i was going to post about victimhood during my lunchbreak, but things got insane and now i don't have time. perhaps tomorrow, post nonprofitland board meeting (which is why i wouldn't be able to post on it tonight either). for now, i'd just like to note that today sucks at an insanely high frequency. the day's suckiness challenges all previous levels of suckiness ever recorded - this could be one for the almanac.
really, i guess it's not that bad (as jayne pointed out, i could be a trashwoman...though BoyCat pointed out, then i'd be paid better). but learning that georgie nominated civil-rights-rampaging Alito to the supreme court, then blowing a fuse in my apartment while attempting to dry my hair, then arriving to an office that still smells like cat pee (don't ask, cuz i don't know) is still pretty high on the sucky meter.
i am obviously the most upset about the Alito nomination. anything that i can say about it has already been said in blogland a hundred times already by now, so i guess i'll save my breath. but i think it's interesting in terms of the anger stuff from my previous posts - this makes me really angry! outraged! incensed! i'm not surprised by any means - i pretty much knew it was game, set, match on reproductive rights on November 3rd - but it still makes my brain quiver a bit from the unfairness of it all. i don't know how to not be angry about these things, or how to not let the accumulation of all the little and big injustices continue to fuel that anger. how can i not be angry every day, with insults like this nomination?
i am angry. very angry. luckily i'm genetically pre-disposed to low blood pressure, so at least i've got that working for me.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
a disclaimer of sorts. or maybe an entreaty. or an explanation wrapped in a request.
ok, i'm going to re-post my comment from the below thread here (with typos corrected!), because it seems it's something that is not coming across clearly:
here's the thing: i do have strong opinions, but that doesn't mean they're ultimately not open to revision. i put this stuff out there because i am open to hearing other perspectives - otherwise, i'd just keep it to myself! my tone isn't meant to shut down discussion, it just represents where i'm at right now - i haven't come to these opinions lightly, but i have no illusions that they are an endpoint for me.
long story short - i hope people are not dissauded from responding to my genuine appeals for thoughts and disagreements just because i seem set in my ways. i might argue or disagree with you at the moment, but i'm listening, and that's the only way thus far i've been able to keep evolving my own perspective.
i'm writing in this kind of public forum because i genuinely want to hear thoughts, opinions, and disagreements from people. if that doesn't come across via my writing style and tone, i apologize, but i'm stating here and now that comments are welcome and much desired. i am thinking all of these things through, and i appreciate everyone's two cents along the way.
here's the thing: i do have strong opinions, but that doesn't mean they're ultimately not open to revision. i put this stuff out there because i am open to hearing other perspectives - otherwise, i'd just keep it to myself! my tone isn't meant to shut down discussion, it just represents where i'm at right now - i haven't come to these opinions lightly, but i have no illusions that they are an endpoint for me.
long story short - i hope people are not dissauded from responding to my genuine appeals for thoughts and disagreements just because i seem set in my ways. i might argue or disagree with you at the moment, but i'm listening, and that's the only way thus far i've been able to keep evolving my own perspective.
i'm writing in this kind of public forum because i genuinely want to hear thoughts, opinions, and disagreements from people. if that doesn't come across via my writing style and tone, i apologize, but i'm stating here and now that comments are welcome and much desired. i am thinking all of these things through, and i appreciate everyone's two cents along the way.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
the f-word wars.
i am so tired of the arguments around the word “feminist.” so tired that i almost don’t want to write about it, because i feel like i’m shouting into the abyss. in many ways, the debate seems like a moot point to me – i mean, what are we going to do, strike the word “feminist” from the record of language? toss it on the trash heap? it’s a word that’s not going away, so all of the talk around moving toward some new terminology seems like wishful thinking. for better or worse, that is the word that people will associate with the fight for women’s rights and equality, so i think we’ve got to focus on rehabilitating it rather than trying to bury it.
i’ll tell you, i had no trouble adopting the feminist mantle. i don’t even remember a moment’s doubt or hesitation. i have no problems with being labeled a feminist, and i listen in bemusement when people try to tack all of their ugly connotations to them term in order to discredit me. i find it amusing, on a personal level. but in a broader sense, i realize that if we are ever going to make true progress on a renewed women’s movement (for all this talk about the third wave, i’ve never seen anything approaching a coherent approach to advocating for women in my 25 years), we need a common language. so why can’t that be feminism?
