This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community
hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups,
or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.
Google is to change its policy on adverts about abortion following a legal challenge from a Christian pressure group.
It had refused a Christian Institute advert, saying it did not allow the advertising of websites with “abortion and religion-related content”.
The institute threatened to use British equality laws to contest the decision.
But after an out-of-court settlement, Google will now allow religious groups to advertise about abortion.
It means when the word “abortion” is typed into the search engine, internet users will no longer just see adverts with details of abortion clinics and support groups, but could also find links to religious groups which may oppose abortion.
[...]
“Following the review we have decided to amend our policy, creating a level playing field and enabling religious associations to place ads on abortion in a factual way.”
So, my question is where do we complain when the information presented isn’t factual?
Someone just tried to put a link on my site that said an abortion is when a doctor chops a fetus into tiny pieces inside your uterus and then leaves it to die in a pan before flushing the still-alive remains down the toilet. And people were discussing it, like this was a fact and not a gross distortion of what actually happens. (Key point one: it involves suction at that point in the development.)
I don’t mind religious folks advertising to try to help women in their way- offering adoption services, support, prayer circles, whatever. Some women might actually need that.
What I do mind is lying about the procedure and spreading misinformation.
I don’t know when Google is going to shift their policy (a search I just ran only produces advertisements for clinics) but I know I’ll be watching.
So, I’m currently reading an advance copy of Tricia Rose’s new book, The Hip-Hop Wars: What We Talk About When We Talk About Hip-Hop - And Why It Matters. I’ve already flagged pages to post as part of the “Quoted” series, as well as planning a few arguments around Rose’s ideas to post as part of the Hip-Hop Feminist canon. I even have an interview scheduled for next Tuesday, where I planned to spend about an hour dissecting the book with the author.
But unfortunately, y’all might not ever read my interview, or the article that was supposed to spring from our discussion.
That’s because on the day I received my contract in the mail, Bitch Magazine posted a video by Andi Zeisler and Debbie Rasmussen saying that they may not be able to publish the next issue because they don’t have the money. Bitch is $40,000 short of what they need to publish next month’s issue. (That’s how much it costs to publish an issue, y’all.)
So, please help.
If you like the fact that there is a magazine dedicated to a feminist critique of pop culture, please help by subscribing or donating.
If you don’t know what Bitch is, please check out their website and their back issues.
If you have a small business, an Etsy store, whatever, please consider taking out an advertisement.
And if you like what I do, and you like how I write, please help as well. Bitch is one of the few publications that will actually publish a lot of the things I write about, without me worrying about what gets filtered out, or if they are going to edit the racial/gender analysis out of my pitch.
I know there are about 5,000 of you reading Racialicious each day. (I’m not sure on how many people visit Feministe, where I am going to cross post this, but I hope a lot.) If half of you take the time to donate $5.00, we’ve raised $12,500.00 and we would be a quarter of the way there.
In the first 45 seconds of the trailer for Clueless, Cher Horowitz (played by Alicia Silverstone) gives one of the best rebuttals I have ever heard to opponents of providing amnesty on our shores for oppressed people.
Should all oppressed people be allowed refuge in America? Amber will take the con position. Cher will be pro. Cher, two minutes.
CHER
So, OK, like right now, for example, the Haitians need to come to America. But some people are all “What about the strain on our resources?” But it’s like, when I had this garden party for my father’s birthday right? I said R.S.V.P. because it was a sit-down dinner. But people came that like, did not R.S.V.P. so I was like, totally buggin’. I had to haul ass to the kitchen, redistribute the food, squish in extra place settings, but by the end of the day it was like, the more the merrier! And so, if the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange some things, we could certainly party with the Haitians. And in conclusion, may I please remind you that it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty?
(Class breaks into applause)
This segment was designed for us to laugh at the ridiculousness of Cher’s logic and her mispronunciation of Haitians (Haiti-ins!). But there is some truth in what she says.
Haitians need to come to America = Amnesty.
But some people are all “What about the strain on our resources?” = Opposition Arguments
And so, if the government could just get to the kitchen = Survey the situation
Rearrange some things = Reprioritize and reexamine how we use resources and we admit new entrants
We could certainly party with the Haitians = Grant amnesty, fix our selective and fractured policy.
And this line is classic: may I please remind you that it does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty?
It totally does not say R.S.V.P. on the Statue of Liberty. It actually says:
“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name,
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
And yet, for the last few years, we’ve been having a debate around immigration which boils down to “everyone has to RSVP, we’ve got a velvet rope, and most of you aren’t invited to the party.” The tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free? Fuck ‘em!
Where are all the other voices in this debate? We’re left out. So many conversations around public policy and theory are couched in a language that makes them inaccessible to the average person with a limited understanding of the issues. And if the language that we as progressives and feminists use is inaccessible to the average reader/listener/viewer, we lose out. This is the void that has been filled by regressive interest groups - they dominate the dialogue by using very simplistic messages to summarize their position. Messages like “they are evil” or “they hate our freedom.” These messages may not even be true - but they are easy to remember. And that’s the problem. A complex, nuanced message is harder to grasp than a simple catchy statement, and thus, less likely to stick.
So, in order to reach more people, progressives need to critically examine the messages we send, what we say, and how we present them.
To this end, we need to learn to harness the power of pop culture - taking a message, shortening it, adding some spin, and preparing it for mass consumption.
Back in May, the New York Times published an article describing the efforts of U.S. Campaign for Burma to sell their cause using celebrities like Ellen Page, Jennifer Aniston, and Will Ferrell. And yet, somehow, they are still having problems getting their message to catch on.
The article discusses the strategy employed by Campaign for Burma:
To do so, the Burma campaign has decided to use some of the same brand-building strategies — simplified narratives, clear-cut imagery and, of course, the most carefully selected celebrities — used by other successful aid agencies, or even consumer-goods marketers.
“In a certain sense, you have to ‘brand’ it up,” said Jack Healey, the founder of the Human Rights Action Center, a partner in the Campaign for Burma. “It’s the nature of the business now.”
However, they are running into trouble getting the message to stick:
Jeremy Woodrum, a founder of the group, believes Myanmar is near the top of the list of global priorities, even in a world full of troubles. He says that the military dictatorship has enlisted the most child soldiers in the world and destroyed twice as many villages as the Sudanese have in Darfur. “There are a lot of situations, but really only a few that are extremely severe,” he said.
“When you’re talking about 3,200 villages destroyed and a million and a half refugees, I mean, that’s not everywhere.”
“Our challenge,” he added, “is how to convey those facts publicly.”
From where I sit, using a celebrity to convey a message about social justice issues is kind of a mixed bag. On one hand, you do pull a lot of eyes and attention to your cause, as news outlets and mainstream magazines are more willing to do a service piece if there is a celebrity hook.
However, social justice isn’t a product. It’s not Smartwater. You can’t just stick this message in Jennifer Aniston’s hand and expect that people will embrace your cause. For one thing, using a celebrity for product placement works well because there is a defined action to take - oh, Jennifer Aniston drinks Smartwater, maybe I should try this product. It’s as easy as going to the store and spending a couple dollars.
However, a situation like the one in Myanmar requires (1) some base knowledge of the issue, (2) an idea of what is at stake, (3) the inclination to become involved in the cause itself, and (4) the willingness to stay with the cause until resolution/no further action to be taken.
Add in the fact that many issues of global politics and social justice require a lot of untangling root causes and complications to understand, and we can see why most people opt to buy the damn Smartwater, and leave the social justice part to someone who actually cares.
The situation is far from hopeless, though.
It just requires a different way of thinking about how we present the information.
One of the things that is most compelling about watching the Republicans work is their strict adherence to talking points. I remember being annoyed by how people would dodge questions and keep repeating the same three crap ass sentences over and over and over. Now, I’m enrolled in a media training program, and I have learned that repeating the same crap ass sentences over and over is crucial. Why? Because you only have a limited time on air to get your ideas out there before you lose your audience. So, the goal is to get what you need to say out there. The person who sticks to their talking points controls the conversation - it doesn’t matter what the opposition says because what you are saying is being repeated, and you have already tailored your information to stick in someone’s mind.
