You Took the Words Outta My Mouth: Miss California vs. Gay Marriage

By now, you've probably heard that although Miss California loves living in a country where everyone gets to make free choices (like the choice to have bigger boobs!), she'd like to be a part of limiting (or continuing to limit) the choices of the GLBT community. Mainly the whole icky marriage part, but she probably wouldn't say no to putting the kibosh on the Matthew Shepard Act that, if passed, will give states federal funds to prosecute hate crimes. I could totz she her agreeing that Shepard's attack was less of a hate crime and more of a whoops-a-daisy robbery. So to sum up, Miss California is pretty much a huge bag of hot useless air and thus has been invited by the conservatives from the National Organization for Marriage (least adorable NOM of all time) to come to DC and spread her intolerance.

If you're not familiar with NOM, check out this fear mongering campaign video where lots of white people (and a few tokens) are terrified of the one thing that will never happen if GLBT people marry: getting their rights trampled and/or infringed on. Gay marriage for these "Left Behind" extras is like a horrifying amalgamation of Voldemort, The Running of the Bulls, and being forced Clockwork-Orange-style to watch "Religulous" with Bill Maher. Seriously, people, right now your worst fear is your kid going to school and learning about civil rights? That's the big problem in your life? It sounds like a little house foreclosure would clear that irrationality up, right quick.


So that is what Miss. California is worried about. And to avoid taking a trip to word vomit village, I'm just gonna direct you to The Superficial, where they took the words outta my mouth:

So, let me get this straight, Jesus is cool with fake tits, morally bankrupt beauty pageants and constant media whoring, but not gay marriage? Huh. I never really pictured JC as a homophobic douchebag from Orange County, but that seems to be the message these days. Keep spreading the Good News, Carrie!

Also as I was writing this, Samhita over at Feministing put up a bit about the connection to feminism:

Her blatant homophobia just adds to the already established straight, cis-woman and white standard of beauty necessary for pageants to exist and to perpetuate the illusion of binary genders.

Wowie zowie! How apt that I listened to the Lunachicks while showering this morning...

You Took the Words Outta My Mouth: Lovelle Mixon

I listened to three different stories about Lovelle Mixon on NPR today as I drove to and from work. If you are not familiar with his story yet, Mixon was shot and killed by police in Oakland California last week after he alledgedly killed 4 officers, and wounded another. Other than the tragic aspect of this story, it is noteable because it compounds the already toxic relationship between the black community and the police. It again raises many questions about what role police brutality will (continue to) play in this whole mess. Samhita over at Feministing has a great post up about this that I certainly cannot compete with:

When police officers are found to have murdered young black men, they are almost always let off the hook, they do not face life in prison and they are not then hunted and killed. This is not to suggest that the murder of cops is justified, but to ask that we look at it within the context of police brutality and the damage it has wreaked on the black community.

The power that resides in the laps of armed police officers is terrifying. Imagine living in these conditions, in the kind of world where you can be gunned down just for being young, black, male and walking down the street. This story is almost impossible to understand given dominant narratives around race, class, gender and black masculinity. It is considered OK to kill young black men, often violently. We may be outraged, but not nearly as outraged as when cops are killed.

Read the rest here.

Blatant Self Promotion

So if I haven't called you hollering about how a blog of mine got chosen to be on the front page of Feministing, here's me telling you now. I'm very excited. It's the John Kerry post (see below) and I was hoping for a little more interesting political discourse than I have gotten in the comments so far. So if you've got something to say about Global Feminism go to my Feministing post and say it now. Otherwise I'll just have to continue the flamewar I've got going on with the PUMA who's trolling there. Also, my first blog about ANTM got linked to from one of Jessica's blogs here. It's been a good day.

