I totally don't think this scenario will happen in a nonillion years, but, if it did, I would find it utterly, transcendently, incandescently hilarious.
Because I always have been, am now, and always will be Al Gore's love slave.
My thanks, ahem, to Nicholas Kristof for inspiring the title of this post.
Lest anyone presume that I have to go looking for this shit, I found all three of today's examples at the aggregator Memeorandum, and had absolutely no intention to write a post about this topic until I read all three examples and felt obliged to do so. And, just because I've had to say this in comments a few times lately, I'll say it again here: I have not endorsed either of the remaining candidates since my candidate, John Edwards, dropped out. Neither Clinton's nor Obama's records particularly inspire me, both of their levels of religiosity and triangulation bug me, and any appearance or actual failure of even-handedness on my part is not deliberate; it happens that Obama has more (and quicker) defenders among the contributors at Shakesville, for one thing, and, for another, I'm an active feminist and this campaign has, much to my chagrin, required all too much of my attention be drawn in defense of Clinton.
So, that said, let's look at who's telling Hillary to take her boobs and go home today...
Slate's Hillary Deathwatch
I don't guess I need to point out the whole "deathwatch" thing is a little creepy, made even more so by the fact that it is introduced with the declaration "Hillary Clinton is as good as dead," as opposed to "Hillary Clinton's campaign is as good as dead." Bonus points for referencing their own atrocious Clintometer, which measures "the chances of a Lewinsky-related ousting," right in the explanation for the "Hillary Deathwatch." I mean, it takes real class to reference a woman's husband's mistress from a decade ago in a piece where you're declaring her political fortunes dead.
Newsweek's Jonathan Alter with "Hillary's Consolation Prize?"
Perhaps Patrick Leahy really was being generous when he exhorted Hillary to drop out and move on with a "tremendous career in the Senate," because the alternative is evidently pushing her out of Washington altogether. Bonus points for noting that her husband has reportedly dismissed the idea "out of hand." If you're like me, I know you can't read an article about Hillary without thinking, "I wonder what Bill thinks about all this!"
New York Magazine asks "Who'll Stop the Pain?"
Good question. I've also been wondering "Who will stop that harpy from talking?" because her shrill tone and witch-like cackling is hurting my ears. The amazing thing about this piece is, despite its opening with an interesting anecdote (which happens to confirm what I've heard privately) about how Edwards was quite pleasanly surprised by Clinton's "solicitous and respectful" response after he withdrew from the race, and its concession that she stays in because she has a genuine fear that McCain would beat Obama, she is still, in the (literal) end cast as a maniacal freak obsessed with her own "long-range self-aggrandizement." And then, of course, there's the subhead—simultaneously suggesting her husband knows what's best, and it's that she should drop out, but she just won't listen to him!—and the artwork, which seriously could not be a more perfect visual of the idea that Hillary is a bad girl who needs scolding by the Big Boys. I can't imagine where people could be getting the impression that underlying many of the calls for Hillary to leave is some pretty nasty misogyny.
* * *
You know, I actually get the perplexity about why those of us defending her right to keep campaigning don't concede that it's "obvious" she can't win and should drop out, and about why we don't see the "undeniable logic" that, even though Obama might not be able to win outright, either, he's closer than she is. I really do get the bewilderment. I do.
And I don't know if I can properly explain why that "obvious" conclusion and "undeniable logic" don't appeal to or persuade us, but here's the thing: Lots of us are women who have been told "You can't" for much of our lives, or had seemingly unnavigable barriers put in our way by people who didn't want us to succeed. Lots of us are women who, had we played by The Rules, wouldn't have gotten where we are—because The Rules are designed so that we fail. The odds have been against us our whole lives; everything we've ever done has been in defiance of the distinct likelihood—and expectation—that we would settle for less than we wanted.
Our routes have been nontraditional, our strategies neither obvious nor logical by traditional standards. By design, and by necessity.
What if we'd all taken our boobs and gone home, when someone who saw the perfect logic of it told us to...?
...to everyone who nominated me as their favorite female blogger at Women's Voices Women's Votes' contest in honor of Women's History Month. Incredibly, I made the Top 10, so, um, vote for me. Or one of the other bloggers there. (Just not Jill Stanek!)
And, truly, thank you so much to the people who nominated me in the first place. I am completely surprised and, as per usual, incapable of gracefully taking a compliment. Blush. Thank you.
