embarassing when I *know* I've been that girl, coming back from Dar Williams/Catie Curtis concerts... more a parody of chicks like me than of Ellen Page's "GASP! DYKEITY!" than anything else.)

Also: I'm shamefully interested in this whole "Is She Or Isn't She?" nosy, super-intrusive drama because, let's face it, Ellen Page is one fiesty chica. "Hug,"* Ellen?



*slightly inappropriate in context? excellent.

"Sorry, Boys, This is Our Domain."

Great pun, and I knew the article was hers even before I saw the byline. Probably because I would have liked to have written it (disclaimer: haven't read the whole thing yet).

Rosenbloom, we need to talk, for real. (Disclaimer No. 2: Granted, I get aggravated when R-Bloom writes about, say, Barack Obama's favorite clothing material. Lame. But, I gotta admit, these articles on "trends" are--when they're not total bullshit--totally interesting to read and fun. But even more interesting and fun to write. Girl, I'm think you've got me jealous.)

I know that Bitch Magazine had already covered MTV/CW hit (more like SLAP in the face) show Beauty and the Geek, but I caught a snippet of it today while working out, and the entire assholery/sexism of society was succinctly captured in one little scenario.

Premise: Two of the Beauty and Geek couples are sheparded off to The Elimination Room (dun dun DUN) to go through an especially rough round of questions for each partner. I believe these are the top two couples in the running. The girls get grilled first.

Continue reading...

Hair. It's an industry, a retail, hell, it's even a musical.

But, recently, I've been thinking a lot about hair in relation to---any guesses?--- sexuality! (You knew it was that or feminism, so don't act all surprised.)

To date someone, you need to know that you can date this someone. Assuming Society At Large is heterosexual, how does one go about it? I've already detailed the inner-workings of Facebook, but what about in simply passing by? Without a name? Based on a first glance?

There's clothes, I suppose. And body-build. But then... there's hair. Comb away with me?

Continue reading...

Excitement, endorsements and... catching the Whoabama bug, once and for all?

There are words I love. Words I rave. Words I crave. But there are also words I don’t like– the sharp syllables that leave a bitter taste in your mouth? Like… moist. Or putrid. Or… lesbian.

I love the concept behind the word–women appreciating, caring, and deeply loving other women–and, hell, I’m going with a female date tonight to our college “prom.” I like my straight side as much as my lesbian side, except that I don’t like the word “lesbian.”

All concept-behind-the-word thoughts aside, it’s the actual word itself that stings me. LEZ-BE-ANN. The silky “L” crudely gives way to a cutting, razor-shapr “z”, snarling and gnawing all int its path, ltting it dig deep into your skin, piecre your flesh, and then that accentend “beaannn” at the end, furthering the damange already done by that fatal “z.”

Try to say it poetically. Try to say it sweetly. If it works for you, then all the better– but for me, it’s like attempting to mollify a ferious bulldog into some sweet-tempered Golden Retriever: namely, it’s hard.

I’m well aware that this negative taste attributed to the word is directly related to the social implications heaped onto “lesbian” throughout growing up, to the images of what were Strictly Forbodden images of happy dykey pairings, to my mom’s sheltering of us on the streets of Provincetown during Cape Cod family vacations, to the fact, that you know, Gay People Are Bad People. Stuff like… socialization in a largely homophobic society.

With that knowledge, I’ve still tried to work with the language tools I have. “Aw, she’s a lezzzzbian.” “Are they lezzzbians?” See? It’s those letters teaming up together against me, to produce a burning, tearing, fingernails-against-a-chalkboard type of reaction.

What are the alternatives? How to dodge this bullet? I mean, there are other options. But I can’t help but shake the feeling that “gay” is too male, “queer” too, well, queer, or only accepted within circles of the all-queer (i.e. not among straight companions), and “homosexual” too… scientific? plain ol’ old-fashioned? Yeah.

But, despite these linguistic speedbumps, it’s still really convient to have a word at hand when you’re retelling the juicy details of a night-out gone out.

Hence, why I propse–along with my co-consiprator, Sarah–a new vocabulary. A new movement! A new beginning! I (we) present you… lesb.

Continue reading...

Roe v. Wade is 35 years old... and it's Blog for Choice Day.

Continue reading...

