Angry Green Girls: Softcore PETA
Via Sociological Images, Treehugger—an hugely popular environmental web site that describes itself as "the leading media outlet dedicated to driving sustainability mainstream"—has a post today about a group calling itself Angry Green Girls. Basically, they're a group of "hot" women (ahem, "girls") who "use [their] hotness for getting attention, but for a good green cause."
Angry feminists usually get the eye roll. But what about angry green girls? Seems like they're getting plenty of attention ... From hybrid-only bikini car washes to nearly naked shower tips, check out how Angry Green Girl broadens the eco-issue umbrella through her sarcasm-laden eco-tips. Water issues have never looked quite like this.OK, let's assume the writer is just using the "angry feminists" canard as a lazy segue into her larger point about OMG HAWT ENVIRO GIRLZ. The larger problem is that mainstream environmental publications like Treehugger see environmentalism as a compartmentalized "issue" that has nothing to do with women's rights. In that view, exploiting women's bodies is bad, unless, of course, it's for a "good green cause." Then it's just "using sex" to sell environmentalism—and who could disagree with that?
I mean, what are you, a prude?
The other "Angry Green Girls" videos show bikini-clad women lathering up Priuses and "rejecting" men who don't happen to drive hybrids—the subtext being that if you choose the right car, these women will be sexually available to you. Here, the message is that women are objects to be obtained through the right male behavior—no different, really, than suggesting that if you buy her dinner, she'd better put out.
In that way, the "Angry Green Girls" are no different than PETA, which routinely uses naked women as props for their anti-meat-consumption message. The only difference is that PETA's stunts are so blatantly anti-woman (putting women in cages; portraying them as pigs; having them lie on the ground, naked, looking "dead") that it's hard to see them as anything else. The Angry Green Girls are just softcore PETA—a misogynistic message wrapped in an organic string bikini.
Update On Turning Point
Following up on the story I wrote about here, where the funding had been cut drastically for Turning Point, a Chicago-area shelter serving women and children who are victims of domestic violence.
Fundraising efforts, including the Star 105.5 radiothon, online donations (yay, Shakers!), and food donations to the pantry, have raised $70,000 for the center.
A warm and grateful thanks to everyone who donated where they could.
FYI, you can still pitch in by visiting their website and clicking on the "donate now" button.
Thanks so much!
Maine Chance
A referendum to repeal Maine's same-sex marriage law has made it onto the November ballot.
Election officials announced Wednesday that gay marriage foes surpassed the threshold of signatures necessary to put the state law on the November ballot, setting the stage for a furious, two-month campaign that’ll determine whether the number of states allowing same-sex nuptials shrinks to five.The anti-marriage-equality folks raised a stink when the Supreme Court of California held -- correctly -- that to deny two people the right to get married based on their gender was a violation of the equal protection clause of the state constitution. They railed against judicial "activism" and said that the only way for marriage equality to be enacted was through the legislative process; that is the true voice of the people. (It should be noted that the California State Assembly did pass a marriage equality bill on two separate occasions, only to have them vetoed by the governor.) For good measure they mustered enough homophobia and outside help from the Mormons to pass Prop 8 to amend the state constitution. So other states, such as Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, passed laws enacting marriage equality. Now the "family values" people are saying, at least in Maine, that the law should be repealed; the legislature in Augusta doesn't truly represent the voice of the people because, apparently, they didn't get their way.
Maine’s gay marriage law was supposed to go into effect on Sept. 12, but it was put on hold while the secretary of state’s office verified the number of signatures. With the signatures validated, Gov. John Baldacci on Wednesday signed a formal proclamation putting the gay marriage law to a statewide vote Nov. 3.
“I fully support this legislation and believe it guarantees that all Maine citizens are treated equally under our state’s civil marriage laws,” Baldacci said. “But I also have a constitutional obligation to set the date for the election once the secretary of state has certified that enough signatures have been submitted.”
There are two reasons that I hope the people of Maine vote down the repeal of the law. The first, obviously, is because marriage equality is the fulfillment of the promise of equal rights for all people. The second would be to say firmly to these ignorant and sniveling bigots that they are tired of their non-stop games of Calvinball and making up the rules as they go along.