So, Shapely Prose readers might have seen this douchehound responding to my gayest look the other day:
Goddamn Kate. You are an unbelievably unattractive woman!!
signed,
every straight man with a set of eyes. (except for your closeted boyfriend, of course)
We are programmed to look for healthy in every sense….healthy is attractive. Forcing the argument that people should accept others who are overweight goes against this natural selection switch, and makes it impossible for some people to accept.
Society has not conditioned us, evolution has. Men are attracted to women that represent the best chance of bearing their young and caring for them. This means young and physically fit.... This is not opinion, it is fact.
Evolution has produced men who are attracted to women who appear to be good prospects for bearing HIS children.
very few guys want to date over-weight women
She should trim up or accept that people will not be attracted to her for her size.
Ok,before everyone jumps down my throat. I used to be height/weight proportionate but over the years I’ve gained weight. I’m a chunky woman ok. I’m not denying it. And I know that’s why I don’t have a BF.... OK, men are really not that complicated and we women are just wasting our $ buying all these books. You don’t even have to be that pretty. You just have to be THIN. That’s right, crucify me now. YOU HAVE TO BE THIN.
Most guys don’t want heavy babes. Unless of course they are larger themselves. Just reality. While the recent move to accept larger people proliferates, and, while it is good to feel good about yourself-self love and all it’s just too much.
You can’t expect someone to agree to marry someone else who is obese.
the fact of the matter is that men prefer shapely over fat or large or whatever you want to call it. Until woman “get” this they will always wonder why they don't have as much success dating as they could or should. It is not rocket science.
Are you really that naive? seriously. You KNOW what guys want, look around! They want that hot, sexy, body, a gal to make them look good too. MOST men do not prefer an overweight woman.
This lady just doesn’t GET it. Some men just AREN”T sexually motivated, or attracted by a chunk. Girls, get the picture…If you want to be happy in your own skin, as all these self help horsecrap books talk about, remember, the author is hoping you buy her book, because she wants your money, so she is going to say it’s OK for you to be fat. NEWSFLASH ! You just might be happy in your own skin ALONE. Yes, you DO actually have a responsibility to look good, if you want to be accepted.
Noone likes fat people except fat people and that’s just how it is. It’s sloppy with rolls of fat hanging, creases, pendulous breasts and persperation.These are all the thoughts of the normal mind and rightfully so as it is not a myth.Take a thin person in a restaurant eating, no one takes a second look. Take a fat person eating and one will think, “slovenly overeater” That’s just the way it is. By the way, I’m fat and I think it’s ugly!
I actually married a guy that can’t stand my fat! Yes I did. Some would say I am stupid, but he treats me well, and we have a great life together. It is though, very difficult at times for me. I used to be very obese (almost 300lbs), and I am down to a size 14 and I am happy. Any one who knows anything about losing weight - when you have lost that much, you are really flabby. I can out-do my husband in the exercise department and he will admit it. I have put about 30lbs back on since we engaged, then married. I admit, I got a bit lazy and now I just can’t seem to get it back off. We talk about it frequently, and he apologises for the way he feels, but he claims he can’t change that and I have to lose more weight. He wants me into a size 8!! Hahaha - that will never happen and I tell him that. Anyway - I often wonder where I would be if I had been more true to myself.
Lose the weight and gain the power to choose.
- if any man would want to rape your gigantic ass, i’d be shocked
- whoever raped you could have just waited at the exit of a bar at 3am and gotten it consenually without the beached whale-like “struggle” you probably gave
- These fat whores would be lucky to even get raped by someone.I hope you whiny cunts find your way on top of a pinball machine in the near future.
by Shaker Ouyang Dan
Hi Shakers!!!1!!one!
I suffer from insomnia, so when I was reading the news last night instead of staring at the ceiling, I came across an article in the Detroit Free Press online (I still keep up w/ news in my home state from 6000 miles away), freep.com, and while I was bleary eyed and trying to write a coherent response to it, I decided that maybe someone better should do it, w/ more readership, and I emailed the link to Liss.
She was so not going to let me off the hook. Instead, she asked if I was interested in guest blogging at Shakesville, which honestly hadn't occurred to me. The idea made me *squee* so hard that I almost wet myself. Then I looked at my post, and thought "Crap, someone might actually read this." So I toiled a little more, hoping to bring to Shakers something worthy of the reputation that Shakesville so deserves. To say I am feeling pretty special and lucky right now is not accurate.
