Just get off my back

Internet, I am being hounded.

I first saw this article three days ago being passed around a writers' group. Then I saw it again. And again. And now it's hit the general population with Jezebel picking it up, and I just want to say that I really think it's total bullshit.

Like women writers don't feel shitty enough about their work and themselves at every fucking turn. Like it's not hard enough for us to even send shit out time and again to fucking silence. Or worse, a patronizing pat on the head. We just want to eat, and we'd prefer to do it by practicing our craft, and if we use certain turns of phrases, could you just get off our backs?

I like just.

I like using it, I like writing it, I like the way it makes my fucking pushy as fuck pitches sound. It helps me.

I send out upwards of 15 pitches a week, and I send out double that in follow-ups, so excuse me if I'm just checking in, because, for fuck's sake, that is what I am doing.

I'm not FORWARDLY IN YOUR FACE CHECKING IN. I'm not checking in to see if you've read my awesome fucking idea you've probably already barfed on and laughed about with your coworkers. I'm just checking in on it in case by some miracle of faulty modern magic you missed the email that not only popped up at your desktop at work but probably pinged your phone and got automatically added to three different to-do lists of yours.

I'm just acknowledging that editors are busy as fuck and no, actually, I don't think I deserve a reply just because I had the metaphorical balls to pitch a thing, but just in case you happen to like the idea better today than you did two weeks ago, here is a polite motherfucking nudge.

Dudes, like, what if I just don't feel like being freaking assertive in a follow-up? Does it mean I have low self-esteem? Am I suddenly the next victim of impostor syndrome? No. What if it simply means I have respect for another person's job and life, and silence is generally regarded as a no, so if I'm going to push it, how about I just be freaking polite about something for one time in my life?

And if the answer is no, or more silence, I'm not crying in my goddamn cheese curls and beer about it. I'm sending it to the next editor to nope. Until it gets a yes. So excuse me while I make double sure my first-choice publication doesn't want it in a way that might leave the editor feeling kindly toward me as opposed to having them think, "damn, why does she think the sun shines out her ass? I didn't even like her 839654829672906702 shitty essays in WaPo and Time. Bitch."

You know what I would like people to judge women writers on? THEIR WORK (TM Brooke effin' Binkowski, who is a rockstar).

If some bro is chilling over at Big Publication Inc., and he doesn't go further than my pitch because I use the word "just" in it somewhere, but my clips are stellar, my idea sharp and timely and my turnaround fucking faster than a Palin can get pregnant (too far? probably too far. I'm sorry.), then who is losing out? Not me. I'm moving my pitch to the next bro in line, and dude who can't move beyond one word in the language that indicates respect for his position can just watch something else I do go viral from the sidelines. Whatevs.

I will write my goddamn emails the way I want to write them. I am so sick of these rules. It's like a 1993 romance up in here (anyone else remember that godawful book, The Rules? WHO IS WITH ME?)

I don't need to hear about what semantic bullshit I can pull to suddenly make my words shine off the page. I don't want to twist myself into a pretzel of "this guru tells women to do this to be more like men, and this guru tells women to do that to be true to themselves and this guru says fuck it all, you're a girl so good fucking luck, try not to cry on the way home as you stand on the subway to make room for my manspread junk."

I'm just tired, guys. I'm just so tired of it. What I want in this world is to write an email the way I want to fucking write it and have it be read and weighted by the merit of the content within, and the tone and cadence (of which just is a part), and have them get a feel for the type of writing and person they will be getting by working with me.

And I am a polite son-of-a-bitch. So, yes, I'll just be checking in whenever the fuck I want.

Just get off my back.

It's not men keeping women back in the workforce

When women speak up in the workplace, they are viewed in a negative light, that is, when they're not interrupted by men first, according to a new piece in the New York Times. Women who contribute new ideas and expand upon business management information are viewed as aggressive and suspicious, whereas men doing the same thing are considered driven and 'take charge'.