i think the reason that we’re even having this discussion in feminist circles is that conservative america did a fantastic job of poisoning the well. a concerted effort to win “the war of ideas” was mounted in the 80s and 90s, and one major battle in that war was to convince women that feminism a) didn’t speak for them, and b) would only make them miserable in the long run. i won’t even get in to point b here (read Susan Faludi’s “Backlash” for a comprehensive look at that phenomenon), but point a is something we’re still arguing about amongst ourselves. some of the negative connotations of feminism, propagated so zealously by the media over the last twenty years, have gotten under our skin and made us doubt the wisdom of calling ourselves feminists. so what’s wrong with being a feminist these days?
1) feminists are angry.
Amy had an interesting comment around this under yesterday’s post, and i think it’s one of the most common “negative” connotations about feminism. funnily enough, though, i personally don’t see it as negative. i mean, since when is it so bad to be angry? you look around, you see injustice and discrimination, and you get angry. it’s a natural reaction. should you let anger control you? no. can you use anger as a fuel to drive you to advocate for change? absolutely. righteous anger is a powerful force, and can be harnessed into all kinds of productive action. but society doesn’t like angry women – anger isn’t a “feminine” quality – and therefore accusing feminists of being angry is an insult.
2) feminists hate men.
god, if i had a nickel for every time I’ve heard this antiquated slur against feminism, i’d be writing to you from a solid gold laptop. i mean, how ridiculous can you get? this stemmed from the 70s, where some strands of feminism were indeed more women-centric, and lesbian activism played a large role in the movement. i will not deny that part of feminism’s history, nor will i condemn it. mass movements are large and varied, and some of the ideas that come out of such movements aren’t apt to integrate into mainstream society very well. that’s why feminism today isn’t about getting your lesbian credentials and moving to a separatist lesbian commune – that idea didn’t appeal to most women. yet, the one point that the conservative movement (and thus the media) seized on was that since a small percentage of the early feminist movement seemed (or were) hostile to men, that must mean that all women who identify as feminists are man-haters. it’s shocking – seriously shocking – to see how this myth is perpetuated today. i have never in my life met a feminist that claimed to be a man-hater, or who wanted to do away with men, or any such nonsense. but the fact that we have to keep explaining that to wild-eyed detractors and confused young women alike is infinitely frustrating.
3) feminism forces you to be a victim.
hugo’s post that i linked to yesterday partially focused on this theme. my opinion on this particular accusation is a little more complicated than most, and one i’ll delve into further later. on one hand, i agree with hugo and others who assert that this is false, and that nothing about feminism requires you to take on the role of victim. the fact that second wave feminism often took on the victim perspective is, i think a) justified, as women were more literally victims of societal inequities and cultural oppression at that time, and b) immaterial to the way we define ourselves as feminists in the present. is that our history? yes. doesn’t that mean our reality today is the same as it was thirty years ago? no. as women have won legal victories and made headway in societal understanding and accommodation, the victim perspective has become less necessary and thus less emphasized. on the other hand, i hesitate to abandon the victim mentality entirely, because women are still more likely to be the victim in terms of a lot of things – sexual harassment and assault, domestic violence, pay inequity, etc. i realize that it’s difficult for the language of empowerment and the language of oppression to coexist within a movement, but it’s crucial that we don’t lose sight of the oppression side of the coin. otherwise, against what exactly do we need empowerment?
well, these are just some of my thoughts on the issue. in the end, i think that if you have a negative impression of feminism, it’s probably an over-complicated issue that’s been over-simplified into a pithy insult, and that it probably has little bearing on the day-to-day work feminists do for women’s rights. you’re welcome to disagree with me (many do), or to tell me that i’m on a hopeless merry-go-round of linguistics and ideology that will never come to rest (which i might be inclined to believe). more on the subjective position of the victim later…
i’ll tell you, i had no trouble adopting the feminist mantle. i don’t even remember a moment’s doubt or hesitation. i have no problems with being labeled a feminist, and i listen in bemusement when people try to tack all of their ugly connotations to them term in order to discredit me. i find it amusing, on a personal level. but in a broader sense, i realize that if we are ever going to make true progress on a renewed women’s movement (for all this talk about the third wave, i’ve never seen anything approaching a coherent approach to advocating for women in my 25 years), we need a common language. so why can’t that be feminism?