So, here goes…
If you ask Holly Bowne, feminism has gone too far.
And now it is tearing our boys down and stopping us from teaching them how to be men!
Oh noes!
Bowne wants to know why feminism has decided that beating up boys is the thing to do in order to achieve our goals.
She starts off w/ the normal "yadda yadda yadda I think men and women should be allowed to do the same jobs", "I like the political and economic gains feminism has made" to get her feminist street cred and show her appreciation that she is allowed to write things and get them published too, but it pretty much goes down hill from there.
Feminism is, of course, to blame, b/c her son's soccer team "held back" when playing in an indoor league game against a girls' team. Apparently the little man cubs were being "punched in the back of the head" by the girls, and it is all the fault of feminism.After the soccer game, I asked a manager why this talented girls team didn't play up a few levels within the girls division instead of entering the boys' leagues. I was told that prohibiting them from playing in the boys division would be considered discrimination. Amazing. Women have fought a long, hard battle to earn equal rights. We now have clubs, sports, colleges and political organizations solely for women and the support of women's rights. But we're still not satisfied.
It's feminism's fault that girls' sports teams are allowed to play boys' teams. OK, I can see that. I don't think that is a bad thing. Bowne is upset b/c for feminists it isn't good enough that girls have their own teams, leagues, clubs, tournaments and whathaveyous, but now we want our girls to be able to compete against other teams…even boys' teams. We are ruining sports by wanting girls and boys w/ similar ability levels to play w/ or even against each other, and that is confusing our boys. I am pretty sure that history has shown us that separate is not equal.
What I really think is confusing our boys is the concept of chivalry, and how it enforces gender roles. From the very moment the doctor proclaims "It's a boy!" the stereotypes are forced down their throats by every thing and person the come in contact w/. Bowne mentions that she has taught her boys to not be aggressive w/ girls, that boys must protect girls, and even "step to their defense". I can see where she is going, we certainly don't want more violence against women, and I definitely think we need more feminist allies in men, but I just don't buy this whole "protect the fair sex" mentality. Chivalry, from the French word for knight, chevalier, is the concept that began w/ Knightly Duties, and has evolved into this idea that men must treat women w/ "respect" by treating them as weaker and in need of being protected. Chivalry, on its surface seems like a great idea—treat women w/ respect. But, it is really just sexism in a big pretty bow meant to match your purse and high heels.
Even more irritating, to me, is Bowne's idea that feminists are seeking to get their equality by beating up boys. The image of the ball busting, steel toed boot wearing, man bashing feminist is nothing new. She thinks that feminists are promoting violence against boys and men as a way to get a leg up on society. Her proof of this agenda is the horrific line of shirts geared at "tweeners" by David & Goliath, specifically the ones that say "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them," the one that stirred the pot w/ MRAs. I can't say that I speak for all feminists everywhere, but the promotion of violence towards anyone just isn't a good idea in general. I certainly don't want young boys wearing shirts like the "Problem Solved" shirt that caused a stir amongst feminists not so long ago, and likewise, to promote to girls that it is OK to "throw rocks at them" is not an ideal I want to pass on to my Kid when she is interacting w/ boys. I absolutely know that violence against women is significantly more of a problem than violence by women against men, but that does not mean that the way to make things even is to take out a few of the competitors in the MRA Olympics. I love how seeing a woman searching for this shirt in her kid's size means that feminists are handing them out at anti men rallies across the globe. If this is what feminism is supposed to be like then I have been doing it wrong. Here I thought we were supposed to be treating other human beings w/ respect, turns out all I really was supposed to do was buy the Kid a crappy t-shirt and give her a handful of rocks.
I guess what I am saying is that the problem here isn't w/ the feminist movement, it is w/ the way that society has taught us to "raise men." I am totally behind teaching boys that they should respect girls and women, not to hit or hurt them, I teach the same thing to my daughter, only I tell her it is never OK to hit or hurt anyone (w/o their permission, and that is a whole different post). We don't need to teach them differently. Teach children to treat people as people, regardless of gender, race, religion, trouser size, who they want to kiss good night, or double-jointed thumbs. If we want our children to play fair and equal then we need to raise them fairly and equally, no matter what color of cap the hospital puts on them when they are seven minutes old. The same way that I don't want my daughter growing up thinking that she is secondary to the sons out there, I don't want sons who grow up knowing how to "treat a lady."
