[Cross-posted.]
Today in Existing While Woman
by Shaker Maud
Via Crooked Timber, I came across this brief post at Feminist Philosophers titled "(Not So Subtle) Ways Women Are Excluded." Poster Jender quotes a reader, E, who wrote to her about a friend, a US professor of philosophy. This friend, a single mother, has been accepted to participate in a month-long European seminar this summer, but her acceptance was made conditional on her demonstrating to the satisfaction of the directors of the host Institute that she has full-time childcare arrangements in place. She was given 12 hours to provide this satisfactory proof, or her acceptance would be withdrawn.
Dang wimminz, trying to use their brains and their organs of child-rearing simultaneously. It's like that thing we do where we endanger society by daring to think and feel at the same time—it's unnatural and unscientific, and it frightens and embarrasses the gentlemen. Men, of course, are more fastidious in their habits. They think their thinky-thoughts in a clean and emotion-free state of purity. Then, when they have occasion to feel something, they stop thinking altogether.
Likewise, should they happen to acquire a child, they interact with and demonstrate responsibility for that child—to the extent which seems to them advisable—in the home, where such behavior is appropriate. When they go off to seminars at august Institutes headed by Directors of Almost Inconceivable Importance, they leave the child in the home with a full-time caretaker whose existence is dedicated to that purpose, otherwise known as a wife.
If you female professors had any sense, you'd marry yourselves some wives. Oh, wait, dear me, no, that won't do. That, too, would endanger society.
I don't know what plans this woman had made about how her son (identified in comments as being 13-years-old) would occupy his time while she was seminaring. But given that she has managed to raise her child for thirteen years without the aid and encouragement, not to mention judgment, disdain and ultimatums, of the Directors of Almost Inconceivable Importance, I am going to assume that she had given the matter sufficient thought when she decided she wished to bring her son with her.
It is not, thus far, clear if this requirement is imposed only on women attending the seminar, only on single parents, or on just what basis this requirement was imposed.The conference is being sponsored by the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities. Jender offers updates in the comment thread in which she says that the professor "will be directly contacting the NEH Equal Opportunity Office office tomorrow to make them aware of the situation and ask for advice/clarification." Also, "The NEH has now been contacted about this by Inside Higher Ed, and they say that the requirement is against their policies."
The comment thread on this post is also of interest: Women immediately began to inquire if there were ways to support the professor to whom this happened in lodging a protest, and offered suggestions which the professor has expressed her appreciation for through Jender, saying they had helped her to formulate a plan of action to deal with the situation. Before the presumably estrogen-fueled passions could get out of hand, however, commenter #18, whose user-name is, purely coincidentally, commonly male-identified (one Hamish MacEwan. Ahem.) steps up to apply the Voice of Reason to the discussion:Is it that similar conditions would not be applied to any solo parent irrespective of gender? Examples of male solo parents being given more flexible treatment? Or is the rush of outrage, apparently exacerbated by the gender of the victim, so strong such considerations are given no thought.
Of course, that consideration had been given thought previously in comments, and the fact that this was not clear noted.
Given the dignified tone of the comment thread, it is interesting to note what Hamish considers a "rush of outrage." Continued perusal of the thread reveals that philosophers—feminist ones at any rate—are apparently very courteous with their concern trolls, out of consideration, no doubt for the delicate soul of the concern troll, a species always easily wounded by lack of appreciation for the value of their gentle wisdom.
It's Funny...
...that there needs to be a study to "prove" that sexually objectifying women can actually impair their cognitive abilities, since "OMG that dude's ogling has made me so self-conscious that I can't even remember what I was going to say" strikes me as one of those experiences of womanhood so universal that it's tough to believe it would warrant investigation.
But that's gender privilege in a nutshell, isn't it? An experience understood intuitively since the age of "I'm getting boobies" for women is something necessitating study as a a not-fully-understood aspect of human experience.
Or, more simply, straight men are still considered the norm and women are still considered a deviation from that norm.
Straight men's experiences (ogling women) are hence widely represented; our entire mainstream media culture is based on the straight man's gaze. But women's experiences at the end of that gaze are still uncharted, unexplored territory.
Huh. I wonder what happens to women when they're ogled?
This is the result of women's experiences being routinely relegated to "specialized" human experience and thus not comprehensively incorporated into narratives about Being Human.
[H/T to Shaker Clare.]
Film Corner!