i think the reason that we’re even having this discussion in feminist circles is that conservative america did a fantastic job of poisoning the well. a concerted effort to win “the war of ideas” was mounted in the 80s and 90s, and one major battle in that war was to convince women that feminism a) didn’t speak for them, and b) would only make them miserable in the long run. i won’t even get in to point b here (read Susan Faludi’s “Backlash” for a comprehensive look at that phenomenon), but point a is something we’re still arguing about amongst ourselves. some of the negative connotations of feminism, propagated so zealously by the media over the last twenty years, have gotten under our skin and made us doubt the wisdom of calling ourselves feminists. so what’s wrong with being a feminist these days?
1) feminists are angry.
Amy had an interesting comment around this under yesterday’s post, and i think it’s one of the most common “negative” connotations about feminism. funnily enough, though, i personally don’t see it as negative. i mean, since when is it so bad to be angry? you look around, you see injustice and discrimination, and you get angry. it’s a natural reaction. should you let anger control you? no. can you use anger as a fuel to drive you to advocate for change? absolutely. righteous anger is a powerful force, and can be harnessed into all kinds of productive action. but society doesn’t like angry women – anger isn’t a “feminine” quality – and therefore accusing feminists of being angry is an insult.
2) feminists hate men.
god, if i had a nickel for every time I’ve heard this antiquated slur against feminism, i’d be writing to you from a solid gold laptop. i mean, how ridiculous can you get? this stemmed from the 70s, where some strands of feminism were indeed more women-centric, and lesbian activism played a large role in the movement. i will not deny that part of feminism’s history, nor will i condemn it. mass movements are large and varied, and some of the ideas that come out of such movements aren’t apt to integrate into mainstream society very well. that’s why feminism today isn’t about getting your lesbian credentials and moving to a separatist lesbian commune – that idea didn’t appeal to most women. yet, the one point that the conservative movement (and thus the media) seized on was that since a small percentage of the early feminist movement seemed (or were) hostile to men, that must mean that all women who identify as feminists are man-haters. it’s shocking – seriously shocking – to see how this myth is perpetuated today. i have never in my life met a feminist that claimed to be a man-hater, or who wanted to do away with men, or any such nonsense. but the fact that we have to keep explaining that to wild-eyed detractors and confused young women alike is infinitely frustrating.
3) feminism forces you to be a victim.
hugo’s post that i linked to yesterday partially focused on this theme. my opinion on this particular accusation is a little more complicated than most, and one i’ll delve into further later. on one hand, i agree with hugo and others who assert that this is false, and that nothing about feminism requires you to take on the role of victim. the fact that second wave feminism often took on the victim perspective is, i think a) justified, as women were more literally victims of societal inequities and cultural oppression at that time, and b) immaterial to the way we define ourselves as feminists in the present. is that our history? yes. doesn’t that mean our reality today is the same as it was thirty years ago? no. as women have won legal victories and made headway in societal understanding and accommodation, the victim perspective has become less necessary and thus less emphasized. on the other hand, i hesitate to abandon the victim mentality entirely, because women are still more likely to be the victim in terms of a lot of things – sexual harassment and assault, domestic violence, pay inequity, etc. i realize that it’s difficult for the language of empowerment and the language of oppression to coexist within a movement, but it’s crucial that we don’t lose sight of the oppression side of the coin. otherwise, against what exactly do we need empowerment?
well, these are just some of my thoughts on the issue. in the end, i think that if you have a negative impression of feminism, it’s probably an over-complicated issue that’s been over-simplified into a pithy insult, and that it probably has little bearing on the day-to-day work feminists do for women’s rights. you’re welcome to disagree with me (many do), or to tell me that i’m on a hopeless merry-go-round of linguistics and ideology that will never come to rest (which i might be inclined to believe). more on the subjective position of the victim later…
Friday, October 28, 2005
friday cat blogging, half-baked edition.
we put catnip on CatCat's scratching post to keep her interested in scratching it and not the furniture. this is the result:
this went on for a good 15 minutes- high as a kite on a saturday night. unfortunately, the rolling and growling and gnawing don't come across well via photograph.
this went on for a good 15 minutes- high as a kite on a saturday night. unfortunately, the rolling and growling and gnawing don't come across well via photograph.
sneak previews.
i've been thinking about a number of ideas lately that i've been meaning to work through in this little forum. while i am at work right now, and thus cannot even begin to touch on them in any meaningful way, i wanted to throw them out there. i have absolutely no plans for the weekend, so i'm hoping to be able to take a stab at organizing my thoughts around at least one or two of these issues, and posting them for your viewing pleasure (or pain, or ambivalence, or outright disdain).