Cross-posted.
Filler, Or Random Things I've Photographed Recently
In addition to this lovely picture, I've snapped these images recently during my meanderings around town.
Snake in a tree, outside my office.
Gayblade, an advertising mascot.
Random Devo sign. Are we not men?
Dumb graffito.
Storefront spooks.
[Cross-posted.]
Feminism 101: "Sexism is a Matter of Opinion"
There's a very common misperception that sexism is subjective—that any given incident identified by one person as sexist could be identified by another as not sexist, and either both of them are right, because the whole thing is just a matter of opinion anyway, or the latter is right, because if it's not equally obvious to everyone, it can't be sexist. It's this conventional wisdom about the subjectivity of sexism that underlies the ubiquitous "I don't see it" rejoinder, particularly recurrent in discussions of expressed sexism against women, on which this post will be focused.*
Sexism is, in fact, not subjective. What's subjective are individual reactions to sexism, but sexism itself can be objectively determined. (I'll come back to that in a moment.) Individual reactions to sexism will, naturally, be as vast and varied as the individuals who react—but because there are men, or women, who aren't offended by something, or don't find it sexist, doesn't mean it isn't. One can always find someone who refuses to be offended by something: That Michelle Malkin wrote In Defense of Internment doesn't American government-built concentration camps any less objectively offensive or wrong.
So: Toss out the idea that there must be unanimous consent, or even majority agreement, that something is sexist for it to be determined as such. In fact, toss out the idea that sexism is determined by subjective opinion altogether.
First, though, let's quickly dispatch with the fallacy that there are such things as subjective observers and objective observers. There are two general ways in which this frustratingly pernicious myth is conveyed:
1. Feminists (female and/or male) are always look for sexism, so they will always find it, the inaccuracy of which I previously addressed here.
2. Those most targeted by expressed misogyny (women) are critically biased against being able to correctly identify it.
The implicit suggestion, of course, is that men are unbiased—which conveniently ignores that they have the most to benefit from expressed misogyny, giving them every bit as much, if not more, reason to be biased toward denying its existence as women are biased toward exposing it.
No one is, by virtue of hir sex, gender, or gender presentation, more intrinsically disposed to be more objective—which exposes as the bullshit it is the whole idea that one must be an objective observer of sexism to correctly identify it (or that such a person can even exist).
We're all biased—either because we are the potential targets or potential beneficiaries of sexism, whether we want to be or not. A woman who rejects the existence of sexism is no more unlikely to be oppressed by it than a woman who spends her days documenting it. A man who acknowledges and fights the existence of sexism is no more unlikely to passively benefit from other people privileging men over women than a man who actively marginalizes women. That's the reality of institutionalized sexism; it compromises us all.
So: Toss out the idea that women/men are more subjective/objective observers of sexism.
But, hey—didn't you say that sexism can be objectively determined? How is that possible if no one's objective?
Institutionalized misogyny, like any endemic prejudice (racism, homophobia, transphobia, ageism, ableism, sizism, etc.) should be viewed as a system, with rules and laws governing its existence—although, by virtue of cultural indoctrination, they generally aren't obvious unless one makes an effort to see them.
The patriarchy is very like the Matrix, in that it is a false construct laid over the top of a reality, that makes things look very different. Viewing the same thing while fully and uncritically socialized into the patriarchy and while cognizant of its falsity creates two very different pictures.
I look hotter in the patriarchy.
Like the Matrix, which Morpheus described as "everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room… It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth," the systemic sexism known as the patriarchy is so comprehensive and profound that "seeing it" actually takes some effort, some willingness to see it. And, like those who find themselves awakening from the Matrix, people who find themselves awakening from the patriarchy learn to identify its patterns, upon which it is dependent for the transmission of its ideals and its continual self-generation.
Pattern-finding is one of the main reasons I do ongoing series about rape jokes, or "odd news," or disembodied things, or the imposition of impossible beauty standards. In addition to illustrating via critical mass the existence of patterns and subverting the ability to dismiss them as unimportant under the pretense any one incident is an anomaly, identifying and revealing the patterns provides the framework in which the existence of sexism can be objectively measured.