So. There's this new movie coming out with two of my favorite actresses, Annette Bening and Julianne Moore, called The Kids Are All Right. I would love to be drooling over this film, but, yeah, not so much:
[Transcript provided courtesy of Quixotess is below. Thanks, Q!]
As always, I am not discussing the film per se; I'm discussing the trailer, and what I perceive the film to be based on how it is being represented by its own marketing.
What I'm seeing here is a story that looks basically to be about how lesbian parents aren't good enough, especially for sons. Such interesting messaging about mothers in our culture, yes? Mothers should be the primary parent and are frequently deemed uniquely responsible for children's emotional health and growth, and fathers are so firmly on the parenting periphery that they're said to "babysit" their own children, because Mothers! Are! Everything! unless and until there is no father in orbit around a child, and then mothers, even two of them, are Totes! Not! Enough!
Which is not to say that a father's abandonment (or death, or neglect) is not serious. Because it is. But there is a firm difference between the absence of a father where a father has been and the absence of a father in a family which there was never the expectation one would exist. This is a distinction this movie does not appear to be making.
But I suppose that's a lot to expect from a film that also appears to suggest that lesbians need a man to help fix their relationship. Woof.
Bonus Points: Lesbians not played by lesbians! Again, I love Annette Bening and I love Julianne Moore, but I also love Jodie Foster, Jane Lynch, Wanda Sykes, Portia de Rossi, Ellen Degeneres, Lily Tomlin, Meredith Baxter, Cynthia Nixon, Rosie O'Donnell, Judy Gold, Kelly McGillis, Amanda Bearse, Paula Poundstone, Sara Gilbert, Heather Matarazzo, Tammy Lynn Michaels, and Clementine Ford. Just off the top of my head.
Were they all busy?
[Note: Most characters aren't actually named in this trailer. I assigned the blond parent "Mom" and the redhead one "Mother," because they're both mothers and need to be distinguished from one another.]
[In the living room of a middle-to-upper class house, a teenage boy is standing; his mothers are sitting together on the couch.]
Mom: Hey bug, don't be back late!
Teenage Son [rolls eyes]: I know, I know.
Mother: Come give us a hug before you go!
Mom: Hugs!
Son [gesturing angrily to Mom]: Give her a hug! That's what she's there for!
[Card: TWO KIDS]
[On porch/deck of the house] Son: Have you thought more about making that call?
Daughter: That could really hurt Moms' feelings. [this is supposed to be funny]
[Daughter paging through file, page says "Donor Essay."]
Son: How can you not even be curious about it?
[Card: TWO MOMS]
Daughter [on phone with a man] Two of my moms had a kid, with your sperm.
Man: Like in both of them?
Daughter: Uh-huh, like in gay.
Man: Right on! Cool, I love lesbians.
Daughter: Great.
[Card: ONE PROBLEM]
Mom [to Mother]: I get it. He's their biological father and all that crap. Like we're not enough or something?
Man [in residence that is meant to make him look irresponsible and deviant, what with him being shirtless and holding a glass of alcohol, oh and he's a white man in the company of a black woman with a fro]: I never thought they'd use my stuff.
Woman: Why not? I'd use it.
Daughter's friend [looking at picture of Man on her phone]: Donor dad? Stone cold fox. Is he single?
Daughter: First of all, ew!
Mother [with Mom, to their children]: You've met him, and that's cool, and now we can move on.
Daughter: I wanna see him again.
Son: You do?
Mother: You do?
[Man is driving a motorcycle.]
[Man is shaking hands with Mom.]
Mom [politely]: So great to meet you, hi!
Mother [to Mom, in kitchen]: Go easy on the wine, hon, it's daytime.
Mom: Okay. Same goes for the micromanaging, okay?
[Card: "Uproariously funny!" -New York]
Man: So how'd you two meet?
Mother: I was a resident, and--
Mom: Jules had an emergency--
Mother: My tongue was numb--
Mom: I told her to relax, and then--
Mother: My tongue started working again!
Son: Oh my god.
[Card: "Funny, smart, and sexy!" -Entertainment]
Mom: The plan was to limit his involvement! He is not a father. He's a sperm donor. [Song starts: "Our house"]
[Card: "A Generous, nearly note-perfect portrait of a modern family!" The New York Times]
Mother: I just keep seeing my kids' expressions in your face.
Man: Really?
Mother [imitating his expression]: Really?