(Thanks, Liss, for letting me hang w/ the cool kids today!)
I saw the following story the other day in Petulant's roundup, but was a bit too dumbstruck to write anything about it at the time:
Police are investigating an 11-year-old girl's death from an undiagnosed, treatable form of diabetes after her parents chose to pray for her rather than take her to a doctor. [...]Now, keep in mind that the only reason there's an investigation in the first place is because the girl's aunt, who lives on the west coast, was told that Leilani called to say that her daughter, Madeline, is in a coma and that she's relying on faith. At that point, the aunt desperately tried to intervene by calling the local Wisconsin authorities to get them to bust through the front door and save that child.
The girl's mother, Leilani Neumann, said the family believes in the Bible and that healing comes from God, but she said they do not belong to an organized religion or faith, are not fanatics and have nothing against doctors. [...]
Leilani Neumann said she and her husband are not worried about the investigation because "our lives are in God's hands. We know we did not do anything criminal. We know we did the best for our daughter we knew how to do."
The girl's father, Dale Neumann, a former police officer, said he started CPR "as soon as the breath of life left" his daughter's body.
I don't think this is exactly news since Sir Ian McKellen hasn't been coy about whether he'd like to reprise the role of Gandalf but it's still nice to see:
WELLINGTON, New Zealand - Ian McKellen, who played Gandalf the Wizard in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, is hoping to reprise the role in another tale from Middle Earth.
A fan asked McKellen on the actor's official Web site if he would play the role of Gandalf in "The Hobbit," which is being produced by Peter Jackson, director of the "Rings" trilogy.
"Yes, I will, if Peter Jackson and I have anything to do with it, he being the producer and me being, on the whole, a very lucky actor," McKellen, 68, said in a reply dated Wednesday.
[...]
Another fan asked: "Have you been approached yet by Peter Jackson or anyone else" to play the ancient Wizard?
McKellen replied: "Encouragingly, Peter and (partner) Fran Walsh have told me they couldn't imagine `The Hobbit' without their original Gandalf."
"Their confidence hasn't yet been confirmed by the director Guillermo del Toro, but I am keeping my diary free for 2009!" he said.
Thanks to researchers armed with current technology, Thomas Edison's contribution to recorded sound will need to be clarified a bit. He is still the first person to have reproduced sound; that is, record it and play it back. However, he is no longer the first person to have actually recorded sound. That honor now goes to Parisian inventor, Edouard-Leon Scott de Martinville:
An "ethereal" 10 second clip of a woman singing a French folk song has been played for the first time in 150 years.Below is the actual clip that was digitally brought to life. If the clip sounds too fast, then please go to FirstSounds to listen to the MP3.
The recording of "Au Clair de la Lune", recorded in 1860, is thought to be the oldest known recorded human voice.
A phonograph of Thomas Edison singing a children's song in 1877 was previously thought to be the oldest record.
The new "phonautograph", created by etching soot-covered paper, has now been played by US scientists using a "virtual stylus" to read the lines.
| Au Clair de la Lun... |
I mean, super-deadly weaponized nipple piercings of doom have to exist, right? Otherwise, what could possibly explain the TSA requiring a woman to rip out her nipple piercings with pliers in the middle of the airport?
[After a handheld detector beeped when it passed over Mandi Hamlin's chest, the female TSA agent using the wand] called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.Despite the fact that the TSA's website says passengers "may ask to remove [their] body piercing in private as an alternative to a pat-down search," and Hamlin was never offered a "pat-down" in the first place, which she says she would have accepted, had it been offered. Instead, she was then taken behind a curtain and, after she was unable to successfully remove both piercings, began to cry and requested pliers, which the officers provided. Hamlin heard the male TSA agents snickering as she wrenched apart the other piercing with the pliers. She was then allowed to board the plane, even though she was still wearing a navel piercing.
Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.
TSA officials said they are investigating whether the agency's policies were followed.Really? Doesn't sound like it.
"Our security officers are well-trained to screen individuals with body piercings in sensitive areas with dignity and respect while ensuring a high level of security," the agency said in a statement.