So, there are two main tactics to combat this.
One, is the development of your own talking points, or counter talking points to that issue.
But the second, which is a bit more appealing to me personally, is reframing the issue using a different kind of spin.
So back to my original premise - Cher’s party analogy about amnesty is genius, because it reframes the issue into easily digestible bites in a memorable way. Everyone doesn’t understand the concept of international amnesty, but everyone can understand a party. And using a simple statement like “If the government could just get to the kitchen, rearrange somethings” begs the question, “Yeah, why isn’t the government trying harder?”
But this is just one example of an effective reframing.
Here’s a different one:
Target Women is a segment on Current TV’s Infomania program starring Sarah Haskins. The entire purpose of target women is to skewer advertising and marketing directed at women by humorously deconstructing the inherent stereotyping and other assumptions behind these messages. With most segments coming in under five minutes, Haskin’s pithy one liners poke holes in the established narrative - and encourage you to mine commercials for your own internal punchlines.
One last tactic to take is humanizing an issue through illustrating the lives and stories of people affected. Some of the most compelling Asian American narratives arose out of the decision by the United States Government to intern Japanese Americans in the 1940s. For many people, this is just a footnoote in history, something that went on during World War Two.
When Mike Shinoda (of Linkin Park fame) released his side project Fort Minor in 2005, one of the tracks on the album was called “Kenji.” In about four minutes, Shinoda illustrates the drama and issues surrounding internment and the aftermath through the eyes of his narrator, interspersing his rhymes with actual narratives from those who lived through this part of our history. The song (with posted lyrics) is below:
Now, Shinoda’s album was not a commercial success - but over 400,000 people heard the song.
In order to progress the feminist cause (or whatever cause you fight for, really), to reclaim the airwaves, and to reframe the national conversation, we need to start looking at how we represent our messages.
Throughout this all, it appears that there are two dominant ideas swirling around this debate:
1. Palin cannot be a feminist because her views are in complete opposition to what is meant by feminism as a movement.
2. Palin should be supported because she is a strong woman, who represents what feminism is about and in many ways shows what the feminist movement has done for women.
Now, I’ve been following this debate with some interest, and watched many women mount impassioned defenses of Palin, and chide feminists for not providing more support to this strong woman candidate. I don’t care for Palin’s politics at all, and while I can see she was a smart pick for the GOP, there’s a big trump card for me. Palin doesn’t represent anything close to the womanhood I know. So while I listen with interest while people argue about how Palin represents “every woman,” I can’t relate. I just don’t see her in those ways.
But I can put Sarah Palin into context fairly easily, as the issues surrounding Sarah Palin, (white) women, and feminism correspond with the issues around Condoleezza Rice, black (women) interests, and racial politics.
When George W. Bush meandered his way into the White House, he managed to bring two African-Americans into the spotlight - Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.
I spent a lot of time checking for Condoleezza Rice. By most accounts, she is a smart, driven, and poised woman. So how the hell did she end up on the side of the Republicans? To find a response, I read. And read. And read. I read Condi’s biography, her news interviews, the long form magazine pieces.
Contrary to popular belief, Condoleezza Rice does not seek to minimize her race. It has been recounted in almost every profile of her I have read.
I have a heavy admiration for what she has done and accomplished. And as a black woman, I must admit that I feel a small sense of pride, scrolling through her entry on Wikipedia, looking at all the things she has accomplished.
And yet, I disagree with her politics, even if I like some of her programs.
And while Condoleezza Rice is an accomplished black woman, who triumphed over adversity to become who she is today, this fact alone does not mean she will be a champion of black issues if elected to public office.
In some ways, Condoleezza Rice is like Clarence Thomas - they both were alive during some of the most pivotal moments in Civil Rights history. But their views on how blacks are to operate within the parameters of this society run counter to what most black Americans find to be true.
With Thomas - who was a former black nationalist - he was raised in poverty and segregation, yet he often ends up with an opposite interpretation of events. In various interviews and articles, he has expressed his rage at Affirmative Action programs, with his sentiments stemming from having to deal with all the assumptions that rise about black intelligence and ability while those programs are in effect. To him, the greater injustice was that people assume that blacks only advance to the levels they do because of government intervention. So, in his mind, the solution is to end these kinds of programs. Thomas now seems a bit uneasy with the pro-black activities he once participated in often clarifying his statements by stressing his age then and his age now. In the same interview in Businessweek, he notes:
The assumption is that, since you’re all black, you have something in common. That’s like saying because you’re all women, you have a lot in common. You might have nothing in common with these people.
Yet, there is little evidence that Condoleezza will advocate for these kinds of changes. In 2005, Eugene Robinson - an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post - spent three days with Rice as she toured Birmingham and offered her commentary on Civil Rights and race. Robinson writes:
When she reminisces, she talks of piano lessons and her brief attempt at ballet — not of Connor setting his dogs loose on brave men, women and children marching for freedom, which is the Birmingham that other residents I met still remember. A friend of Rice’s, Denise McNair, was one of the four girls killed in the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. That would have left a deep scar on me, but Rice can speak of that atrocity without visible emotion.
She doesn’t deny that race makes a difference. “We all look forward to the day when this country is race-blind, but it isn’t yet,” she told reporters in Birmingham. Later she added, “The fact that our society is not colorblind is a statement of fact.”
But then why are the top echelons of her State Department almost entirely white? “That’s an artifact of foreign policy,” she said in the interview. “It’s not been a very diverse profession.” In other words, there aren’t enough qualified minority candidates. I wondered how many times those words have been used as a lame excuse.
One of the things she somehow missed was that in Titusville and other black middle-class enclaves, a guiding principle was that as you climbed, you were obliged to reach back and bring others along. Rice has been a foreign policy heavyweight for nearly two decades; she spent four years in the White House as the president’s national security adviser. In the interview, she mentioned just one black professional she has brought with her from the National Security Council to State.
As we were flying to Alabama, Rice said an interesting thing. She was talking about the history of the civil rights movement, and she said, “If you read Frederick Douglass, he was not petitioning from outside of the institutions but rather demanding that the institutions live up to what they said they were. If you read Martin Luther King, he was not petitioning from outside, he was petitioning from inside the principles and the institutions, and challenging America to be what America said that it was.”
The civil rights movement came from the inside? I always thought the Edmund Pettus Bridge was outside.
I know very few black Americans who think of themselves fully as insiders in this society. No matter how high we rise, there’s always that reality that Rice acknowledges: The society isn’t colorblind, not yet. It’s not always in the front of your mind, but it’s there. We talk about it, we overcome it, but it’s there.
When Rice was growing up, her father stood guard at the entrance of her neighborhood with a rifle to keep the Klan’s nightriders away. But that was outside the bubble. Inside the bubble, Rice was sitting at the piano in pretty dresses to play Bach fugues. It sounds like a wonderful childhood, but one that left her able to see the impact that race has in America — able to examine it and analyze it — but not to feel it.
Condoleezza Rice is black. She knows this. She understands this. We have gone through similar struggles. But that does not mean she reached the same conclusions, and it does not mean she will use her position to advocate for other blacks.
Sarah Palin is a (white) woman. She knows this. She understands this. Many women can see themselves in Sarah’s narrative, as they have gone through similar struggles. But that does not mean she has reached the same conclusions about women’s rights, and that does not mean she will use her position to advocate for other women. (Of any color.)
I have a soft spot for Condoleezza Rice. I like watching her, always poised and professional, striding across the world’s stage like she owns it. At the same time, I can laugh at political satire like the Condilicious video:
And I can understand the joke and still be miffed at the underlying sexism/heterosexism in this Boondocks strip:
These kinds of relationships with women and nonwhite public figures will be complicated. You can hate someone’s policies and still defend them from ad hominem arguments. I hate when people say that Condoleezza Rice is a sellout and that she isn’t black. That’s a ridiculous assertion to make. However, that does not make Condoleezza Rice a civil rights leader just because she is black and in a position of power.