Mom (who, it should be noted, is coded butch while Mother is coded femme): I feel like he's taking over my family.
[Man stares at Mother's ass while she's gardening.]
[Man and Mother kiss.]
Mother [pulling away]: Uh-huh. Okay. Yeah. Wow. [laughs in an "I don't believe this" way.]
[Mother rushes outside, pulling on a shirt, to see Random Guy grinning.]
Mother: What is that look you're giving me?
Random Guy: That's not a look, that's just my face.
[Card: Annette Bening]
Mom [as Man and Daughter come home on Man's motorcycle]: Driving home on a motorcycle. This is something I just never allow.
Daughter: Mom! I'm eighteen years old!
[Card: Julianne Moore]
Mother [tearfully, to Mom]: I've just felt so far away from you, lately.
[Card: Mark Ruffalo]
Son: Why'd you donate sperm?
Man [Grinning]: Seemed like a lot more fun than donating blood. [Somber] Hey, I'm glad I did it.
[Card: "It charms audiences into a state of enlightenment!" -Entertainment]
Mother [over shots of various characters bicycling, bathing, looking wistfully out windows, hugging] Marriage is hard. Two people, year after year. Sometimes you stop seeing the other person.
Man [at dinner making toast]: To an unconventional family.
[Card: THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT]
Seen
A church sign near my home, that reads, "The Easter Bunny didn't rise from the dead."
Oh, I disagree:
(For those who can't view the video, it is a trailer for the film Night of the Lepus which is a terrible, terrible film about mutated, undead bunnies. That kill.)
[X-posted.]
Q: Don't the Republicans ever get tired of being assholes?
A. No.
Senate Republican leaders declined to rule out a filibuster of President Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, if they think the pick falls outside the judicial mainstream."Nominally qualified." Christ.
While calling each of the most commonly mentioned candidates to succeed Stevens "nominally qualified," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) would not take the filibuster off the table. But he said Sunday on ABC's "This Week" that it is "unlikely" Republicans will use the procedural move to block the nominee except under "extraordinary circumstances."
There's a particularly contemptible flavor to that turn of phrase, given that most of the commonly mentioned candidates are women.
Huckabee's Agenda
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) likes to portray himself as a likable guy who would like to run for president, but beneath that folksy veneer beats the heart of a hard-hearted bigot who has no problem whatsoever seeing the LGBT community of Americans as second-class citizens and who he can easily dismiss as nothing but an interest group with an "agenda."
Even civil unions are “not necessary,” Huckabee said. “I think there’s been a real level of being disingenuous on the part of the gay and lesbian community with their goal of civil unions,” he alleged, referring to LGBT activists who first claimed that their goal in several states was to enact civil unions, but subsequently launched efforts to implement full marriage rights.He also thinks that gays and lesbians are unfit parents and should be prohibited from adopting children or acting as foster parents.
Huckabee went on to draw parallels between homosexuality and other lifestyles that are considered by some to be morally aberrant. “You don’t go ahead and accommodate every behavioral pattern that is against the ideal,” he said of same-sex marriage. “That would be like saying, well, there are a lot of people who like to use drugs, so let’s go ahead and accommodate those who want who use drugs. There are some people who believe in incest, so we should accommodate them. There are people who believe in polygamy, so we should accommodate them.”
“I think this is not about trying to create statements for people who want to change the basic fundamental definitions of family,” Huckabee said. “And always we should act in the best interest of the children, not in the seeming interest of the adults.”I could go on a long and impassioned rant about the lies, stereotypes and marginalization that is embedded in the words of this presidential hopeful, but I have learned that trying to explain that equal rights -- be they marriage, family structure, or just the right to live within a community -- apply to everyone to people who share the views of Mr. Huckabee is a waste of time; they are so ensnared by their hatred and bigotry that they are beyond reason. If there is any group that should be shunned from our community, it is the people who hate other people so much based on superstition and visceral fear that they are willing to destroy the lives of people they don't even know.
“Children are not puppies,” he continued. “This is not a time to see if we can experiment and find out, how does this work?”
As for Mr. Huckabee, he is exploiting the fear and loathing for his own agenda of political gain. He may coat it in sweet sauce, but it is pure, undiluted hatred.
Cross-posted.
Open Thread
Hosted by Absinthe.
This week's open threads have been brought to you by beverages.