NYT reports two minutes ago that Heath Ledger was found dead in his apartment, from what looks like suicide. I think this is a resounding message that just because you're (a) rich, (b) famous, (c) gorgeous, and (d) in Mary-Kate Olson's apartment, it doesn't mean you're happy (actually, with (d), you're probably unhappy because you're there... not to make light of the situation, but I mean, Heath, dearly departed, what the eff where you doing in MK's crib?


But seriously: very sad to see him die so young. 28 is tragic.




And, on a completely narcisstic and self-indulgent note, I've been blogging away here for three years. Nostalgic? Oh, ye days of yesteryear and writing of bodily functions and the asswipes in high school... sweet nostalgia.

Women's bisexuality an 'identity,' not phase.

Hey, Maureen Dowd? Why don't you take a lesson from Bob Herbert? It would all do us some good.



Nicely done, Bob. Powerful column, powerful message, powerful ideas, but mostly, a deserved "I see you!" to Feminists Everywhere. Even a "shout-out" to aspects of pop-culture: ads, commericials, etc. that dehumanize women.

But more importantly, this explicitly anti-misogynist, pro-feminist piece offers a firm "fuck you!" to the many, many articles in the recent days--apparently someone sent the "Race vs. Gender Will Make Good Articles!" memo--have constructed.

Mind you, "someone" is going to be the Democratic forerunner (I personally think it will be Obama, but then again, I'm up to my eyebrows in Liberal College Students, Obama's number-one demographic, so what do I know), and this "someone" will be represnting a group of "someones," whether they like it or not.

But regardless, the media's constructed BLACK or WOMAN does certainly leave some people out, or, more importantly, impose identity politics on those who would not like to be included. Or, make out every, say, black man (like Mr. Bob Herbert himself) somehow into a champion against women's rights.

Rights vs. rights? This constructed "you lose, gone with your rights!" is not right.

And that's why black, male Bob Herbert is what we all needed. Just because you are lumped into one of these constructed pools does not mean you must tailor the "rights" you believe in to-and-only-to the identity you happen to be wearing. So... which feminist feels up for penning a stirring anti-racism column?

When I last posted on the election, I had been Whoabamaed.

His post-Iowa speech stirred me, and so, I finally decided to place one, tentative limb onto the Obama Bandwagon O' Hope.

And that's when the sexist floodgates opened. In part because Hillary's own floodgates opened, or so trumpeted the truly suffocating headlines-- "HILLARY GETS EMOTIONAL!" "HILLARY CRIES OMGZZZZ!" Or the John Edwards there-goes-even-the-possibility-of-my-vote quote: ""

But beyond just the more, erm, established media's reaction to this "event," YouTube, of course, offered a plentiful display of audio-visual craptacity. My favorite gem:



Yes, there are valid points one can make about Hillary's previous stoicism, how she's "cracking," many of which have been addressed on Slate.com's exxcellent The XX Factor Blog. And there are certainly valid points to this video, like I've stated, the Iraq issue continues to prickle the thoughts of many voters, myself included.

But what I have an issue with is the mocking of gender (Geez, I need a new line-- unlikely, however, since everywhere I look I get pissed off by sexism). People have tried to tell me it doesn't matter that Hillary is a woman, it's her politics, her style, and her associations with the past that make us become Obamaians. Hell, that's what I tell myself. But just look at the depiction of Sen. Clinton here: sky-high fuschia heels, tight red dress, playing oh-so-girly hopscotch... sure, the vid's criticizing her politics, but the crutch of the clip is lampooning her sex.

Everytime I decide that I legitmately support Obama for his rhetoric of Change, Hope and JFK-like Rockstar Demeanor (God, am I spewing campaign lit or what?!) and every other reason a Gen-X(?)-er like myself would vote for Obama (because that's what our demographic does, duh), someone (or somemajorityofthecountry) decides to take down Hillary through sexism. To which I instinctively respond against. And therefore would vote against? (Gloria Steinem would would have it that way.)

And I haven't even touched on the "Iron My Shirt" debacle (or the hundreds of "Make Me a Sandwich!" Facebook groups), which, as one Feministing poster pointed out, are seen as ha-ha material, probably slightly different than racist remarks.