I hate when people say Sarah Palin is not a woman, or she is a tool of the patriarchy, or any of the other non policy related attacks I’ve seen leveled at her from all kinds of places. But that doesn’t mean you need to start sipping the “this is a victory for women” kool aid. It isn’t. Sarah Palin does not magically become a champion for all women, everywhere, just because she happens to be a woman in a position of power.
In this election, people need to understand to vote with their interests, not the symbolic interpretation they may hold of a certain person.
Listen to the words people speak.
Watch the actions that they take.
But don’t let your own ideas on who that person should be mask who they really are.
So, earlier in the week, I dropped an email to Cara asking if Feministe had covered exactly what privilege is. It’s a word that is often used (to varying degrees of effectiveness) and often maligned privately in counter blog posts and such. Renee actually beat me to posting on this topic, but since her piece is more of a statement than a question, I think we can host both these discussions and not rehash the same issues.
Racialicious actually explored the idea of privilege through the lens of class a few months ago. I had initially wanted to write a post exploring race and class after I read a blog carnival. Somewhere in the course of the carnival, a writer had talked about racial issues and how they play out in America. A semi-well known author came into the comments, and essentially said “These problems aren’t about race, they’re about class.”
Now, this is a common argument, so I can’t feign surprise. But what bothered me more was the hedging involved in this kind of conversation. Class is an important issue in our society, but conversations surrounding race and class tend to come of a bit disingenuous. There is always this idea of trying to have one system replace the other (racism is dead, the real problem is class; class doesn’t matter, the real problem is race) when the two -isms work in tandem.
Then, I discovered the privilege meme making rounds on the internet, and thought it would be an interesting entry point to the discussion. (This eventually became a series.)
In “Has Class Trumped Race? - Part 1, Understanding Privilege,” we discussed the privilege meme and it’s limitations. Many of my readers mentioned that they were relatively class privileged but their racial background was not reflected in the assumption. Or that some seeming privileges aren’t really privileges at all - it depends on your region, your family, or the school system you attended. I also introduced a second set of questions, that indicated hallmarks of not having privilege.
In “Has Class Trumped Race? - Part 2, Interpreting Privilege,” we dissected more of the privilege checklist, quoted Penelope Trunk on how privilege works in society (from someone who grew up privileged) and introduced different components of privilege:
So we currently have two main components to economic privilege. The material aspect of privilege - which includes always having enough money for the utilities or having extra money for things like field trips, new clothes and AP classes - and the access aspect of privilege, which allows you to gain valuable life experiences.
Do you think that the material aspect of privilege is more important or the access aspect of privilege?
Which one has had a greater impact on your life?
But the third post on Race, Class and Privilege was my personal favorite. And not just because the author of the original meme found our blog and decided to comment.
In “Has Class Trumped Race? Part 3 - Acknowledging Privilege” I put the discussion on privilege into the concept of my personal background. I have decided to reproduce it here, as it still holds a lot of worth and value. (It also lays excellent background for this ever expanding piece on capitalism.) I wanted to excerpt my reader’s comments, but in the end there were far to many insightful ones to pick and choose. So, I am asking for two different actions - to read the piece and leave your comments here (the original ran back in February, so I highly doubt anyone is still paying attention to that conversation) and then to take a minute to review the older comments on Racialicious.
So, without further ado, here’s the piece:
Has Class Trumped Race? Part 3 - Acknowledging Privilege
As we have seen in the last two posts, privilege is difficult to define.
There is a material aspect to privilege. There is the issue of access to opportunities. There is also the issue of perception of privilege.
One of the main characteristics of privilege is that people generally are unaware of their privilege. Obviously, if you are not disadvantaged in an area, you generally don’t spare extra time thinking about how to fix something that isn’t broken. We tend to focus more on our personal struggles - not where we have personally benefited from someone else’s labor.
During the first two posts, I tried to refrain from making any value judgments about the examples I provided to you. I simply explained a situation. Why? Because the perception of my privilege changes.
Here’s a scenario that was not covered in the assessment:
I grew up in Montgomery County, MD. Since my parents could not afford many of the basic necessities, I was often tasked to help out with household expenses. When I was twelve years old, I watched two children after school and was paid $100 dollars a week. That was mostly taken by my mother, who needed the funds for household expenses. As I got older, school costs mounted. I worked to support myself. My mother provided me with no money for transportation, school clothes, AP assessments, SAT costs or other school expenses. So, there was a period of time in high school where I worked about 30 hours a week to pay for all the things that my friends took for granted. I never got a driver’s license because the costs to get one ($50 for the learners; $250 for driving school; time off from work to take the courses) were too high. I also passed on a lot of wonderful opportunities - like out of town trips - because I could not afford the fees.
Based on the above scenario, would you consider me privileged?
In the eyes of my friends, I was not privileged. My problems were very different from the problems that they knew. I had no expectation of a car when I turned sixteen. I often had no money on me at school, while their parents either gave them allowances or provided cash on demand. Some of my friends worked on the weekends, if at all. None of my friends ever had to contribute funds to the household. Some of my friends took the SAT four times, to maximize their best score. Their parents continued to pay for them to take and retake the test, as well as paying for schools like Kaplan. They could not fathom why I only took the test once.
In the eyes of my cousins, I was ridiculously privileged. I went to school in Montgomery County, where “everyone talks proper.” We had very good schools and free resources. Our schools never shut down because of disrepair or teacher furloughs. At the age of twelve, I was in a position to make $100 a week. I did not ever have to go without a job in school, because not only were jobs plentiful, but safe and easy for me to access. I was able to work a shift from 5:00 PM - 10:00 PM nightly and walk home without the fear of being accosted. I led an extracurricular filled life, with teachers who cared enough about my personal development to tell me about opportunities like Teen Court, Mock Trial, State SGA, Speech Team. I had friends with money and cars and access and they were able to loan me money if I was in a tight spot, or to drive me around when I needed to get somewhere.
We had gotten food from a food bank once that I can remember, but my sister and I never went hungry, like my cousins did. We never had to recycle one bowl of milk so that everyone could eat some cereal in the morning. We never had to deal with a drug addicted parent, as some of our friends did. We never had to deal with that parent inviting people in the house who wanted to sexually abuse us, like some of our friends did. My parents were young, but determined and intelligent. I never had to deal with a parent with a welfare mentality.* While I did have to deal with a depressed parent, I have never had to deal with a parent who was defeated by life.
In the eyes of my cousins - and some friends from childhood - my sister and I were privileged as fuck.
My family took a very erratic trajectory through life. We had almost no material possessions and no housing from age 0-6, a privileged middle-class existence ages 6-15, then a sharp dive downwards after a business loss that meant I had to support myself through college.
Overall, though, my immediate family definitely had middle-class privilege. I know that other members of my family (on several completely different sides) grew up in dire poverty and experienced true desperation, hunger and even malnutrition. I’m not going to pretend my temporary hardships were close to what they went through. I had a lot more choices than they did.
Going back and forth on this kind of economic merry go round gives me this very strange, in between sense of privilege. On one hand, I can see very clearly where there were things that I lacked in life that would have helped me to get a leg up. On the other hand, I can also see how things could have been much, much worse. I lucked up in the cosmic crapshoot. I could have the exact same personality, intelligence, and tenacity that I have now, but if I was born to either of my aunts my life circumstances would have been completely different.
All told, I may have lacked in material privilege, but I was able to get access to understand what I was missing; and what I needed to succeed. I also developed one of the other parts of privilege: entitlement.
Entitlement plays a strong role in how we perceive and shape the world. This is why we see people (in the various discussions of the meme) say things like “It isn’t my fault that my parents cared about me enough to do their jobs.” Or “I earned everything I have.” We feel entitled to having “good” parents and entitled to our understanding of the world: where if you work hard and make the most of what you have, you will succeed. This kind of entitlement continues because this is what has been reinforced in our lives, that these things are true, and that if you apply effort to x task, y will happen.
