So, last week, my personal gentleman associate was all, “OMG the President is reading everything that I read last summer!” And I was like, “OMG so true!” There might have been an “LOL” in that conversation, too. But, anyway, Presidential reading lists are always strange, because clearly they are selected to maintain a certain image (ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS CAREFULLY MANAGE THEIR IMAGES??!!!?) but this one is really strange because Obama seems to be creating an image specifically tailored to appeal to me and other people who share my entirely predictable pretentious-young-city-person tastes. It’s kind of fun! And I like it! And this may be the silliest and most lady-free thing I have ever written for CiF, but I think you should read it anyway.
So, here is a thing you have to deal with every once in a while: people can be really, startlingly ahead of the curve on some things, and right on the curve in other ways. Oh, but also, sometimes the curve is HORRIBLE. Case in point: Sophie Tucker. Who, courtesy of the NYT, I now kind of love. Oh, and also? She started as a blackface performer. Which, while not unusual for her time, is also pretty horrible considering how ahead of her time she was in pretty much all other ways. And, over at Broadsheet (yay, a million times yay, for Broadsheet) I did a bit of thinking.
Over at Broadsheet (yay, Broadsheet) you will find a piece I wrote on Nujood Ali. She was married at eight, divorced at ten, and an unbelievable inspiration. But here is the thing about inspirations: they are also often people. And Nujood Ali is a little girl with a lifetime of poverty, severe abuse, and oppression to deal with. She is not doing well.
Filed in Uncategorized||Comments Off on IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: Nujood Ali Will Break Your Heart
So, here is a terrifying scenario: you go to visit a dude in his dorm room. He tries to have sex with you. You say “no,” repeatedly, throughout the process. He does not stop. You are pretty darn sure that this is rape! So you go to the police! And the courts! And they agree with you! Because your rapist, stunningly enough, admits that you said “no.”
Oh, and then the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturns the whole deal. Because, yeah, you said “no.” A lot. Everyone agrees on that part. But there’s no reason to believe that you meant it!
Ok, so, bad news: this is not just some ludicrously unjust case I have concocted to angry up your blood. This happened! In 1994! And a recent study by Dan Kahan of Yale University Law School will tell you why. Basically, people who have “egalitarian” worldviews (of the type that might lead you to believe the dudefolk and the womenfolk are both people, and like having sex) are likely to think that “no” means precisely that, and that having sex with a person who says “no” is, in fact, rape, and should be ruled as such in a court of law. People with “hierarchical” worldviews (of the type that will depress the hell out of you) do not. And the people least likely to believe that “no” means “no” are… older ladies?
It’s true! In a lovely quote from Nylon (which I learned about via Kelsey Wallace at Bitch Blogs, and HEY STAY TUNED FOR AN EXCITING ANNOUNCEMENT on that front, by the way; see also Renee’s excellent post) Stephen Moyer, who plays a vampire on some show I do not watch called True Blood, uncovers the key to every woman’s deepest erotic desires – forced sex from imaginary monsters:
“The thing about vampirism is that it taps into a female point of view – you have an old-fashioned gentleman with manners who is a fucking killer… it’s an interesting duality, because in our present society it would be an odd thing for a woman to say, ‘I want my man to be physical with me.’ How, as a modern man, can you fucking work that? It’s one thing to be polite and gentle… But when do you know it’s OK to crawl out of the mud and rape her [as Bill does in one scene]?… It’s difficult stuff for a bloke, but a vampire gets away with it…. I think that’s the attraction of the show – it’s looking back at a romantic time when men were men, but they were still charming.”
For the record, Stephen, it is probably not ever “OK” to crawl out of the mud and “rape” your special lady friend. Surprisingly, the act of rape, BY DEFINITION, is never “OK” with the raped person! Oh, and also the scene to which our pal Steve refers looks pretty darn consensual, what with Anna Paquin grabbing his face and sucking the hell out of it once she realizes he is, in fact, her vampire boyfriend. So, let’s not focus on how gross Steve is! For once! I mean, he seems pretty gross, but maybe that is not news. What is news, apparently, is that women are capable of something I will refer to as “fantasy.”
Say! Feminists! Do you have opinions about sex work?
Sure you do. Everyone does. The sexual experiences of others are always a conversation starter – particularly if the subject of discussion is a lady, or anyone who does not fit solidly inside the hetero norm. Which is why it’s not surprising that, among the earth’s six billion people, there are approximately six billion strongly held opinions about the nature and value and meaning of the sex industry.
As if it were that simple. As if sex work is, or can be understood as, one unified concept and set of experiences; as if we could somehow adopt some comfy one-size-fits-all moral or political standpoint on the deal. The term “sex worker” applies to Nina Hartley and Max Hardcore, Annie Sprinkle and Andrea Dworkin, men and women, trans folks and cis folks, white people and people of color, people who do the work for any number of reasons and in any number of ways. There is no centralizing this story; no one single authority who can sum it all up and tell us what it means.