Shit. I totally just brought up the "who-has-it-worse-black-people-or-women" stickiness. Which I totally didn't want to. Because, as legal journalist and role model extordinaire Dahlia Litwick writes, it shouldn't be about that-- it worked like a shot to the head for the abolitionists/first-waveres, and it's sure as hell unproductive, despite what feminist icon (and role model) Gloria Steinem argued (damn convincingly, too) today in NYT--setting off a buzzstorm of discussion on the issue (yet again).

Point? Every time I see Obama speak, I'm ready to jump on board. Every time some sexist fuckwit mocks the fact that Hillary is a female presidential candidate, I'm ready to shout, defend, and scream out against them. And consider voting for her.

So ha-ha, all you "Hillary's a Crybaby!"-headling-writing news editors, all you sexist YouTube video-makers, and all you jackasses hoping one of the most powerful people in America will iron your shirt: the joke may very well be on you.

"He also said that, as predicted earlier, Mr. Obama has a big edge with younger voters and Mrs. Clinton an edge with women, and the fight is over younger women."

"Our colleague Marjorie Connelly, from our polling desk, reports that Mr. Obama’s strength came from younger voters, voters who are looking for change, independents and very liberal Democrats. He was the first choice of a third of women voters. In fact, the poll of Democrats as they entered the caucuses suggests that women were closely divided between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama did best among men."
--New York Times Caucus blog


We've heard a lot of talk about the "gender card" during the campaign, which, although arguments include some valid points, always strikes me as sort of, well... you can't remove someone from their gender, of which has been an intergral thing throughout someone's life, forming her/his experiences.

Point? (And I'll make it quick.) Women are torn between Hillary and Obama. (Like myself.) Men don't seem to be, according to that last section. We're rooting for the home team, in this case the one that looks like us when naked, despite the fact that we're "not supposed to look at the gender card." But isn't that pretty hard to ask somebody, and also quite besides-the-fact? "Would you vote for Hillary if she were a man?" is something I've been asked and, at times when my Obamania is particulary high, ask myself. I don't know. But she's not. And she wouldn't be the same person if she were!

If she were not a woman (quite the bizarro sentence), I would not feel like a "traitor" to feminism by saying that I support Obama. And I do. And articles like this assure me that Obama has feminist interests deep at heart. Hence, I cheered and clapped and whistled and shouted when Obama won tonight. I was wooed by his inspiring--like always! and yet, always so fresh and renewing!--speech.

And yet. And yet and yet and yet. I cannot shake the feeling--like the other young women polled by the New York Times Caucus blog--that I am disowning my "team." Team Boobs, Hips and Vag. Team Ovaries. Team Female?(Admittedley a gross oversimplication.)

This is not a battle of the sexes, I tell myself. I do not like that Hillary Clinton does not seem as completely trustworthy, as fresh and inspiring, or as awe-inducing. When I sat with my college cronies tonight and watched the Iowa Caucus for three (yes, three) hours, everyone was rooting for Obama (prime demographic) and I was, too. I just was also rooting for Hillary. But I know that if I read, say, Gloria Steinem say that she was an Obama devotee, I might feel a little... well, cheated in some sense.

Also:
I have to agree with all of the previous posts about Clinton. I have never felt so guilty for not supporting someone as I do with Clinton. I do not feel she is the best candidate for the Presidency, but I also feel the need to defend her from the chauvanist criticism. So conflicting! At the end of the day, I am so pleased to be watching this Democratic primary (versus the one four years ago) in which there are many competent, sincere, and progressive candidates.
-- A post by user gst_scholarship18 on Feministing

vs.

I am always amazed that feminists in this country are more often against Hillary than for her (at least in my NOW chapter and among my "hippie" friends. I don't get it. Here is a woman that fought the fights like the rest of us and more and we have the one opportunity to say she is as good as anyone. No, instead, we put her through the double standard grinder and support someone who is more likely than not perpetuate the status quo. Women are 51% of U.S. population and we haven't seen one woman in the driving seat! When will women wake up? The chances are that if not Clinton, then we might not see another woman for decades again! How many women are willing to go through the hell she is going through? And how many women have the connections to be even remotely viable for that post?
--A post by user skilled-junkie, also on Feministing

All that said, I was extremely pleased that Obama did so well in Iowa, because, as I've highlighted, my loyalities do go both ways (oy vey). It's going to be an exciting ride, and I can barely wait.