But before I launch into a celebration of Sofia Coppola, I need to say that the U.S. is not a meritocracy: Rich people are better connected, so they get better jobs. And rich people who are not well connected tend to get better jobs because they have an easier time envisioning themselves in a successful career than poorer people. An example: My younger brother, now 21, did almost no homework in high school, and he recently landed a job most college graduates would covet — investment banking in Europe.
Was Trunk’s brother connected? Not really. But he could envision himself in a better position. Why? Because he felt entitled to be there - or to be there some day. Therefore, he put himself in situations where he was able to get a job which went with where he wanted to be in life. People who feel entitled are willing to make demands. People who do not feel entitled will pass up conferences, experiences, better jobs - because they do not feel like they deserve what is being offered. People take themselves out of the running because they have convinced themselves that the way they speak or how they dress or their level of education works against them - even if others think they are qualified.
That’s just one example.
We all feel entitlement in dozens of different ways every single day.
When discussing purchasing property with my boyfriend, I shoot down a lot of his recommendations. Why? Because I feel entitled to certain amenities where I live. I cannot imagine doing without a wonderful library system or a grocery store within walking distance or a nice view - even though millions of people live without these things each day. I feel entitled based on my newly acquired economic privilege and the experiences I had with these items in my life.
When walking down the street, I am occasionally moved express my love for my boyfriend. I may kiss him, I might hold his hand, I might tell him I love him. I can do all of these things, and the worst thing that may happen is someone will tell me to get a room. I can think about marriage, knowing that if we chose to wed all we need is a few hundred dollars and the address of the local courthouse. I feel entitled to these kind of feelings, entitled to express my love publicly because of my heterosexual privilege.
Last week, at three o’clock in the morning, I was pissed off. Why? The fire alarm had gone off yet again (twice in one week in the middle of the night) and I was forced to wake up, get dressed, and walk down sixteen flights of stairs to get to a safe place. I, like most of the other tenants in the building, were grumpy and tired and angry at having to go through yet another fire drill. We complained loudly about all the important things we were going to be late for in the morning. A young girl pushed her way to the front to talk to our concierge.
“Excuse me,” she said. “Is this a real fire? Because if it is, my mom is in a wheelchair and she can’t get out of the building.”
Now, I had never even heard the term “ableist” until I got to the blogosphere. And aside from a short stint volunteering at a special needs camp, I hadn’t given a thought to the lives of those who live with disabilities. But I’ll be damned if an understanding of privilege didn’t smack me in the face at 3 AM, that day. While the rest of us were annoyed, walking our way to the courtyard, that poor woman was probably terrified, wondering if someone would come to take her to safety.
My point with the three examples is that we all live with different levels of privilege. Some of these privileges are undeniable - after all, it wasn’t my hard work that gave me body with fully functioning limbs. And this body I take for granted could actually be injured to damaged at any time, robbing me of this privilege - and the feelings of entitlement that come with being able-bodied.
Still, some kinds of privilege seem to be easier to accept than others. While most of us would probably not be offended if a transsexual or gender queer person decided to bring up our cissexual privileges, some discussions of privilege tend to detonate.
So, I have three questions I’ve been turning over in my mind since planning this series:
1. How does entitlement play into the application of privilege?
2. Why do people want to deny or downplay the privileges that they have received?
And, most importantly -
3. Why do the phrases “white privilege” and “economic privilege” spark denials that are so strong, they can derail a conversation?**
—-
* This is different than being on welfare. You can be in need of welfare benefits (or any of the other accompanying social programs) without developing a welfare mentality. The mentality occurs when the system defines who you are and how you steer your life.
** I am specifically not discussing male privilege here. This does not mean I have forgotten or discounted its influence, it just means I am going to wrap that discussion into another post. We already have enough to talk about.
This rant was inspired by a comment waiting in moderation.
Now, this comment doesn’t *technically* violate any rules, so another mod may very well come and approve it while I type this post. But as far as I am concerned that comment can rot in hell!
I don’t think there is any kind of shit that pisses me off more than “Is this really a feminist issue?”
We’re writing. On a feminist site. About issues that affect and impact our readership. And issues that impact women. You might not personally see the direct impact but that does not mean it is not a feminist issue, nor does it mean that that issue will not impact women who call themselves feminists on a broad scale.
Now, let’s take feminism out from the equation for a second.
I run an anti-racist blog. I’m black. The publisher and founder is mixed white and asian. My contributors are black (various mixes - self identification is black), mixed white and asian, and mixed white and Irani. We have relationships with regular contributors who are asian-american, latino/a, south asian, and indigenous. We represent a whole lot of people.
And each day, people ask for more. They want to talk more about sexism, more about xenophobia, more about what is happening to illegal immigrants, more about the experiences of being an atheist of color, more about sex, more about conservative politics, more about privilege and power, more about global economics and class, more about race and disability. Why?
Because they want to know. My readers want to see their experiences up on that homepage, they want to see their issues discussed in a forum that holds meaning for them. And you know what? Everything they propose isn’t about race and pop culture. Much of what they want to discuss starts straying far afield, like how we seem to have very lively discussions on Sarah Palin even though we aren’t a political blog, and we aren’t necessarily a feminist blog. Why?
Because the readers of my blog expect to talk about a wide variety of issues through the lens of race. So it’s doesn’t matter if I’m following the official how-to-run-a-race-blog playbook or not.
But you know what? Talking about something that isn’t 110% on topic won’t kill you. This is how you discover intersections where you didn’t see them before, make connections you may not have made otherwise, and just grow a greater understanding about your world. And I have yet to find a time where I’ve thought “well, gosh, I really want *less* knowledge. I prefer to keep my view of the world nice and narrow.” If you really don’t like that topic, click through to the next one.
But here’s the issue I see many different feminist organizations/feminist websites. (Even here, from time to time!) There is a reason why whenever I bring up feminism on my site, there is a very vocal contingent of women who are like “fuck that shit!” Feminism loves to pretend to be all encompassing when they are trying to recruit women to the cause and then fall back on those claims when we ask you to think about issues in a different way.
Holly’s post here on Sean Bell caused all fucking manner of controversy. (I know, Cara said you covered this, but I’m going to bring it up one more time. Bear with me.) Why? Because she said Sean Bell’s murder was a feminist issue. And a lot of people disagreed with that. And maybe Sean Bell’s murder is not a strict, by the definition “feminist issue.” But paying attention to and deconstructing the facts around Sean Bell’s murder is vital, as it brings up the conversations like:
*Why communities of color may not look to police prevention as a way of stopping violence in their communities (or, also known as, why do women not call the police on aggressive catcallers?)
*How does institutionalized and internalized racism impact communities of color. (See dnA’s post)
*The struggles of single parenting, poverty, class, and race
This is one of the reasons why we still have segregated conversations. Because there are too many people trying to velvet rope the damn door. I am not going to come to a feminist blog to have a conversation about Michelle Obama. Am I going to get a real conversation, or am I going to get racist hedging? I am not going to come to a feminist blog to have a discussion about Dunbar Village. It’s not even on most of the major sites radar. I am not going to come to the feminist blogosphere and expect a good discussion on the issues women face advocating for reproductive justice while brown, or discussions of the women who find themselves disappeared for advocating for their rights, or women negotiating the space between religion, culture and feminism.
Apparently, we have too many issues to be women qua women.
And therefore, what we are discussing just aren’t feminist issues.
Which is bullshit, because these issues impact women - whether you call them feminist or not is irrelevant.
Now, I often hear something to the extent of “But other movements get to just focus on their issue! Why does feminism have to be everything to anyone?”
Now, I can only speak to my limited experience. But running a blog in the anti-racist sphere, we are always getting calls to add more diversity to our site. Yes, more diversity on an anti-racist site. Our readers genuinely want to read perspectives that discuss more about the struggles nonwhites face in every aspect of their lives. What issues do homosexual first nations people face? What happens to scary black man stereotypes when said scary black man is in a wheelchair? How do our trade policies affect other brown people abroad? The ideas are endless.
I also am in the market for a new project. And I’ve been in talks with an organization that works heavily with the environment. One of their major goals is to introduce serious discussions of race and class into their existing environment, because they feel (and I agree) that the movement as it stands only appeals to a certain core demographic, and can be off-putting to people who don’t come from that background.