-- why do so many women, especially younger women, reject the label of "feminist?" hugo had a nice post on this subject a few weeks ago, and it's an issue on which feminists go around and around and around. one little word, so many complications.
-- what is it that makes the status of "victim" slightly seductive? what is the rationale of willingly occupying that mindset, choosing that perspective? (hint, i think that there actually is one).
-- why is the collective identity created by shared fandom so alluring? watching some of the webcast of the white sox rally downtown got me on that track...
-- is it just me, or is the world seeming like a more menacing and unkind place with every passing day? perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement, but i've had that somewhat unshakable sense for awhile now, and i'm interesting in taking apart the potential factors for that (the news media? the political climate? the cultural climate? the chemical balance in my brain? all of the above??)
on a lighter note, cat blogging to come later tonight. enjoy your halloween weekend! i heard a great costume idea yesterday - smear some egg on your face and go as george w. bush.
-- why do so many women, especially younger women, reject the label of "feminist?" hugo had a nice post on this subject a few weeks ago, and it's an issue on which feminists go around and around and around. one little word, so many complications.
-- what is it that makes the status of "victim" slightly seductive? what is the rationale of willingly occupying that mindset, choosing that perspective? (hint, i think that there actually is one).
-- why is the collective identity created by shared fandom so alluring? watching some of the webcast of the white sox rally downtown got me on that track...
-- is it just me, or is the world seeming like a more menacing and unkind place with every passing day? perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement, but i've had that somewhat unshakable sense for awhile now, and i'm interesting in taking apart the potential factors for that (the news media? the political climate? the cultural climate? the chemical balance in my brain? all of the above??)
on a lighter note, cat blogging to come later tonight. enjoy your halloween weekend! i heard a great costume idea yesterday - smear some egg on your face and go as george w. bush.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
as promised.
copyright 2005 Chicago Tribunei promise i'll stop obsessing about baseball soon. soon-ish.
snarky baseball fun.
thank you, jacob luft of si.com (found via matt at The Tattered Coat), for saying what we all feel about that depraved, deplorable animated baseball named Scooter. and for getting a lick in on joe buck and tim mccarver to boot.
and thank you, whoever took this photograph (found via roni).
check back for another fun photograph when i get home from work...
and thank you, whoever took this photograph (found via roni).
check back for another fun photograph when i get home from work...
things that i love.
the world champion chicago white sox.
CatCat, a native of Chicago Ridge, has just one thing to say: "south side!"
CatCat, a native of Chicago Ridge, has just one thing to say: "south side!"
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
things that i hate.
1. that stupid "Fox Trax" graphic they show during the world series games. you cannot replicate ESPN's K-Zone. don't even try. and don't intentionally mis-spell tracks and add insult to injury.
2. spreadsheets.
3. peep-toe shoes.
4. cherry flavored cough medicine.
5. Intelligent Design.
6. paper cuts.
7. the fact that guacamole is not good for me.
8. trying a new Lean Cuisine for lunch and having it suck, thus activating the desire for above guacamole.
9. Notre Dame.
10. the word "panache".
2. spreadsheets.
3. peep-toe shoes.
4. cherry flavored cough medicine.
5. Intelligent Design.
6. paper cuts.
7. the fact that guacamole is not good for me.
8. trying a new Lean Cuisine for lunch and having it suck, thus activating the desire for above guacamole.
9. Notre Dame.
10. the word "panache".