Toys for Tots and Photo Ops

After reading Ann's post, Race, Barbie, and the Obama Girls over at Feministing today, I tried to dig out some memories of my doll years. After struggling with my parents for a very long time about getting Barbies, they finally allowed me to own them after I turned eight, not because they approved, as much as they didn't want to take them away after I received three at my birthday party that year (Malibu Skipper, Bath Time Fun Barbie, and All American Barbie - more on ludicrous Barbie names later). I loved them intensely, but mostly because all my friends had them. Now with my new Barbies in hand, we could trade them, talk about them, dress them in each others clothes, and cut and destroy their hair together. It was Barbie networking, and it was essential for getting ahead in the second grade. My parents, though now allowing Barbie gifts, were still not purchasing them for me so I only ever ended up with about a dozen, but they were all just different styles of blonde haired Barbies. No guys, no other tweens for Skipper to hang out in Malibu with, and none of Barbies friends who were Latina, African American, and a few other white gals with other hair types.

While not a good argument for having a diverse look at other images of beautiful women, it did help me have a more diverse look on sexuality. Not having any Kens in my Barbies' lives opened the door for them to explore other options. Many of my Barbies hooked up with each other, some married, and others had babies together. One or two of them opted for single motherhood, happily raising children on their own (while working!). All of this cooked up in my imagination before being made aware of any relationships, sexualities, or family structures different from the heteronormitive images on television or in my own family.

Barbies aside, I did have these other dolls when I was even younger than Barbie age that I can barely remember the name of...maybe you can help? I think they were like "Pop 'Ems" or "Poppy Dolls" or something. The main attraction was that they were easy to dress. They were about hand size, and had the long hair you could brush and style, but they were made out of that soft plastic and molded in a kneeling position with no moveable arms or legs- that way you could "pop" their different Velcro attaching outfits on with ease, no silly appendages to deal with. The interchangeable outfits were already equipped with stuffed scarecrow like arms and legs so once dressed they were set to go. There were four different girls. Three white girls (a red head, a blonde, a brunette) and one black girl. I loved them all so very much, I played with them - popping their many outfits on and off - incessantly. The major drawback to this clever toy, was that they made a gazillion little outfits with white hands, but we could never find more outfits (than the ones she came with) for the black doll. I was constantly irritated and confused by this. Not wanting her to have to wear the same clothes while the white girls got to have new outfits all the time, I often just put the white-handed outfits on the black doll even though it was bizarre and sat poorly with me even at 5 years old. I didn't get the deeper cultural implications then, and not having thought about those dolls very often since, this outfit problem really struck me again, twenty years later, after reading Danielle Belton's On Little Black Girls, Beauty and Barbie Dolls on her blog The Black Snob.

Her experience, detailed in that post, really highlights the gap in American culture and what it means to have privilege. Also, when she speaks about modeling agencies making excuses for why the Obama girls are attractive - “It’s a very specific age and a very specific ethnicity, so there aren’t that many girls that would necessarily fit the bill" - it reminds you that no matter how many cable news shows claim it, the new first family does not prove that racism is over. Mostly though, I love her"Cute Black Girls Are Everywhere, You Idiots" photo campaign, and want anyone who can to enter it! There's only two days left though, so don't delay! Also, what kind of dolls or toys did you play with that had similar racial or gendered implications?

You Know What's NOT Feminist? Refusing to Take Responsibility for Your Orgasm!

I have to confess that although I do not enter into the danger zone that is website message boards very often, I sometimes can't help but scroll down and read a few (or a few dozen) comments. For me, message boards have the same train wreck appeal that an episode of Jerry Springer does, I know reading them will be mind numbingly annoying, but I'll be damned if they aren't entertaining. My latest skip through the interwebs led me to the message boards of Facebook's "Feministing" group. The Feministing website is my favorite online hangout, and because I'm a FB group junkie, I eagerly joined up on there as well. Unnecessary? Absolutely. I popped on today to see if there's really anything on it to benefit from, or if I would be better off dumping it to make room for the bazillion other capricious, masturbatory groups I need need need to join. Then, against my better judgment, I got roped into some misguided feminist's thoughts on sex and sex work (you think "misguided" sounds cruel now, but just wait until you try to follow her train of thought from pole dancing to guys who can't "eat pussy" in just a few sentences).