But why do the Vegans of Color bother posting about these other issues, instead of talking about veg*ism qua veg*ism? They state it in their tagline: Because we don’t have the luxury of being single-issue.
So here are my requests:
1. If you are genuinely confused about how an issue relates to women, ask.
2. If you are asking a question that is really making a statement that you don’t think this kind of an issue is appropriate for a feminist blog, would you please kindly shut the fuck up? There’s content fresh daily, if a topic doesn’t interest you, doesn’t speak to your experience, and doesn’t affect the women you know than click off into the sunset and we’ll see you tomorrow. I run a blog and I have posts that I’m not interested in submitted often. I don’t watch Heroes - yet, every season, someone is doing a show by show recap. Guess what? I suck it up, post on Heroes, and go read something else. Not that difficult.
3. If you consider yourself an ally, or are interested in anti-oppression tactics, please call this bullshit out where you see it. I don’t have any problems with chiding people to stay on task, or to focus specifically on the topic raised in a certain discussion. But being obnoxious trying to preserve your one true vision of feminism? That shit should not be tolerated.
I have a habit of listening to music without ever watching the music video. So, whenever I do discover the video (normally through YouTube) it can occasionally be a bit of a shock to see the messages in the video versus the messages in the song.
There is one video in particular that started my obsessive muting habit:
The Pussycat Dolls, performing “I Don’t Need a Man.”
I don’t need a man to make it happen
I get off being free
I don’t need a man to make me feel good
I get off doing my thing
I don’t need a ring around my finger
To make me feel complete
So let me break it down
I can get off when you ain’t around
Oh!
The song says: I don’t need a man, I am fine by myself! I’m over you, and what?!!
The video says: I don’t need you to sexily paint my toenails in short shorts! Or to pose sexily in my bra! Or to have an orgasmic experience washing and blowdrying my hair! (What is this, an Herbal Essences commercial?) I don’t need a man as I sexily stroke my body in front of a fake salon scene, also in my panties! I don’t need pants, because obviously, pants are for men, and I don’t need a man! Watch me shave sexily and kiss my own reflection, because I don’t need you!
This could have easily been an advertisement for Gillette. Or Victoria’s Secret.
Now, readers, you’ve watched me present the upside of Cosmo magazine, and defend Britney Spears as an adolescent icon. I love music videos, and I don’t think they should be abolished at all. And I even have the Pussycat Dolls in rotation on my MP3 player.
But I can’t defend this one. It’s a little too far of a stretch.
How are you gonna say “I don’t need a man” in the song, and spend the entire video courting the male gaze? Sure, you don’t need this man - you’re working your way to another one!
Now, here’s something from the you-can’t-make-this-shit-up files - a behind the scenes glimpse at the making of the video:
Key Quotes -
Nicole: “I’m really proud of this song because I was one of the writers on it. The Pussycat Dolls is so much about female empowerment and doll domination and I think this song really rings true for that.”
*cue record scratch*
Can I just vent for a second about the issues I have with the word empowered? I think I have completely removed it from my vocabulary because of how it has been misused. Me, buying yogurt? Not empowering. Me, buying some new sexy panties? Not empowering. Me, writhing on pink satin sheets struggling to put on some jeans (like they did in the video)? Not empowering!
So what is empowering? Taking a class to further yourself personally or professionally. Finding a way to become financially independent. Navigating our minefields of cultural sex wars and emerging with a strong sense of my own sexuality and understanding what pleases me and makes me happy, whatever it may be. Introducing a bill and watching it signed into law. Working to solve problems within my community. These things are empowering. You can’t buy empowerment, nor can you just speak it into existence. It requires action.
And I have yet to see anything in that video that is about female empowerment. Maybe if the video was to encourage a million women to shave their legs to bring the soldiers home from Iraq. But empowering, just because? Doubt it.
Now, I may have this wrong - Nicole Scherzinger refers to something called “doll domination” which doesn’t appear to be in anyway involved with feminism as we know it, though some of the language appears to be the same. And yet, I still wonder about doll domination when the next scene is:
Director: “Okay, Kim, one word, four letters, S-E-X-Y. Cue the music!”
Wait - where’s the doll dominantion? Why is the director calling the shots? I thought y’all didn’t need a man. So why didn’t you find a woman director?
Melody: “The concept of the song is played out in this video, basically by showing all six of us ladies together being very strong, and you know, big voices, big dancing.”
Strong. Big voices and big dancing and that’s all I need? Sheeet, everyone can be strong. Come on all you strong feminists - let’s stand together and rehearse our choreography!
The rest of the comments in the video follow in this vein.
Carmit: “Feeling good, and feeling strong and independent and confident.”
Ashley: “The title of the song is ‘I Don’t Need a Man’ so it’s us just being girly and blow drying our hair and being like ‘I don’t need no male up in this!’.”
Kimberly: “There’s a lot of like, close, solo shots of each of us, and we’re each getting some great looks, and I think everyone looks so incredible, so I am really excited to see what this video is going to look like.”
Now again, I am of the mindset that everything does not necessarily have to be feminist for us to find enjoyment in it. We should critically challenge the images projected in mainstream media, even if we do find ourselves liking quite a bit of what is featured. But what the Pussycat Dolls are advocating in this video is a completely foreign concept to me. Unlike their other songs and videos, which are generally about being sexy, female competition, and ballads to your boyfriend or your friends, “I Don’t Need a Man” jabs me like a thorn in the side.
I think it’s because, instead of promoting the very narrow definition of sex appeal that they tend to do, the Pussycat Dolls here are practicing a strange bit of Frankenfeminism - chopping up bits and pieces that suit them and leaving other, less savory concepts (like power dynamics, the male gaze, or the concept of female camaraderie outside of the machinations of men) on the cutting room floor. The song isn’t really about bonding with your girls, or asserting your independence from a soul-sucking relationship, though it pretends to be. The video makes clear that you are supposed to be conforming to a certain “Strong Female Character” image - not only do you not need this man, you’re impossibly hot! And you do impossibly sexy things at every waking moment! And you have an entire crew of equally hot, strong dancing women who are available when that loser dumps you, to go and be hot with!
*sigh*
Honestly, I think I prefer the overtones of female competition in “Don’t Cha” or the blatant fame whoring of “When I Grow Up.”
At least they aren’t trying to serve me a heaping helping of bullshit in an empowerment wrapper.
Here’s another one. Now, I have a bit of a teen queen habit, so I was happily making the rounds of Hillary Duff’s greatest hits when I came across an Aly and AJ video. The “Potential Break Up Song” is cute and catchy, a zippy little hit-formula designed to be catchy. Then I decided to watch the video:
Umm…yeah.
The song says: sucky boyfriend, you’ll regret this, I’m fierce dammit!
The video says: We’re blonde, we’re hot, we make music stuff, we touch each other semi-sexually (but not for serious!), we have guitars and we rock. We’re so fierce we have 27 different poses!
(And is it just me, or does it appear that Aly and AJ are dancing to a completely different song in the video? I’m not saying they’re off beat, but…well, I can only call it how I see it.)
This is a shame, because I was liking the paint spatters at the beginning of the video. Maybe they have a special effects budget, but no money for alternate locations or extras. Of their other videos, three of them followed the same “follow the hot blondes” format.
Now, some of you may be wondering why I don’t critique hip-hop videos.
I do.
They just aren’t prominently featured in this post because the song matches the message.
See what I’m sayin
She aint playin
Yeah, she got them heads turnin
You gon’ hear it clack, clack
When them heels get to burnin
Stiletto so fuego
She got her own label
And got us all doin the tornado
[Chorus]
She moves her body like a cyclone
And she makes me wanna do it all night long
Going hard when they turn the spotlights on
Because she moves her body like a cyclone
Just like a cyclone
She moves her body like a cyclone
And she makes me wanna do it all night long
Going hard when they turn the spotlights on
Because she moves her body like a cyclone
A mighty cyclone
Shawty got looks (and)
Shawty got class
Shawty got hips (and)
Shawty got ass
When she hit the stage
She drop it down low, like
Eer reer reer reer reer reer reer reer reer
The women in the video appear to be strippers, but they could also be dancers. Hips, ass, stilettos, winding dance moves…it’s all there.