Women are considered incompetent until they prove otherwise, which they do by working 2.5 times as hard as men, while men are considered competent until proven otherwise. This is the way of the world, and more and more studies on leadership and business are backing it up.

I posted this piece on my Facebook the other day, and immediately a nice guy (a real nice guy, not a Nice Guy) I went to high school with started hemming and hawwing about semantics and scientific methods and research. All in the name of 'finding the root of the problem.'

That root, for so long, has been considered to be a problem with women themselves. They're not as committed as men. They're forced to make life choices that don't suit the business world (have a family), they can't be as available as men, etc. Or, sometimes, it's blamed on the system. The glass ceiling, the relatively new phenomenon of women in management needing to rid itself of the training wheels, certain overtly sexist individuals throwing up barriers to woman success, and etc.

In each of these scenarios, there is an implication that it is mostly men who are concerned with holding women back, whether consciously or not. That we are on one team, and men are on the other. That men can support us or not, but that all women wish for and are fighting for the right to be viewed as just as competent as men in their field, should they deserve it.

Because of this misconception, we get men from all walks of life rallying up in defense of their kind, either partaking in one of the two scenarios above: ("if you look at it on an individual level, there are hundreds, nay, thousands of women, who can't commit to the job, who choose to raise families in lieu of their careers; this is not men's faults!") or ("I fight for women in my work place! I know their value and try to help whenever I can. These messages are no longer valid. So many men have come around! We're fighting with you! Stop stabbing us in the back!")

My friend summed it up nicely with his comment on the article

: "What struck me is how often the phrase "...and women" comes up. It seems men and women alike are guilty of the same thing. I wonder if there's any industry where this is less of a problem? I doubt there's any place it isn't... But why is this becoming 'worse' of a problem? Is it a particular generation of manager that is the problem? Is this a problem in other similar countries? IE: is it just America?"

Here's the thing that nearly everyone forgets: Women can be and often are guilty of sexism and misogyny. Because they hate other women? No. Just like most men don't engage in sexism because they hate women.

Feminism is frequently attacked because men feel defensive, as if by wanting equal rights, we are somehow implying that they personally are stopping that from happening. Women will defend men who feel this way, too, and the whole thing goes off the rails because suddenly we're not even talking about feminism. We're talking about a section of society getting their feelings hurt over something they're not guilty of, over something feminists never said they were guilty of.

So if it's not men, and it's not women, and it's not the newness of the system, then, my friend rightly wonders, what the heck is it? Why do both women and men view an ambitious, talkative, creative woman as a threat, where they view the same kind of man as a boon to their organization?

This intensely interesting piece, which shines light on the change of treatment due to gender in transgender people, shows clearly that throughout life, throughout careers, throughout industries, this different framing thrives. Men are simply treated better. By everyone.

Why?

Because we are not fighting the conscious thoughts and desires of men determined to keep women off their turf. Those days are gone, and most feminists know that. We don't need to defend the fact that "not all men" treat women as less-than in the workforce.

We are fighting a finely tuned and deeply ingrained notion of gender roles and gender traits in society. We are up against an institutionalized problem of unconscious or subconscious ideas about what women should be and what women are. We have ingested since birth the tenets that women are more scatterbrained than men, that they don't have forward-thinking ideas, that they are catty and vindictive, that they simply don't do the same caliber work.

No one thinks this. I know you don't think this.

It doesn't matter. You've eaten the pie. You had no choice. I had no choice.

It's not us against them. It's not women versus men. It's not men holding women back in the work place. It's not women holding themselves back. It's not managers holding them back.

It is the patriarchy. And the patriarchy, I repeat, is not men. It's not you. The patriarchy is the basest organizational structure our society and cultural has depended on for centuries that has etched a pattern in our brains as to how things should be, so powerful that our conscious and acute efforts to counteract that pattern only skim the surface.

Women are held back in the work place because we haven't yet broken out of the mental pattern that tells us that's how it should be. Writings like this aren't meant as complaints, or whining, or to pit one gender against another, or blame any one sect of people for our problems. Writings like this are meant to shift the conversation from the surface of the issue to the deeply ingrained underbelly where the problem really sits. It's a call to action, not because we are guilty of sexism, but because we have control over how this dialogue continues, and we can work together, men and women, managers and employees, to make it better over the generations.