I was hooked by title, "Can Sex Work Manifest Feminism?" Presumably, from reading her thoughts, she's wondering if sex work can be feminist...though it's not really fair of her to pose this as a query because she's already got the answer, and it's a big fucking (or not fucking in this case) NO! Of course, to be fair she is posing one of the hardest questions for the movement because it is one of our biggest dividing lines. There's no fantastic way to win here. Either one is anti and comes off as not validating women's choices, thus infantilizing them, as well as looking like an advocate for censorship...or one is pro and in championing a women's choice one starts to ignore all of the preordained factors (patriarchy, anyone?) that led to the decision which often make it more of an only option than a choice.

Honestly, I don't like to get worked up for either argument, as both sides can have valid points when argued well. Although, I tend to support options that will be safest for women and their health. Therefore, as long as prostitution, porno, and pole dancing have willing (not forced), adult participants, I think the responsible thing to do is to support our sisters in the sex industry and help them get better rights and representation. Just check out the mavens with moxie over at $pread magazine. This is a publication written and produced by current and former sex workers that seeks to "build community and destigmatize sex work by providing a forum for the diverse voices of individuals working in the sex industry." Women who through grassroots activism demand better treatment by the government, their male co-workers, and their clients?! Don't tell me these ladies aren't feminists.

My other gripe with this message board posting is when it awkwardly transitions from the sex work issue to her unhappy sex life. For many paragraphs and other postings she vents her frustrations with the males in her bed and their inability to tickle her fancy. Crappy sex is for sure a major reason to loose your mind, and a dude who is more than willing to push your head down on his without so much as glancing at your lady cat deserves to be kicked to the curb, no doubt. However, when a woman can count the number of partners who have chowed down on her girly bits, poorly at that, while implying that her list of gentlemen callers stretches around the block I can't help but wonder (yikes all this sex talk is making me channel Carrie Bradshaw) if maybe someone isn't speaking up and schoolin' like she should.

I'm not laying blame on this gal or any of my lusty lady friends, and I'm certainly not siding with i'll-take-my-bj-without-the-cunnilingus-please guys. However, this whole argument she makes brings up an important point that I find myself considering a lot: how much do we women blame our male-dominated culture/society for those bad in bed boys and how much personal responsibility are we willing to take for our orgasm?

Look, whatever kind of sex you're having, it requires two people and just wanting it to be good is not gonna cut it (uh, duh, remember your first time?). It's one thing to sleep with selfish assholes (did he really not seem like a selfish asshole before the clothes came off?!?!), but it's another to assume that a guy who really cares about you automatically knows your ins and outs like a Google map. There's a lot going on down there, and although we're used to poking around and knowing what's hot and what's not, the guys may need a little tutoring. Should they ask? Hell yes, but not asking doesn't make them private enemy #1, especially if we're not telling. If we're not asking for what we want and telling our partners what we need, aren't we partially to blame for bogus buggering? In addition, if we're not comfortable with asking, telling, teaching, learning, shouldn't we be asking ourselves why we're jumping into the sack with this person, instead of asking why are all men selfish slackers?

Here's an even bigger question: why are we women letting guys give us bad head? I'm sick of women being the victims of bad sexual experiences. It's time to take a stand here, and demand better, and giving up giving head is not the way to get our point across. (It's not fair to withhold sex to get sex, if a guy did that to us I'm sure we'd have even more to say about that.) So guys have no problem telling us that we're using too much teeth, and if we don't want to "go into the bathroom and masturbate after we've had sex," why aren't we telling them the equivalent? They want to know, and until we teach them what's what down there, they are either going to continue grop around like blind mice or avoid the whole thing all together. And for those who sit through class and still refuse to do the work, fail those d-bags, and tell 'em this group project just became DIY.