Whether something is sexist (be it a word, a consumable item, a practice, or anything else) is neither dependent on how it is intended nor how it is received, but on whether it serves to convey sexism, which itself is determined by its alignment with existent patterns. When 2+2 has equaled 4 since time began, anyone claiming 2+2 suddenly equals 5 would be regarded, quite rightly, with suspicion. It is vanishingly unusual for someone to say/do something that fits perfectly with an ancient pattern of sexism yet is somehow not an expression of sexism.
Let me quickly stipulate and clarify that one can unintentionally express sexism. That innocent intent, or ignorance of the history of how women have been marginalized, does not, however, in any way change the quality of what was being expressed. Something can still be expressed sexism even if the speaker's intent was not to oppress women. And particularly if it does fit neatly into a historical pattern, it necessarily conjures that pattern of sexism, intentionally or not.
So: Toss out the idea that intent determines sexism. And the idea that any of us, or any of the things we say or do, can exist in a void.
What we're then left with is the idea that if something fits into a historical pattern of sexism, unavoidably invokes such a pattern, and/or can be overtly quantified as marginalizing women, it is an expression of sexism.
All of these things can be objectively evaluated by anyone who learns the patterns of the patriarchy and the history of women's oppression.
Women are generally better at identifying the patterns of misogyny by virtue of having been subjected to them for a lifetime. For example: By a very young age (usually around puberty), most girls intuitively understand the concept of women's bodies being treated as community property, even if they can't articulate it. But in addition to the expertise conferred by personal experience, there is such a thing as patriarchy-smashing book-learnin'.
There are people—like your blogmistress—who have spent egregious amounts of time and effort acquainting themselves with the ability to navigate the Matrix the language, imagery, rituals, and cultural cues, both subtle and overt, that are used to promulgate the patriarchy.
Becoming intimately, actively involved with the methods by which sexism is conveyed is not unlike becoming fluent in another language. And just like how people who speak Arabic are better translators of Arabic than people who don't, people who have immersed themselves in the critical theories of gender are better translators of what is and is not sexism.
Identifying and defining sexism is not, as "sexism is a matter of opinion" suggests, a speculative chore. There is an existing framework for recognizing and characterizing expressed sexism—and those who have made it their business to become fluent in it are the closest thing to objective experts as exist in any discipline.
If you find yourself inclined to react to the identification of something as expressed sexism with "I don't see it," consider that your "blindness" has been carefully cultivated by the very system that is dependent on your (and everyone else's) not seeing it.
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.—Morpheus
The red pill's on offer, if you want it.
----------------------
* My focus is on the denial of expressed sexism against women not because I find sexism against men unimportant, but because I have not generally seen significant disagreements here over expressed sexism against men. When I have blogged about, for example, sitcoms or adverts that cast men as mindless dopes, or rape apologia that casts all men as potential rapists, I have not been met with resistance on those premises either by men or women. We are, it seems, collectively better able to identify, comprehend, and agree to condemn expressed sexism against men.
[Originally posted April 25, 2008.]
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
Strip One, Strip Two, Strip Three, Strip Four, Strip Five, Strip Six, Strip Seven, Strip Eight, Strip Nine, Strip Ten, Strip Eleven, Strip Twelve, Strip Thirteen, Strip Fourteen, Strip Fifteen, Strip Sixteen, Strip Seventeen, Strip Eighteen, Strip Nineteen, Strip Twenty, Strip Twenty-One. In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.
What The Hell?
Shaker Tik_bev
In her email she claimed to be dressed up for a "special event" at her high school. Where is that? Hogwarts? Way to go, Luna Lovegood.
[See also: Deeky, Liss, evilsciencechick, katecontinued, ClumsyKisses, Mistress Sparkletoes, Liiiz, Reedme, Mama Shakes, Mustang Bobby, RedSonja, MomTFH, Portly Dyke, SteffaB, Icca, Christina, Orangelion03, Car, Siobhan, InfamousQBert, Maud, Rikibeth, MishaRN, CLD, Cheezwiz, MamaCarrie, Temeraire, somebodyoranother, goldengirl, Liss (again), summerwing, yeomanpip, Susan811, bbl, Deeky (Part II), A Daily Shakesville Fan, Sami_J, liberalandproud Temeraire: Redux, Mama Shakes II, Bonus Deeky, OuyangDan, J.Goff, Iain, Talonas, The Great Indoors, gogo, kiwi_a, and em_and_ink.]