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
centerfolds and symbolic systems.
i am officially in bloglove with hugo schwyzer, everyone's favorite male christian pro-feminist college professor. with surgeon-like precision, hugo absolutely nails it today with this post concerning a new study concerning the language of Playboy. according to the study (found via jessica at Feministing), Playboy has begun using more (to steal a term from nonprofitland) “strength-based” language in their descriptions of their centerfolds over the last 15-20 years. jessica says, so what? they’re still using strong language to caption naked prone women.
hugo takes that ball and runs with it, pointing out the uncomfortable idea that these “strong” captions may only serve to make it more enjoyable for men to see said “strong” woman displayed for his pleasure. as he puts it:
right on, hugo. go read the whole post, seriously, it’s that good.
thinking about this issue made me think of this post from Shakespeare’s Sister, which deals with the question of whether altering politically incorrect and/or misogynistic language is really feminist progress. i absolutely subscribe to the theory that language is incredibly important and incredibly powerful – i mean, when you think about it, it’s the one of the only ways that we have to communicate (and, i’d wager to say, far and away the most effective way). so while the symbolism of language is a crucial piece of our human interactions, and can have a huge effect on us, in the end it’s only symbolic. language only represents things. therefore, i think that changing language can be helpful, but cannot be truly constructive change without a concurrent change in action.
for instance, changing the term “freshmen” to “first-years” could possibly do something to change sexist mindsets (though i remain doubtful, in that particular case). but that linguistic alteration certainly won’t change anything in the long term without concrete action to go along with it, such as community discussions about the language change, and community discussions about sexism and harassment in our schools and in society as a whole. the words don’t technically mean anything – it’s the associations with which we imbue them that are highly charged. if we don’t tackle those associations – that deep, dense foundation of misogyny that underlies much of our culture and our lives – it won’t matter at all if we call a fourteen-year-old girl a “first-year” or a twenty-year-old centerfold “strong-willed.”
we are how we see ourselves, not how we name ourselves.
hugo takes that ball and runs with it, pointing out the uncomfortable idea that these “strong” captions may only serve to make it more enjoyable for men to see said “strong” woman displayed for his pleasure. as he puts it:
When I talk to many guys about gender issues, I find a troubling undercurrent of deep anger at women and the feminist movement that is extraordinarily strong... Men who are angry at beautiful women for not allowing them access to their bodies, and men who are angry at powerful women for their successes, can gain a kind of revenge by seeing the beautiful and the powerful stripped, exposed, and prone for their enjoyment. For most men, that's the payoff of porn -- the opportunity to reclaim power over women by focusing on them as submissive, pleasing bodies rather than autonomous human beings.
right on, hugo. go read the whole post, seriously, it’s that good.
thinking about this issue made me think of this post from Shakespeare’s Sister, which deals with the question of whether altering politically incorrect and/or misogynistic language is really feminist progress. i absolutely subscribe to the theory that language is incredibly important and incredibly powerful – i mean, when you think about it, it’s the one of the only ways that we have to communicate (and, i’d wager to say, far and away the most effective way). so while the symbolism of language is a crucial piece of our human interactions, and can have a huge effect on us, in the end it’s only symbolic. language only represents things. therefore, i think that changing language can be helpful, but cannot be truly constructive change without a concurrent change in action.
for instance, changing the term “freshmen” to “first-years” could possibly do something to change sexist mindsets (though i remain doubtful, in that particular case). but that linguistic alteration certainly won’t change anything in the long term without concrete action to go along with it, such as community discussions about the language change, and community discussions about sexism and harassment in our schools and in society as a whole. the words don’t technically mean anything – it’s the associations with which we imbue them that are highly charged. if we don’t tackle those associations – that deep, dense foundation of misogyny that underlies much of our culture and our lives – it won’t matter at all if we call a fourteen-year-old girl a “first-year” or a twenty-year-old centerfold “strong-willed.”
we are how we see ourselves, not how we name ourselves.
everything you've ever wanted to know. and more.
a huge hat tip to the dino for finding a website that quite truly makes my whole week. it's only tuesday, but i can pretty much guarantee that right now.
the duggars have a website.
you remember the duggars. the sixteen kids? the violins? the impossibly long female mullets? don't act like their existence didn't invade your consciousness and make you question life, existence, and the basic laws of biology and physics.
oh, that was just me? fine then. regardless, the website is fantastic. a few snippets:
the section in which jim bob and michelle describe their decision to just keep popping them out assembly-line style is also quite interesting. the claim that after they had their first child, michelle duggar was on the pill, yet got pregnant and then has a miscarriage. they say, and i quote, "we did not know that sometimes the pill allows you to get pregnant but then causes a miscarriage." what?? huh?? like i said - basic laws of biology and physics.
the duggars rock my world.
the duggars have a website.
you remember the duggars. the sixteen kids? the violins? the impossibly long female mullets? don't act like their existence didn't invade your consciousness and make you question life, existence, and the basic laws of biology and physics.
oh, that was just me? fine then. regardless, the website is fantastic. a few snippets:
Our prayer is that all who view this site will realize that we are ordinary people with our individual weaknesses and imperfections but yet we serve an extraordinary GOD who delights in demonstrating His great power!