Are these videos problematic? Yes.
(Particularly when you take into consideration that video girls are normally the only people on a video set that does not have a union advocating for them, nor are they in a position [like the artist is] to call the shots.)
I spend my days doing research, writing analysis, and submitting status reports for my gig at a major government agency. By night, I’m reading through newsfeeds, writing critical race analysis, editing submissions, and trying to make sure there’s blog content every single day.
So, is it any wonder I go straight to the saccharine stuff when it’s time for a little brain candy? Fashion magazines used to be my favorite refuge, but now I just find too many things to critique, so they fall into the work category. International fashion zines are fun, but I can’t find enough of them to keep me sated on my commute. I love a good novel, but I prefer to mull over those. I need something more disposable. My manga habit is awesome, but it’s a pocket breaker - and I’m starting to drift into more josei anyway. (More on that a bit later.) I tried reading chick lit, but after a few books, the genre as a whole started to annoy me.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I love an escapist tome every now and then. I’m particularly partial to Marian Keyes, some Jane Green, and Alisa Valdez-Rodriguez. (And Benilde Little and Erica Simone Turnipseed, but their stuff is a bit too deep to qualify.) But for every good book I picked up I went through three that had me scowling at the page. Why the hell can’t I have a protagonist with some fucking sense? If your bank manager keeps blowing up your phone, either pay your bill or invest in caller ID! Please stop cataloging all your clothes, I don’t need to know the exact brand of every cream, panty, and necklace your heroine drapes on herself, particularly not if she changes her clothes at least twice a day. And I have put a moratorium on buying any books with any clue to shopping in the title.
Still, I wasn’t quite sure what to replace these books with, when something of interest slid across the desk at my local library branch, where I was clocking time in exchange for a decent hourly rate and a staff card that accrues no fines.*
I had seen this book cross the desk a few times, but I was always too busy to pick it up. Finally, I decided to take a peek at the book jacket.
I cracked the book open and fell headlong into the world of adult fantasy. Later I discovered adult sci-fi, and the more interestingly termed “paranormal romances.” These books both satisfied my mental sweet tooth and gave me complex, nuanced, non perfect characters to grapple with. There characters were in leading roles, making tough decisions, kicking ass, and taking names.
And did I mention these characters are women?
For the purposes of this piece, I am going to examine the four writers whose worlds I play in on a regular basis: Jacqueline Carey, Kim Harrison, Kelly Armstrong, and L.A. Banks.
Jacqueline Carey - Kushiel’s Legacy
Kushiel’s Dart was my introduction to Jacqueline Carey’s work, and I ate every bit of Terre D’ Ange up with a spoon. Could it be the intricacies of Terre D’Ange, a nation founded by fallen angels, a world created and marked all about with religious theology, remixed and reapplied in scintillating and female friendly ways?
Perhaps.
Or maybe it is the wonderous characters - the many different Servants of Naamah, the familes, the houses, the varying nations that become more prominent in global politics as the series progresses?
Or maybe it’s the interesting treatment of sex and sensuality in the series, where Blessed Eula (a Jesus like figure, founder of the land) has one major edict to his people - “love as thou wilt.” This plays out in interesting ways in the course of the series. The wiki entry on Eula and His Companions notes:
Elua’s only commandment to his followers was to love as thou wilt. The nation of Terre d’Ange takes it as their guiding philosophy, and as such embrace all forms of love. This makes them a sexually liberated culture, accepting of homosexuality, bisexuality, and BDSM. Rape is not only a crime, because of this precept, it is the highest and most severe heresy. This includes forced intimacy as well as sexual acts with minors (generally considered under age 16 in the series) or animals as neither can make fully thought-out decisions or thereby give true consent.
But, I believe what drew me most deeply into the series was the chracter of Phèdre nó Delaunay, the protagonist for the first three books in the legacy arc.
Narrating her own story, and describing herself as “a whore’s unwanted get,” Phèdre does not appear to be the kind of heroine one expects to see. She is trained and skilled in languages and tumbling, the covert arts, and other useful courtship skills. She is also an anguisette, meaning she feels pain and pleasure as one. When she enters the story, she is strong headed, strong willed, and more or less a pawn to the interests of others. However, as the story progresses (and her foster father and brother meet their untimely deaths), Phèdre finds that she needs to rely on herself - first, to stay alive, and then to save her kingdom.
This series is not for the faint of heart. A major theme of Phèdre’s life - and the nexus of her power - is dominance through submission. As an anguisette, she is often tasked to bend to the will of her patrons, to take the pain they inflict and desire ever more. This leads to quite a few cringeworthy scenes in the book - like when Phèdre finds herself about to be skinned alive. The BDSM level in this book is heavy and even with my iron will to read and heightened sexual curiosity, there are scenes in the third book that are so painful I still cannot read them. (I have read each of the books in Phèdre’s arc at least three times.)
Still, Phèdre is a phenomenal character, both a maverick force in the face of a staid, polite society as well as a wise, temperate woman.
Kim Harrison - The Hollows Series
Can I just fan girl out for a sec and say how much I love the Hollows? Kim Harrison’s series keeps me in stitches, starting with the Great Tomato Plague that wiped out half of humanity and exposed all of the other species that were keeping a low profile.
The [T4 Angel] virus killed a quarter of the human population, revealing the existence of several supernatural races - the vampire, Were, witch, pixy, fairy, elf and more, since the virus affected non-humans only to a small degree. The supernatural beings decided to reveal themselves to humanity, (an event thereafter called “The Turn”), and established themselves in open communities across the world.
The supernatural beings are known as “Inderlanders”. As laws and societies are dramatically changed by factors relating to these new sentient species, in the United States all levels of law enforcement break down. Two new organizations, the Inderlander Security service, (consisting entirely of non-humans), and the Federal Inderlander Bureau, (consisting primarily of normal humans), replace the former law enforcement agencies at all levels.
The main character is Rachel Marianna Morgan who has a knack for getting into trouble. She is often getting into trouble somewhere as she tends to act without thinking. She generally has most of the world pissed off at her (including, but not limited to her partners, the ever-after demons, the Inderlander Bureau, other governing bodies) and is great at choosing a solution that gets her into even more trouble. (How else does one get on a nickname basis with a demon, when contact between the world and the demon realms are forbidden?)
Her partners are quick witted and humorous and a trip through Harrison’s world is always good for a laugh.
The most compelling piece to The Hollows series is the navigation between the sexual wants and desires of Rachel’s vamp roommate/partner Ivy, and Rachel’s own fears stemming from such a relationship. Ivy is a gorgeous, living vampire (which means she can walk in daylight and live on hollowed ground) whose feelings for Rachel escalate with each book. Rachel is also falling for Ivy, and comes dangerously close to blood mixing, which is a way for vampires to provide pleasure to those they feed from.
However, due to Ivy’s past sexual abuse at the hands of another master vampire, she is unable to fully control herself having always experienced blood mixing with violence. It would appear that Ivy believes that being with Rachel - being with someone she genuinely loves - will help her to heal. Rachel, too, understands Ivy’s love, but has a deep fear of being controlled, as mixing blood allows a vampire unrestricted access to their subject.
Oh. And Rachel appears to be mostly heterosexual.
That could also be a tiny snag.
(This reader is seeing that as another part of Rachel’s hesitation, as she generally runs away from Ivy into the arms of a guy - but that may not be what the writer is trying to convey.)
Either way, I can’t wait for the next Hollows novel to figure out the newest twist in Rachel Morgan’s semi-charmed, often be spelled life.
Kelley Armstrong - The Otherworld
The Women of the Otherworld is a fascinating series as the narrator changes frequently. I was introduced to the series with Paige Winterbourne, a modern witch who - to be honest - grated on my nerves in Dime Store Magic. I kept reading because I liked the plot and the supporting characters, and I was rewarded - as I explored the series, I discovered Elena Michaels (werewolf), Eve Levine (half-demon with/ghost), Jamie Vegas (necromancer) and Hope Adams (half human - half chaos demon).