Top Chef Open Thread
Chef Tom Colicchio will drink. your. milkshake!!!
He will also, should you require it, totally give you the Heimlich Maneuver to save your life and then be charmingly humble about it.
Blog Note
Hey, Shakers. Iain and I are going to be on holiday for a few days, so posting will be lighter than usual for me. I do have a bunch of stuff pre-scheduled for the next few days, including some re-runs of Feminist 101 pieces, and don't worry—the Virtual Pub has been scheduled, too!
That also means I won't be around to help moderate, so please help out the mods by thinking before you post, trying to avoid flamewars, and respecting any requests they may make re: staying on-topic, use of inappropriate language, etc.
I'll have intermittent email access, so please forgive me if I don't get back to you right away about something urgent.
To anyone who also has a Labor Day or bank holiday this weekend, be safe and have fun! See you next week.
Question of the Day
Suggested by Shaker Kevin Wolf: "This is inspired by the totes cuteness of the Daily Kitteh feature, which has me seriously thinking CAT rather than DOG for a pet, first time ever in my life. (I want to get a pet soon, but have to tread lightly where cats are concerned, due to some allergic reactions to longhairs.) Haven't made up my mind other than getting a rescue animal from a shelter. Anyway, here's the QotD:
For Shaker per owners: Do you have a story to tell about how you adopted/found/saved/acquired your pet? Was it love at first sight? An accidental meeting? Deliberate decision to save an animal? (Feel free to throw in advice for those like me considering adopting an animal.)"
Quote of the Day
"So people go to town halls, they go out to the community, and they're like this. [shakes fists] It makes for great TV. You'll probably make it tonight. Enjoy it."—RNC Chair Michael Steele, responding to 23-year-old college grad/activist Amanda Duzak, who interrupted Steele speaking about healthcare at Howard University yesterday, to tell him about "her own mother who died of cancer six months ago because she couldn't afford her prescription chemotherapy medications. The audience applauded her." Steele accused her of trying to get on TV.
[Start at 2:00.]
In Weird Things I Love
It's an old sign for a ladies' bathroom, but I like to think of my office, aka Shakesville HQ, as a "necessary room for ladies" for a whole other reason.
My Terrible Bargain, or Why I'm Getting Another Ulcer
by Shaker RedSonja
I am a progressive in a regressive workplace.
My immediate supervisor is
• a young-earth creationist
• a Glenn Beck fan
• and a pre-millenial dispensationalist. This means that she believes the earth is 6,000 years old, the Bible is literal truth, and Glenn Beck is hilarious.
• She believes that bisexuals "just can't make up their minds.
The doctor I work for is
• also a young-earth creationist
• an evangelical Christian.
• He believes that same-sex marriage is disgusting, and doesn't "understand why they feel the need to let everyone know what's going on in their bedroom."
• Complained aloud that he was tired of "all these chick flicks, like Fried Green Tomatoes and Steel Magnolias."
Another doctor I work for
• is a huge O'Reilly fan
• a casual sexist, racist, and homophobe.
• Upon seeing two adolescent girls of color walk by the window at work, he announced "Oh look! There go Sasha and Malia!"
• He can often be heard announcing that "you girls (meaning myself and my adult coworkers) are too [fill in whatever characteristic he's objecting to]!"
• Recently informed me that "girls don't read Asimov" and "Everyone in this country has the same opportunities."
If I spoke up every time someone used the word gay, or retarded, or said something racist or sexist or homophobic, or called out every right wing talking point that got spewed, or countered ever bit of irrational creationism, or bristled every time someone inflicted religion upon me or a coworker, I would never get any work done.
So this is my bargain: I shut up, I earn my paycheck, I give my patients excellent care, and I get an ulcer. I try not to hear the comments about people I love, my friends and family, myself, and how we are all less than. I try to shut my ears to jokes about fat clients, about how women are such crazy bitchez, about how all the damn furriners should just learn English! About how the woman whose live in boyfriend killed her should have just left, about how the 12 year old girl who was raped "asked for it," about how there are death panels in Sweden.