Which is to say, Hos, Hookers, Call Girls and Rent Boys, an anthology of non-fiction by sex workers, edited by David Henry Sterry and R.J. Martin, is an extremely valuable and necessary book, not because it tells you what your perspective ought to be, but because it provides more perspectives than pretty much any other book on the topic.
Reader: I woke up this morning to a freshly downloaded episode of Mad Men. And also, a headache you would not believe! Yet, in the hopes that one would fix the other, I pursued my duty of watching Mad Men and opining about it for the general public.
The episode begins, startlingly, with Ann-Margret in front of a blue screen singing “Bye Bye Birdie” directly into your face. It is a fun opening! And Ann-Margret is a sexy, sexy lady. But, my God, her voice was NOT a gentle welcome into my day. So, when the footage dies out, and we find ourselves back in the Sterling Cooper conference room (Sal: “Awwwww!”) I was more than ready to deal with one of the major themes of the episode (the only one I’ll be writing about here, in fact, because I love it so), which was, basically: Peggy being really, really irritated with Ann-Margret.
Oh, hey, here is a thing that is exciting: I wrote a piece for Broadsheet! It is about Annie Clark (or “St. Vincent,” as the kids call her) and her interview with Spinner, which is (a) weirdly lady-bashing, (b) weirdly feminist, and (c) weirdly correct on most counts. So, here is the piece, anyway! What I think is that you should read it now. Partly because I am proud of it! Partly because you should be reading Broadsheet already! And partly because we must all shield ourselves now from the terrible, feelingful, guitar-strumming return of Lilith Fair. Arm yourselves with knowledge!
Here are some questions you may not have asked yourself recently: what is former Deep Purple guitarist Ritchie Blackmore up to? And, WHAT HATH REN-FAIRE WROUGHT?
Well, good news for you! I have your answers! They are both contained within this clip.
There are some things you will be thinking, as this mystical journey of musical wonderment (“Locked Within the Crystal Ball,” a song which infallible research source Wikipedia dates back to the 14th century, and which was probably Ye Olde Room-Clearer back then too) unfolds before you, courtesy of Sir Richard of Blackmore and his bride, Thee Faire Ladye Candace Night. Like, OMG HER SLEEVES! And: you can’t actually get that sound from a balalaika/lute/mandolin/Unspecified Ren-Faire Instrument, Ritchie! And: did Stevie Nicks donate her schtick to the Salvation Army? Is that how this happened? And, finally: OMG SHE WILL NOT LET US IGNORE THE SLEEVES! But nothing – nothing, I tell you – will prepare you for the miraculous Ren-Fairesplosion that occurs at 3:10. It is so wonderful that, when the second instance of insanity occurs at 3:38, you will not be immediately able to comprehend it. You will still be reeling.
People of the world: prepare to expose your crotches. Yeah! I know! That sounds creepy and awful to me, too! HOWEVER, behold what is in the news right now:
KATE, A LADY: Gets temp job. Uses lady locker room at temp job. Gets fired from temp job. Oh, and also she is trans! So now she has to give patriarchally-named temp service Manpower a photo of her crotch as a condition for further employment.
CASTER, A LADY:* Is really pretty good at running! Also, is totally cut, like you would be if you were an athlete who was good at running. Oh, but perhaps (some people think) the fact that she is good at running and is very cut is because she is TRANS! So now she has to have scientists inspect her crotch (and basically everything else) as a condition for further employment.
JONATHAN, WHO HASN’T PUBLICLY IDENTIFIED: Is charged with stealing some lady clothes from Saks! Whilst wearing some lady clothes! And then the police picked Jonathan up at a traffic stop: and, again, Jonathan was wearing lady clothes! The police are very proud that they have caught this “man,” and that they were not fooled by “his” villainous “disguises.” Because basically the narrative is that Jonathan is a dude who FOR SOME REASON WORE LADY CLOTHES AND HAD LADY HAIR as a means of hiding out from the police. Instead of being, you know. A lady.
Looks like some folks have a case of the Deceptive Trans Person Fever! Therefore, the sparkling Amanda Hess of Washington City Paper’s The Sexist and I shall discuss why, for some reason, police and/or employers and/or sporting commissioners and/or whoever apparently find Juwanna Mann and Wile E. Coyote cartoons more plausible than the existence of trans people or the idea that the contents of your neighbors’ drawers are really none of your business.
ILLUSTRATION: Can we please just not consider these cartoons reliable or sufficient gender education? Because I think THAT WOULD FIX A LOT.