The other world women all have different strengths that work to their advantage. Elena is the only female werewolf walking the earth, was turned, and tends to use both her strength and intellect to work her way out of situations. She is a fairly balanced character, but her weakness is her mate Logan - tempestuous and brash, he is often causing as many problems as he solves. Eve is a strong willed, power hungry half demon half witch who found a way to negotiate herself into a charmed position in the afterlife. She often meddles in the affairs of mortals - and once in a while, she finds herself helping to solve a case. Paige is the witch I don’t care for, though I like her a lot more as a supporting character. Hope is the first character of color to headline a book, being mixed South Asian and white, and her powers are fairly negligible (and actually, a liability if put in the wrong situation). However, she is extremely analytical and uses her environment to her advantage. Jamie Vegas is a fly necromancer around forty years of age. (Oh yes, older protagonists are the norm - before Eve Levine died, she was also about that age.) The ability to see and speak to spirits threatens to drive her insane - it’s apparently an occupational hazard. However, she still finds enough time to pine after (and eventually seduce) the hot werewolf elder and potentially land a TV show, so obviously, Ms. Vegas is on her game. I just realized that there are online stories at Kelley Armstong’s site, so I’ll end it here.
[Easter Egg: Kelley Armstrong will be writing for the Angel comic. As in Buffy & Angel. ]
L. A. Banks - The Vampire Huntress Legends
I see black people!
That was my first thought when I finally came across the first book in L.A. Banks series, after hearing tales online about a vampire huntress novel with multi-ethnic characters. After tracking down Minion, I ended up devouring it in one night. Never did I think that a novel could come so close to my hopes and dreams:
*Multiethnic characters…
*Including a wisecracking white sidekick…
*A heroine rocking dreadlocks…
*An urban setting, with a cast of characters who are aware of pop culture.
Can I just say I never knew how sweet it would be to have a master vampire ride on a rival crew banging Lil Jon and the Eastside Boyz? (Can I hear somebody say YEAH!) To hear a fight between the huntress and her vampire lover, in which a master vamp asks “Woman, why are you disrespectin’ me?” An entire hunter squad that also doubles as a spoken word group? And a whole mix of global mythology round out a damn good series. Now, the series does drag a bit in the beginning. And it’s a little proselytize-y (yes, I made up that word like I work at Lucky) but I am fully into the fourth book and the *only* reason I haven’t blown through them faster is that I have a lot of deadlines over the next few weeks.
So those are my favorites, readers.
What are your favorite paranormal smut novels?
—-
*When I got the job, I also got a limited edition anniversary key chain card. The next time I saw my mother, she took a look at my key chain and cracked “Well, you used the library so much they gave you a gold card! How many books do you have to read to go platinum?”
[Aside: There are novelists I love, but aren't on here, like George RR Martin and Octavia Butler. Feel free to discuss other novels as well, but I am all about the smut on this post. We'll get to the highminded stuff later. - LDP]
1. It is like The Onion, for feminists. Through some strange machination of the Hearst Publishing company, as of last year, I have started getting Cosmo delivered straight to my mail box. Each month I gain at least an hour of entertainment from the articles and sex tips. It’s kind of like a sexually charged Where’s Waldo, where I find myself hunting for ever more ridiculous “knowledge” about the male mind.
Like when to give your boyfriend an ultimatum. (According to the September issue of Cosmo, it’s when you’ve been in a serious, monogamous relationship for a year. Four or five moths is too soon.)
Or the health articles - I recently spotted an article titled “When Your Nipples Act Weird.”
2. It reminds me of Clueless. I fucking adore that movie, and when I read Cosmo, I totally feel like I’m talking to Cher Horowitz.
* When fondling your man’s penis, slip a hair scrunchy around the base of it. The tight scrunchy combined with your touch creates an amazing sensation.
*Using a bit of lube, make two fists around the shaft of his penis and twist in opposite directions.
*Mak[e] a tight ring with your thumb and forefinger around the base of his penis, for[m] a second ring around the head, and then g[o] up with one hand and down with the other.
*Tak[e] him in your mouth and then swir[l] your tongue around like a pencil sharpener.
*Take a strand of fake pearls or other beads and, holding each end, pull it back and forth around the shaft of his penis.
*Take a sip of hot water - as hot as you can stand - before going down on him, and then, keeping your mouth closed, swish it all around his penis.
*Chill a bunch of marbles in the fridge. Toss them on the bed and make him lie on them while you straddle him.
*Slip a glazed doughnut around his penis and nibble it off.
4. The indignation when people insinuate Cosmo is ridiculous. After that last sex tip, Kate White notes:
In his book I Am Charlotte Simmons, novelist Tom Wolfe mocked our write up of this move. But perhaps he was just jealous no one had ever tried it on him.
Ooooh! In your face, Tom Wolfe! Now you have to write another novel with a fresh comeback.
5. They put the word “Va-jay-jay” on the cover of a national magazine.
Okay, okay - that’s not fully fair to Cosmo. The truth is Cosmopolitan is an easy target for feminist ire. It seems to represent the worst parts of women’s magazines, with their obsession with a tight ass, perfect hair, catching a man, and then fucking him senseless until he submits and gives you a rock. (That should be the Cosmo tagline - Do it for the ring!) The articles are shallow, the subjects tepid, the covers airbrushed to within an inch of their life.
For some reason, Cosmo continues to pique my interest. When I was younger, Cosmo was the forbidden magazine. It was about sex. And when I say sex, I mean S-E-X, giant letters, often obscured by those little supermarket modesty placards. After I lost my virginity, I remember proudly rolling into the drugstore, and plunking down the three dollars for a copy of Cosmo. I was in. All the secrets of sex would be at my fingertips.
Then, a few years back, I decided to really try to get myself published. So I started investigating markets for publication. While I didn’t read much of Cosmo, I learned that it is the top selling women’s interest Magazine in the US, and in many parts of the world - it has 58 international editions, and is published in 34 languages.
And, more importantly, it pays two dollars a word.
For two dollars a word, I would happily pen “Sixteen Sexy Secrets for Sexier Sex in Your Va-jay-jay” - an 800 word front of the book piece would easily cover a month’s rent.
So, I started researching Cosmo, and much to my surprise, I actually found myself finding things to love about the much maligned mag. So while all the stuff I wrote at the beginning of the post still stands, here are five reasons I really love Cosmo:
1. It recognizes women have a sex drive and can be visually stimulated.
Cosmo is the only women’s magazine that routinely features half-nekkid men for our viewing pleasure. This seems like a small thing, but really, it’s kind of a revolutionary idea. Standard knowledge would dictate that only men are stimulated visually, and that women put more focus on the emotional side of a relationship. Not so, finds Cosmo, who responded to reader emails and feedback on articles and introduced features like “Guy Without His Shirt,” started using attractive male models in their feature articles, and upped the number of men per issue.
After all, what other mag would publish this?
2. Cosmo actually listens to reader feedback.
In general, when Cosmo readers ask for something, they get it. Shorter articles? Done. (Most of Cosmo’s articles only span a page or two.) More editorial? Done. More sex, fashion, and beauty coverage? Done, done, and done. The only place Cosmo stumbles is in their financial coverage - while many of their readers are young professionals, their financial and career coverage is woefully lacking. (I already discussed this in an article for Bitch Magazine, called “Dollars, But No Sense.”) But for the most part, the magazine is driven directly by reader feedback.
Which, depending on how you look at it, is both a good thing and a bad thing. (Are we really this shallow? All signs point to yes.)
3. Kate White doesn’t talk down to her readers.
The Cosmo girl has become an archetype of sorts in this society - the epitome of the bubble headed sorority pledge who later becomes a ditzy assistant type before marrying well. After all, didn’t Cosmo stand in for “The Bible” in Legally Blonde?