Via TPM, the tag line for John McCain's first general election ad:
John McCain: The American president Americans have been waiting for.Yeah, because all the imports have been such dismal failures.
Hils tells Dems not to vote for McCain:
Clinton was asked by a questioner in the audience here what she would tell frustrated Democrats who might consider voting for McCain in the general election out of spite.Bitch.
"Please think through this decision," Clinton said, laughing and emphasizing the word "please."
"It is not a wise decision for yourself or your country."
The crowd applauded loudly.
…"First of all, every time you have a vigorous contest like we are having in this primary election people get intense," she continued. "You know, Sen. Obama has intense support. I have intense support."
Clinton stressed that there are "significant" differences between her and Obama, but said "those differences pale to the differences between us and Sen. McCain."
"I intend to do everything I can to make sure we have a unified Democratic party," she said. "When this contest is over and we have a nominee, we're going to close ranks, we're going to be united."
"The few strong women in Hollywood movies and TV are safely located in an unreal world: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Xena: Warrior Princess. The closest to an unapologetic feminist is Lisa Simpson—and she is eight years old, and a cartoon."—Johann Hari, in The Independent, in a piece titled "Where have all the strong women gone?"
It's an interesting article, and I hope you'll read it and discuss in comments. I have a few quibbles with it—when he says, "Hollywood largely gives us what we want—and we don't want to idolize strong, powerful women today," I think he underestimates how much of what "we" want is dictated by "Hollywood" in the first place, and when he says, "You will be encouraged to idolise empty shells like Jordan or Victoria Beckham," it bothers me, because I know that Victoria Beckham is not an empty shell; I've seen her be witty, charming, quick, and self-deprecating in interviews, and I like her immensely. That she is generally regarded, and portrayed by the media as, an empty shell despite not actually being one might be part of the answer to the question "Where have all the strong women gone?"
And, for whatever it's worth, Britney Spears is the last woman in the world most people would describe as strong, but how many of us could persevere under that scrutiny, without, at least, shaving our heads…?
by Shaker Em
Call it a bs answer, but it's the truth. Call it inappropriate, and maybe I don't have a response...or at least not a very defendable one. Whether or not I'm a nobody or somebody, I'm still able to make questionable calls.This was a not a questionable call, and to characterize it as such further reveals exactly why we need to be having this conversation. As my teammate said:
Of course I'm extremely angry. Why is it so hard to understand that the image would be offensive to women? Especially when displayed on a site that is supposed to represent the women's rugby teams of the state of Iowa. This is a direct reflection on the union, and the attitude you are taking does not give me much faith in how the union feels about its women's teams.And in the words of other women ruggers:
I am appalled to see how the Iowa Rugby Union is representing itself. It is disappointing to see how high you value women.
Is that how the Midwest views the women who play rugby for this territory? Scantily clad in underwear, objectified? The Midwest currently boasts a large number of international women's players, women who have fought to earn our nation a fifth place finish in the entire world. We women in the Midwest are the reigning National Division 2 champions and runners up as well as the runners up for the Division 1 National Championship. We continually dominate National All Star Championships. In short, Midwest women's rugby players are some of the best in the nation and the world. I understand these are achievements of the territory at large, but Iowa is part of this effort and I am outraged that such a photo would appear on a website representing part of my rugby union.Like I was saying, this was not a questionable call. It was an easy one, and you completely blew it. Your responses to the above emails claimed the problem had been fixed, instead of the truth, which was that one offensive image was swapped with another. Most importantly, your responses lacked both an acknowledgement that sexism in rugby is still endemic and an apology for contributing to its perpetuation. And even in the midst of these placating replies, you continued to defend the indefensible and justify the ridiculous caricature of myself and my teammate as whiny grouches. In an email to me:
Images like that, postings like that, are harmful to the advancement of women's rugby as a sustainable and legitimate sport in this nation. Only when thoughtless actions such as that are stopped will we be able to gain headway and advance. As a woman, as a rugby player for one decade, and as a professional, I am insulted that the union would display something such as that image.
The picture that he posted as a replacement is comical and sarcastic, maybe leaning towards an inappropriate inside joke, but it does not make the matter worse. Since he's doing all of the web development without charging the union, I figured I'd give him his little victory for a day before telling him to remove it.And I should believe you respect women, why, again?