At 9:00a.m., the older children help their buddies with their studies in phonics, math, violin & piano (J-O-Y- Jesus first, Others second, & Yourself last!)
the section in which jim bob and michelle describe their decision to just keep popping them out assembly-line style is also quite interesting. the claim that after they had their first child, michelle duggar was on the pill, yet got pregnant and then has a miscarriage. they say, and i quote, "we did not know that sometimes the pill allows you to get pregnant but then causes a miscarriage." what?? huh?? like i said - basic laws of biology and physics.
the duggars rock my world.
Monday, October 24, 2005
and.
and i missed the west wing last night. i mean, the world series game was fantastic and all, but shit i missed the west wing. toby was the leak! was toby really the leak? c.j. hates toby! the president fires toby! craziness abounds!
and i don't have tivo. or any other dvr-like device. or even a freaking vcr.
damn damn damn.
and i don't have tivo. or any other dvr-like device. or even a freaking vcr.
damn damn damn.
when even the world series can't cheer you up.
i am feeling very bad and sad (and apparently somewhat Seussian) about things today. it is raining and gloomy here in chicago, and mondays are what they are. however, in a vain attempt to lift my spirits, i will share the following photo.
huh. no photo. why is that? because blogger is obviously part of some vast conspiracy to make today crappy, and won't let me add a picture. what you would have seen here is a photo of the chicago skyline and the "Sox Pride" message displayed on the BlueCross BlueShield building. oh well - the picture was from the trib, and they probably would have sued me for copyright infringment anyway.
i feel like Marvin from Hitchhiker's Guide today.
huh. no photo. why is that? because blogger is obviously part of some vast conspiracy to make today crappy, and won't let me add a picture. what you would have seen here is a photo of the chicago skyline and the "Sox Pride" message displayed on the BlueCross BlueShield building. oh well - the picture was from the trib, and they probably would have sued me for copyright infringment anyway.
i feel like Marvin from Hitchhiker's Guide today.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
madonna and subversion.
the other night, BoyCat and i saw roughly the last half of Madonna’s new documentary I’m Going to Tell You a Secret. having watched Truth or Dare few year ago for a final paper i was writing for a Visual Studies class, when i realized that this was her new documentary, part of me had to watch. i was intensely curious as to how it would be similar to, and different from Truth or Dare, which was such a sensation when it came out almost fifteen years ago.
other than the fact that both movies interspersed behind-the-scenes footage with concert footage, and the fact that they are both about Madonna, the two movies had little in common. i think it’s an interesting cultural study to see how much Madonna has changed (and hasn’t changed) in the roughly twenty years that she’s been a superstar. i’ve written on this blog before about how ambivalent i am concerning Madonna as a feminist icon. I think this new documentary did little to change my mind either way, but it reminded me how complicated of a figure Madonna is (in a cultural sense – who knows what she’s “really” like, and even if we did, i think it’s irrelevant). i remember being somewhat dismayed when she got married and started wearing jackets that said Mrs. Ritchie and jaunting around the English countryside with her baby in a Silver Cross pram. what is this, re-invention as a slave of the patriarchy? oooh, very subversive. so subversive that i almost can’t tell that it’s subversive at all.
and i realize that sort of judgment is unfair, because she’s her own person and can do whatever she damn well pleases (as she’s made known many times, by humping the floor at the VMAs or getting naked with Vanilla Ice or having a baby with a straggly-haired personal trainer or whatever). but on the other hand, she put herself out there as a public figure, and she fastidiously cultivated an image as a button-pusher, as an edgy artist, as a subverter of the dominant paradigm! so i have the right to at least comment on the irony of her little foray into high Western propriety.