Beverages: Whetting your whistle since 1365.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Quote of the Day
"Speaker Pelosi likes to call the Republicans the 'Party of No.' Some of us, we don't like the way that sounds. It hurts our feelings."—Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who is apparently trying out some new comedy material at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
I Write Letters
Dear Animal Rights Group That Shall Not Be Named,
I must say, you have outdone yourself. Because this shit right here:
[Click to enlarge.]
takes my breath away. You have a bit of everything going on here. I mean, obviously this ad can appeal to a variety of people, most notably people:
Who liken poor mothers to animals.
Who are proponents of negative eugenics and forced sterilization.
Who believe poor mothers and their children are burdens on "taxpayers."
Who believe only certain women should have children, and who see the birth of children to some mothers as an "epidemic," or a "problem" or any of those other negative terms.
You know, the old sympathetic me might have been tempted to believe maybe, since you keep producing such horrible ads, you don't know the background of some of this stuff you invoke. Then I remembered some wise words from Sarah M.:
[They know] they are operating within potent historical narratives—without a history of the objectification/subjugation of women, or slavery and racism, their imagery wouldn’t be nearly as powerful.I suspect you're reaching people whom you might not envision as your target audience, but really, we can't tell.
Sincerely,
elle
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[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.]
Oh Dear
I always love it (where "love" = hate with the fiery passion of ten thousand suns) when a female writer tries to prove she's not a "man-hating feminist" by writing some ridiculously misogynist shit like "women really ARE hypocrites who only say they want nice guys but really pursue bad boys who treat them like crap."
I will never fail to be amused by the irony that it's feminist women who are least likely to resemble that stereotype, and anti-feminist men (i.e. Nice GuysTM) who are most likely to complain about its universality among straight women.
More Today in Rape Culture
[Trigger warning.]
1. CNN—Yemeni child bride dies of internal bleeding: "A 12-year-old Yemeni bride died of internal bleeding following intercourse three days after she was married off to an older man, the United Nations Children's Fund said. The girl was married to a man at least twice her age."
No. She did not die of internal bleeding following intercourse; she died of internal bleeding following rape.
I don't give a shit if the editors insist from here to kingdom come and back again that they can't use the word "rape" because that's a legal term blah blah. "Intercourse" is effectively a legal term, too, given that it implies enthusiastic consent, which a 12-year-old child cannot give, irrespective of what the laws may say in Yemen.
"Following sexual activity" would be an appropriate term to use, if legal considerations prevent the use of any language that implies assault.
2. Shaker Cassie forwards this story about the ongoing (eight years and counting) victim-blaming bullshit from the accused men in the Haidl Gang Rape case, which has been a textbook example (in the worst textbook for the worst class ever) of how the rape culture and its narratives are utilized by defendants in rape cases. The content of the piece is good, but the flippant tone (and ugh! that last line! are you kidding me?!) is not great.
3. Shaker Jae forwards this article by singer Andrew WK, which includes a track he wrote and recorded at 17 and eventually resulted in a retraining order. The lyrics, which include lines such as "You are my destiny; I'll make you fall in love with me" and "Harm: That's what you're in for if you don't open your door," were written for a 14-year-old girl about whom WK now writes:
She consumed me with both lust and hatred – lust, because I was truly drawn to her beauty and soft skin, and hatred because she rarely spoke to me, wouldn't look at me much and never gave me a chance to show her my deep affections.
Crush, obsession. Potato, potahto.
...[I wrote the song] when my crush was at its absolute height.
WK says he's now making the song public because "Three months ago, I was advised by my personal manager and life coach to finally let people hear it, to resolve the nightmare [of having had a juvenile restraining order put on me, which lasted until I was 21]." Yes, well, it's important to resolve that nightmare for you, and definitely the best way to do it is to make public the stalker song you wrote for a woman who will surely be thrilled to hear it again and revisit the time she had to put out a restraining order on the man who threatened to "make her" love him. What great closure for her!
But then, she doesn't have an album to promote, so who cares about her, right?
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of the Spudsy Brand Clangerator.
Recommended Reading:
Andy: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to Retire This Summer
I like Ezra's idea for his replacement!
Helen: Petition Pelosi to Move ENDA
Steve: Wrong Question, Right Answer
Super Hussy: In Which a Blogger Watches Erykah Badu's "Window Seat" Video with Her 5-Year-Old Daughter
Resistance: Things That Make You Go 'Hmmm...'
Angry Asian Man: "Chink": A Bad Choice of Words
Leave your links in comments...