And yet, Cosmo realizes that young women are at different points in their development. So, one of things Cosmo does is speak to the women who aren’t necessarily known for being intelligent or business savvy, and breaks down large concepts into a way that will resonate with her audience. Kate White’s book, which I quoted earlier, seems like a ridiculously simple way to discuss things like relationships, or getting ahead at work. But by using concepts and ideas that resonate with Cosmo girls (like the idea of sexy”), Kate is able to parlay those ideas into messages of business empowerment. For example, a chapter titled “The One Sure Way to Be Famous” really says:
A few months ago, I was making a television appearance, and while leaving the studio greenroom, I bumped into a well-known model I’d met on several occasions. She was there to promote a big project and after she described it to me, I asked if she was managing to squeeze in any modeling.
“Not these days,” she said. “I’m really a brand now.”
I almost burst out laughing, but then I couldn’t really blame her for speaking in those terms because career experts and magazines like Fast Company tell us we need to brand ourselves today. It seems a little silly to go through life viewing yourself as comparable to Tropicana orange juice or Bounty paper towels, but it does pay to develop a great reputation. When there’s buzz about you, people start coming to you.
It can take years to develop a great reputation, but there is a way to jump-start the process. The strategy is summed up beautifully by a woman I know who runs a very successful company. “The secret,” she says, “is to do one or two things really well.” And make sure everyone knows it.
It is smart advice - told in an accessible way.
4. Cosmo focuses on a full and happy life - with a heavy focus on heterosexual partnership.
It is fairly obvious that Cosmo focuses solely on heterosexual relationships. I can’t even think of an article about alternative sexuality that might have appeared in Cosmo. And yet, the magazines bread and butter is how to navigate communication between men and women. As I discussed a bit earlier, the dating industry is a billion dollar business, set up to prey upon that human need for companionship. And Cosmo is right at the forefront of that business, asking their readers to continually renew their subscriptions and visit their websites in exchange for knowledge about men, sex, dating, and relationships.
But in recent years, Cosmo has also slightly altered their content, unveiling a “You You You” section that focuses on personal development. Articles like “Reclaim the Girl You Left Behind” provide a window of insight, and a discussion on how to determine if something is missing in your life. It’s strange to see a magazine like Cosmo asking things like “Do you have a tendency to put other people’s wants and needs above your own?” - especially when they encourage that kind of thinking in other articles - but it is an interesting step forward to try to help their readers find balance.
5. Helen Gurley Brown
The original Cosmo girl, she published “Sex and The Single Girl” before “Four Blondes” was a gleam in Candace Bushnell’s eye, and continues to this day to write books, letters, and steer the direction of Cosmo’s international titles. Looking back at her work is an indicator of exactly how far women have come. And if you are ever in the mood for a laugh, check out Glossed Over’s Working Girl Wednesdays, where the blogger pulls gems from Gurley Brown’s archives:
Welcome to Working Girl Wednesdays! Need advice on handling the complexities of the modern workplace? Well, fret no more! Whether it’s a senior partner making a move or a catty co-worker plotting for your plum position, Helen Gurley Brown’s 1964 book Sex and the Office has a solution. Every Wednesday on Glossed Over, I’ll present a new tip from the legendary editor of Cosmopolitan. Is her advice utterly ridiculous or startlingly prescient? You decide!
Love it or hate it, Cosmo really is the magazine that keeps on giving.
And whether I’m checking it out for the punchlines, or scamming for a byline, I’ll probably be reading for a long time to come.
So what does this Palin parranda of information and analysis mean to mamis of color, Latina mamis like me? Not surprisingly, nada.
Sarah Palin wants to put herself out there as “every woman”. She wants to be seen as “just your average hockey mom”, and other mommies see themselves and their reality reflected through Palin, except, mamis of color, that is.
The talk returns to mommy wars, not mami wars, because the entire conversation excludes Latinas and other moms of color. We are not even soldiers. Even for so called progressive white feminist, the war is fought by them and maybe, if mamis like me are lucky, we’ll reap some benefit. When I was a pregnant teenager, in a Latin American country where abortion was and still is illegal (Chile), there was no opting out of pregnancy or working. Which is why the debate of how Palin could go back to work after having a baby with special needs or how a pregnant unmarried teenage daughter is being used, feels like a sideshow with little significance in reality. The politics of choice is being raised, with the emergence of a woman who is anti-choice, even in cases of rape or incest and with no talk of how for women of color, choice goes beyond an abortion and means the very right to have children (forget 5!) Imaginate if Michelle Obama had five children? Imaginate if one of the Obama children were older and pregnant? Imagine the hate and stereotypes that would be unleashed? Oh wait, I don’t have to imagine, as a single mami of color, I live it. Palin’s large brood isn’t seen as a strain on the system. They are a beautiful portrait of an “American” family making every other family, families like mine, ugly.
Let me just come out and say this right off the bat : We need more black and latina feminists on TV tearing into the right wing’s forced pregnancy frame to reproductive rights.
I had the honor again to participate in Melissa Long’s livecasting from the conventions. In the first one at the DNC we barely spoke of women’s issues. Ironically here in St. Paul and with Palin’s nomination the discussion was almost exclusively about her and about women’s rights.
Which is why am being very candid about the need to put more colored feminists into these traditional media settings. Our perspectives on reproductive and women’s rights are not filtered necessarily through the need to curtail our ability to have children as much as having the right to not have the government control our bodies by claiming surrogate ownership.
Which is why it is outrageous to me that someone as young and seemingly intelligent as Amanda Carpenter from Town Hall will go on wailing about how Palin is being vilified for not aborting her Down Syndrome child.
Is she serious?!?!
It is outrageous and completely insulting to me that women like her will frame reproductive rights in terms of abortion when black and latina women like me know that one of the biggest battles we have are the various eugenic efforts in the United States of forced sterilization in communities of color.
Meaning, at times there have been efforts to have colored women abort or just not have any children at all whatsoever.
What is an Amanda Carpenter or even a Sarah Palin going to say about that?
From the 1980s to the present, women of color have continued this activist legacy in reproductive rights and justice. In the late 1980s, a group of thirty-five prominent African-American women, including political activists and members of Congress, issued the statement “We Remember.” The statement connected reproductive health with other issues such as economic and social justice issues:
We understand why African American women risked their lives then, and why they seek safe legal abortion now. It’s been a matter of survival. Hunger and homelessness. Inadequate housing and income to properly provide for themselves and their children. Family instability. Rape. Incest. Abuse. Too young, too old, too sick, too tired. Emotional, physical, mental, economic, social - the reason for not carrying a pregnancy to term are endless and varied, personal, urgent and private. And for all these pressing reasons, African American women once again will be among the first forced to risk their lives if abortion is made illegal (African American Women Are for Reproductive Freedom 1999, p. 39)
This re-articulation is in light of the U.S. government’s ugly history of determining who can and cannot be mothers, who has the right to bear and raise children, through coercive policies. In the past, the federal government had sterilization campaigns targeting African America, Puerto Rican, Mexican American and Native American women. Today it uses more insidious ways of accomplishing the same end, such as family cap policies in the “reformed” welfare system in which mothers may lose benefits if the number of children they bear exceeds the limit set by state governments. Thanks to the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which banned federal funding of abortions, most state Medicaid programs will not cover abortions, and women who serve in our nation’s armed forces cannot obtain abortions on military bases or through the military’s health plan. Women in federal prisons and most state prisons don’t have access to abortions as well.
The problem has been that the mainstream reproductive rights movement has not paid that much attention to these and other related issues. Out of their frustration with this, women of color activists are busy building our own movement. […]
Drawing from human rights and social justice principles, women of color activists have re-defined “reproductive rights” into what they now call “reproductive justice.” Reproductive justice is not just about the individualistic right to have an abortion (i.e., the right not to have children) but to include the right to have children and to raise them in healthy and stable families. Accordingly, these activists have broadened reproductive rights and freedom beyond abortion rights, the rights to privacy and “choice” which are normally associated with the movement. In sum, reproductive justice encompasses many other issues such as economic justice, immigration rights, housing rights, and access to health care.
So, I’m currently reading an advance copy of Tricia Rose’s new book, 
As we have seen in the last two posts, privilege is difficult to define.