of course it’s not that simple. i appreciated hearing about her wearing a shirt that said mother on the front and fucker on the back – i appreciated the one truly edgy moment she injected into the video of her duet with Britney (it involved a cane, Madonna’s crotch, and the line “well then come over here, i’ve got something to show you”) – i appreciated her artistic critiques of american consumerism and war mongering on “American Life.” in short, i appreciated that she didn’t erase all traces of subversion from her public life and her art. as problematic as I think some of her old subversion was (really, don’t get me started. i could totally post the whole 12 page paper about why Madonna failed feminism in a larger sense and paved the way for Britney’s rise to fame – it contains copious amounts of obnoxious theoretical jargon, though, so i won’t do that to you), in a way i feel starved for anything even remotely like it nowadays. i mean, really, do we have anything at all like “Express Yourself” on mtv now? well, we don’t even have music on mtv now, but you know what i’m talking about.
i feel like there is such a gaping deficit of any sort of incisive social commentary going on in mainstream culture that it’s scary. everything is such mass-produced, corporate-controlled, fully sanitized schlock – anything with even a hint of moral or cultural subversion is snuffed out. Green Day is the only exception that i can think of right now. and no harm meant to Green Day, but that is fucking sad.
there was a concert scene in I’m Going to Tell You a Secret of the title song from the American Life album. Madonna and her dancers were dressed up in military uniform type get-ups, and some other dancers were wearing clergy type outfits, and some pretty disturbing war footage pulsed across the screens in the background. the editing of the scene conveyed the frenetic energy of the whole number, which in turn evoked the sense of a culture spinning out of control, turning on itself, on the brink of collapse or destruction or both. it was the first time in years that i’ve watched mtv and felt anything other than total disgust. and then the documentary cut to a fan outside the arena after the show who said, “i though i was coming to a concert, not a democratic convention.”
and that’s where we’re at.
other than the fact that both movies interspersed behind-the-scenes footage with concert footage, and the fact that they are both about Madonna, the two movies had little in common. i think it’s an interesting cultural study to see how much Madonna has changed (and hasn’t changed) in the roughly twenty years that she’s been a superstar. i’ve written on this blog before about how ambivalent i am concerning Madonna as a feminist icon. I think this new documentary did little to change my mind either way, but it reminded me how complicated of a figure Madonna is (in a cultural sense – who knows what she’s “really” like, and even if we did, i think it’s irrelevant). i remember being somewhat dismayed when she got married and started wearing jackets that said Mrs. Ritchie and jaunting around the English countryside with her baby in a Silver Cross pram. what is this, re-invention as a slave of the patriarchy? oooh, very subversive. so subversive that i almost can’t tell that it’s subversive at all.
and i realize that sort of judgment is unfair, because she’s her own person and can do whatever she damn well pleases (as she’s made known many times, by humping the floor at the VMAs or getting naked with Vanilla Ice or having a baby with a straggly-haired personal trainer or whatever). but on the other hand, she put herself out there as a public figure, and she fastidiously cultivated an image as a button-pusher, as an edgy artist, as a subverter of the dominant paradigm! so i have the right to at least comment on the irony of her little foray into high Western propriety.
of course it’s not that simple. i appreciated hearing about her wearing a shirt that said mother on the front and fucker on the back – i appreciated the one truly edgy moment she injected into the video of her duet with Britney (it involved a cane, Madonna’s crotch, and the line “well then come over here, i’ve got something to show you”) – i appreciated her artistic critiques of american consumerism and war mongering on “American Life.” in short, i appreciated that she didn’t erase all traces of subversion from her public life and her art. as problematic as I think some of her old subversion was (really, don’t get me started. i could totally post the whole 12 page paper about why Madonna failed feminism in a larger sense and paved the way for Britney’s rise to fame – it contains copious amounts of obnoxious theoretical jargon, though, so i won’t do that to you), in a way i feel starved for anything even remotely like it nowadays. i mean, really, do we have anything at all like “Express Yourself” on mtv now? well, we don’t even have music on mtv now, but you know what i’m talking about.
i feel like there is such a gaping deficit of any sort of incisive social commentary going on in mainstream culture that it’s scary. everything is such mass-produced, corporate-controlled, fully sanitized schlock – anything with even a hint of moral or cultural subversion is snuffed out. Green Day is the only exception that i can think of right now. and no harm meant to Green Day, but that is fucking sad.
