So, a WC member alerted me to this random article, the author of which sounds a little surprised that feminism makes for healthier relationships and more sexual satisfaction. (Check out the article--I posted it under news--to see for yourself what feminism can do for you.)
Apparently someone actually conducted a study- so now no one can question whether equality of power in relationships actually makes them more fun to be in, or whether your girlfriend would be happier if she wore an apron and stayed in the kitchen all day.
Gender roles suck, is basically the point, and the more a relationship avoids expecting or enforcing these stereotypes and prescribed behaviors, the more time everyone has for really getting to know each other as individuals and the easier it is to share equally and trust each other.
Apparently scientists are still stumped: "While they aren't sure how feminism works to enhance relationship health, the researchers have some ideas."
Let's see--how does feminism enhance your relationships?
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Kelley and I went to the 2nd Annual MSU Def Poetry Jam put on by the UAB, and it was amazing! The special guest was a spoken word artist named Bridget Gray and not only did she go right into referring to vagina proudly, but she is the only female to become a two time Grand Slam Champion back to back. Anyway, the point is that you should check out her work, especially "I am a woman" which is a fiercely empowering feminist statement on what being a woman can be.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Yay for Sex. Ed.!
Check out the article about a Maine school board voting to allow their middle school students to get contraception without parental consent and information about safe sex. It's so heartening to hear that not everyone thinks that kids will start having crazy amounts of sex as soon as someone hands them a condom--these people are being reasonable about the needs of their students and the best ways to help them stay safe from unintended pregnancy and STIs. I love it!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Justice Thomas Requires a Kerchief
A book rank with the putrid stink of misogyny is going to be hitting the shelves soon, and the author is a prominent figure in modern politics.
(I'll begin by linking to Anita Hill's response to this episode, which I feel should be prominently placed before my polemics.)
Until recently, one might have interpreted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' silence on the subject of Anita Hill as a sign of guilt. In this day and age, of course, some of the guilty prefer instead to launch absurd rhetorical claims in a book, which is what we can expect in Thomas' forthcoming memoir "My Grandfather's Son (Washington Post link)."
A quick review of the controversy surrounding Anita Hill - when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991, Hill testified that Thomas had sexually harassed her when he was her supervisor at the Department of Education. It turned into an epic political battle, which Thomas won, claiming that Hill's accusations were a "high-tech lynching" orchestrated by liberals trying to defeat his nomination. (A side note about the controversy - an author of a book about Anita Hill, David Brock, later went against his book on the grounds that it was character assassination, as he writes here, and similarly here.)
In his new memoir, for which he is receiving $1.5 million (not exactly a non-sequitor), Thomas says that a "mob" of activist groups and liberal elitists "desecrated" his life. From the Washington Post: "In the book, Thomas writes that Hill was the tool of liberal activist groups 'obsessed' with abortion and outraged because he did not fit their idea of what an African American should believe." His civil rights rhetoric is incredible: he claims that he faced a "mob" whose "weapons were smooth-tongued lies spoken into microphones and printed on the front pages of America's newspapers. . . . But it was a mob all the same, and its purpose -- to keep the black man in his place -- was unchanged."
Having gone on after the controversy to serve on the Supreme Court and become pivotal in a number of votes is meaningless in the face of his tarnished reputation! The racist liberal elitist liars personally attacked him to oppress him; to "keep him in his place." I assume this "place" would have to be anything else but that cabin of an old novel he's currently holed up in.* What other incredible injuries he's suffered, we'll have to read the memoir to learn.
What's so spectacularly arrogant about Thomas' arguments is that he seems to ignore the very relevant identity of Anita Hill - she is every bit as "black" as him, and every point over which he whines in the upcoming memoir looks silly compared to what she faced. Books like Brock's "The Real Anita Hill" made her out to be not only a liar, but a bizarre, mentally unstable and possibly even whorish tool of an ulterior liberal agenda, characterizations which some might see as an injury to her reputation, even possibly a "desecration of her life." That Thomas went on to a position of immense power and influence on the highest court in the land can't be ignored (nor can his accountability to his record in that role: according to Harper's Magazine, Thomas uttered a mere 132 words during Supreme Court oral arguments from February 06 to July 07; the next-fewest word count of all the justices belonged to Samuel Alito at 14,404). And if he wants to throw around baseless allegations about being "kept in his place," there's every bit as much reason if not much more to accuse him of trying to keep women in their "place." Anyone who so much as remembers the crudest basics of the story must admit that Hill got the worst of the fight, regardless of who was right.