Sometimes I break the bargain. Sometimes, like today, I speak up.
"Don't call her a girl, she's a woman."
"Well, she's college age—she's a college girl!"
"No, she's a woman."
"Why does it matter? See, that's the problem. What I say shouldn't matter, it should be my intentions!"
"I don't care about your intentions—calling her a girl is infantilizing and not okay, please don't do it!"
And I was promptly reminded of the bargain—as long as I am content to remain less than, I will be considered an exception to the crazy bitchez rule. As soon as I speak up, I am a man-hating feminist and should be treated as such.
I long to scream "Emotional does not mean irrational!" but it would go unheard. I want to throw things and rage and cry and shake them until they see, goddammit, that all of us Others—we are people. But instead I keep the bargain.
I'm looking for a way out, into another job I can do without crying on the way home, without feeling myself dying inside, without feeling that I am betraying those I call myself an ally to by not speaking up. But I will hate every moment of it.
[Terrible Bargain: One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven.]
Seattle Times FAIL
Here's a predictable tale of woe for you: Last weekend, four men decided to hire three prostitutes from Craigslist. But instead of doing the jobs they were hired to do, the three women made off with about $400.
Why did the Seattle Times decide this story (whose comments thread, btw, will make you cry) was newsworthy? Because the men reported the women were "chunky"—and as everybody knows, fat women—especially fat HOOKER women—are HILARIOUS:
Mountlake Terrace police are on the lookout for a trio of escorts who are alleged to have stolen about $440 from four customers who had invited them over for a weekend party. ... When the woman and two female friends arrived, the men later told police, they found that none of them looked like the woman in the ad. The women were described vaguely to police as being "larger and thicker" than the female pictured in the Craigslist ad.To translate: Women: Defective products. Men: Disappointed consumers. Got it.
"The men said they were not as advertised," said Hansen.
Nevertheless, the disappointed men -- who ranged in ages from 22 to 46 -- handed over their money while the women were still at the door, police said.
Then there is a paragraph about how the women stole the men's money. Then, this:
The suspects were all described as being about 5-feet-8, white and "chunky," in their late 20s, possibly from Tacoma. One had curly, wavy brown hair and called everyone "baby," the men told police. The second had lip piercings and stringy brown hair. The third had short, sandy blond hair, according to police.I can't wait for the follow-up by reporter Clarissa Claridge, in which she examines the reasons women become Craigslist escorts, what punishment the four men received for soliciting prostitutes (which is illegal in Seattle), and how the three escorts rate their male "customers" on a scale of one to 10.
While trying to describe the suspects to police, the men decided to rate the women on a scale of 1 to 10. Three said the women all rated a "2." But the man described by police as the most intoxicated disagreed and claimed they rated a "4."
Um, What?
I have two questions for the New York Times about Peter Baker's article, "A Real Fairy-Tale Wedding."
1. Why is a piece about the media furor surrounding a rumor about Chelsea Clinton's wedding filed under politics, when stories about domestic violence, stalking, sexual harassment, and rape are filed in the "Fashion & Style" section?
2. What the fuck is this paragraph doing in the piece?
The persistence of the rumor [that Chelsea Clinton would be married in August in on Martha's Vineyard in a glitzy wedding attended by the president] despite the lack of tangible evidence says something about today's free-for-all Internet media culture, where facts sometimes don't get in the way of a good story. It also says something about the Clintons and the mistrust they have engendered over the years that so many people do not take them at their word, even over a question like this.Seriously?! SERIOUSLY?!
I mean, it's nice to see you admitting that you consider an unsubstantiated and resoundingly-denied rumor about the wedding of someone whose personal life is none of our business "a good story" and all, but, uh, why is it, exactly, that you consider an unsubstantiated and resoundingly-denied rumor about the wedding of someone whose personal life is none of our business "a good story" again?
And WTF with the unwarranted swipe at the Clintons? The Gray Lady sure is a petty asshole these days.
Contact the New York Times' Public Editor here.