there was a concert scene in I’m Going to Tell You a Secret of the title song from the American Life album. Madonna and her dancers were dressed up in military uniform type get-ups, and some other dancers were wearing clergy type outfits, and some pretty disturbing war footage pulsed across the screens in the background. the editing of the scene conveyed the frenetic energy of the whole number, which in turn evoked the sense of a culture spinning out of control, turning on itself, on the brink of collapse or destruction or both. it was the first time in years that i’ve watched mtv and felt anything other than total disgust. and then the documentary cut to a fan outside the arena after the show who said, “i though i was coming to a concert, not a democratic convention.”
and that’s where we’re at.
Friday, October 21, 2005
friday cat blogging, sit back and relax edition.
this cat has got to learn how to slow down and smell the roses.
chicken little strikes again.
i had deja vu reading this article on yahoo yesterday about the gender gap in colleges and universities and why it means the End of Days are soon upon us. i wouldn't bother reading it yourself - just go straight to shakespeare's sister and read her concise assessment of why these articles are utter bullshit. she astutely notes:
word.
[the article makes] no reference to the fact that often men without a degree can make just as much or more money than women with a degree. Until women don’t need to rack of up four years of schooling and the associated debts just to find commensurate employment with men who only graduated high school, there’s no reason to get a case of the vapors over the fact that men aren’t earning as many degrees.
word.
the baseball field in the cornfield, final installment.
terrance mann: people will come, ray...and they'll walk out to the bleachers, sit in shirtsleeves on a perfect afternoon. they'll find they have reserved seats somewhere along one of the baselines, where they sat when they were children and cheered their heroes. and they'll watch the game, and it'll be as if they dipped themselves in magic waters. the memories will be so thick they'll have to brush them away from their faces.
people will come, ray. the one constant through all the years, ray, has been baseball. america has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. it has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. but baseball has marked the time. this field, this game: it's a part of our past, ray. it reminds of us of all that once was good, and it could be again. oh...people will come ray. people will most definitely come.
go sox.
people will come, ray. the one constant through all the years, ray, has been baseball. america has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. it has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. but baseball has marked the time. this field, this game: it's a part of our past, ray. it reminds of us of all that once was good, and it could be again. oh...people will come ray. people will most definitely come.
go sox.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
i think he might be part of a syndicate.
this is so unfair.
i want a black and white striped jumpsuit! i want a little plastic board with random numbers and letters on it! i want crazed nick nolte hair!
ah well.
i want a black and white striped jumpsuit! i want a little plastic board with random numbers and letters on it! i want crazed nick nolte hair!
ah well.
turns out republican fears are right, she does have balls.
so apparently harriet miers can't be bothered by trivial little things like senators' routine questionnaire for potential SCOTUS appointees. filling out this questionnaire is necessary for things like...um...getting appointed to the supreme court, but apparently harriet missed that particular memo. instead of filling it out, she decided to half-ass her way through it. the senate judiciary committee, as you can imagine, was not very pleased.
Pam at Pandagon has some great excerpted non-answers from the questionnaire, but my personal favorite is from the Tribune this morning:
"no"? i'm sorry, but are you fucking kidding me?? this is not second grade, harriet, and i'm not just asking if i can play with your My Little Pony (or your EZ Bake Oven, or whatever it was you prized in second grade). these are senators in the united states goverment, and even though they phrased it as a question, guess what - it's not really a question. it's a requirement. you don't get to tell them "no" any more than i get to tell Uncle Sam no when he "asks" for my taxes.
harriet and our Little Prince president are seeming more and more alike everyday.
Pam at Pandagon has some great excerpted non-answers from the questionnaire, but my personal favorite is from the Tribune this morning:
She just said "no" when asked to provide copies of all communications between administration officials and outside groups seeking assurances on her conservative bona fides.
"no"? i'm sorry, but are you fucking kidding me?? this is not second grade, harriet, and i'm not just asking if i can play with your My Little Pony (or your EZ Bake Oven, or whatever it was you prized in second grade). these are senators in the united states goverment, and even though they phrased it as a question, guess what - it's not really a question. it's a requirement. you don't get to tell them "no" any more than i get to tell Uncle Sam no when he "asks" for my taxes.
harriet and our Little Prince president are seeming more and more alike everyday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)