After many years of silence, Clarence Thomas feels the need to soil the national discourse with self-victimization and misogynistic trash, for a check no smaller than a million and a half dollars. I suggest he cry some more, because history might indeed remember him unkindly.
*That's not a cheapshot pun on his name - the incredible disrespect, disregard and damage he leveled against the rights of black women makes him a very legitimate, very real Uncle Tom.
(I'll begin by linking to Anita Hill's response to this episode, which I feel should be prominently placed before my polemics.)
Until recently, one might have interpreted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' silence on the subject of Anita Hill as a sign of guilt. In this day and age, of course, some of the guilty prefer instead to launch absurd rhetorical claims in a book, which is what we can expect in Thomas' forthcoming memoir "My Grandfather's Son (Washington Post link)."
A quick review of the controversy surrounding Anita Hill - when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court in 1991, Hill testified that Thomas had sexually harassed her when he was her supervisor at the Department of Education. It turned into an epic political battle, which Thomas won, claiming that Hill's accusations were a "high-tech lynching" orchestrated by liberals trying to defeat his nomination. (A side note about the controversy - an author of a book about Anita Hill, David Brock, later went against his book on the grounds that it was character assassination, as he writes here, and similarly here.)
In his new memoir, for which he is receiving $1.5 million (not exactly a non-sequitor), Thomas says that a "mob" of activist groups and liberal elitists "desecrated" his life. From the Washington Post: "In the book, Thomas writes that Hill was the tool of liberal activist groups 'obsessed' with abortion and outraged because he did not fit their idea of what an African American should believe." His civil rights rhetoric is incredible: he claims that he faced a "mob" whose "weapons were smooth-tongued lies spoken into microphones and printed on the front pages of America's newspapers. . . . But it was a mob all the same, and its purpose -- to keep the black man in his place -- was unchanged."
Having gone on after the controversy to serve on the Supreme Court and become pivotal in a number of votes is meaningless in the face of his tarnished reputation! The racist liberal elitist liars personally attacked him to oppress him; to "keep him in his place." I assume this "place" would have to be anything else but that cabin of an old novel he's currently holed up in.* What other incredible injuries he's suffered, we'll have to read the memoir to learn.
What's so spectacularly arrogant about Thomas' arguments is that he seems to ignore the very relevant identity of Anita Hill - she is every bit as "black" as him, and every point over which he whines in the upcoming memoir looks silly compared to what she faced. Books like Brock's "The Real Anita Hill" made her out to be not only a liar, but a bizarre, mentally unstable and possibly even whorish tool of an ulterior liberal agenda, characterizations which some might see as an injury to her reputation, even possibly a "desecration of her life." That Thomas went on to a position of immense power and influence on the highest court in the land can't be ignored (nor can his accountability to his record in that role: according to Harper's Magazine, Thomas uttered a mere 132 words during Supreme Court oral arguments from February 06 to July 07; the next-fewest word count of all the justices belonged to Samuel Alito at 14,404). And if he wants to throw around baseless allegations about being "kept in his place," there's every bit as much reason if not much more to accuse him of trying to keep women in their "place." Anyone who so much as remembers the crudest basics of the story must admit that Hill got the worst of the fight, regardless of who was right.
After many years of silence, Clarence Thomas feels the need to soil the national discourse with self-victimization and misogynistic trash, for a check no smaller than a million and a half dollars. I suggest he cry some more, because history might indeed remember him unkindly.
*That's not a cheapshot pun on his name - the incredible disrespect, disregard and damage he leveled against the rights of black women makes him a very legitimate, very real Uncle Tom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)