It's not our fault we are where we are, but it is our duty to do better.

16 Steps to Every Argument a Man Has with a Woman Online

Now, I know what you are thinking. Every argument is different. The players involved are different. The content and context are different. There's no way this piece can be indicative of a general reality.

Only it is.

I am going to use a specific argument to flesh out my points, but that's only because this particular argument went on for 1,000 comments and covered every single base. Usually, only a few of these show up at the same time. But in this case, we got a bingo, and that needs to be recognized. In fact, I've even left off a few, due to length.

1) A condescending comment from a man to a woman, meant to be a "compliment". Usually this occurs when a thread is already in session. This time, the man had the guts to go to this woman's page, and post it with no prompting at all.

Let's take a moment to go through this before we get into our next steps:

a) You were using your radio voice again.

This implies it's an issue that's been spoken about between two people before, with the receiver acknowledging the advice and vowing to make a change. That isn't the case. This person hardly knows this woman, and they had not spoken about her voice before. (Which also happens to be...her voice. Not some random act for you to find "cute.")

b) Very cute, but no offense

Any time you see the words "no offense" that is a guarantee whatever comes next is about to be offensive. If you find yourself using that phrase, stop. Do not speak on.

c) Exude the confidence I know you have. Be proud of the 30-year-old professional that you are. Who knows, maybe you can be the anchor someday. I look forward to seeing that.

This implies she's not proud of herself and doesn't have confidence. This woman is a hard-hitting, no-nonsense reporter and has been so for decades. She doesn't want to be an anchor, either. Surprise! Not everyone does! (She's also not 30, lol). This basically says turn into my vision of your goal for yourself so I can get behind this. And...no.

d) Good luck doll.

GOOD LUCK DOLL.

Okay, back to our steps:

2) Understandable backlash from people who see the offensive comment:

"Just saw your post here on _______'s Facebook page. You were using that douchey, neckbeardy tone again. Very cute, but no offense, you sound like a 45-year-old asshat. Exude the intelligence I know you must have since you're friends with ________. Be proud of the 30-year-old professional she already is. Who knows? Maybe you could actually turn into a supportive and good friend. I look forward to seeing that. Then I can say, "I saw you that one time when." Good luck, bro."

3) Bystanders completely baffled at aim of original comment and attempted deconstruction:

Q - I can't even get my head around his motivation. Hitting on you by "negging"? Honest but assholish attempt at advice? He secretly hates you and has been biding his time for an opening to be mean? 

A - "This woman will appreciate that I see the potential she has, and that I am treating her almost like a real person because I'm asking her to be a person that commands respect, while at the same time, I am expressing fondness and familiarity toward her with my cutesy taglines that degrade her into exactly what I just told her she ought not be. In this way, I show her that her intellect is worth something, but also that I am not immune to her 19yo femininely wiles. Then maybe she'll be so grateful, she'll take my advice, act as I've advised with everyone, except me. With me she'll be soft and child-like, just like a woman should. I am very complex."

4) The original commenter says "I wasn't talking to you." (even though the comment is open for all to see, and not a PM).

I really was just trying to help. I'm sorry for offending you. But since ______ herself hasn't flamed me, I'm going to assume that she accepted my constructive criticism. Notice that she didn't "like" any of your comments?

5) Professional accolades and accomplishments that mean nothing are trotted out.

In this case, our man is an architect and we can thank him for many beautiful buildings. This obviously entitles him to give shitty advice in regards to news broadcasting. He knows things, guys.

6) The person he is talking to says something. Anything.

In this case, it's kickass. I mean, boom.

7) Bye, Felicia.

That should end our story, but alas.

8) Women who have been watching the thread understandably rejoice.

8) The White Knight. Some other dudebro comes around a bit later, feeling the urge to tell the women who were insulted how wrong and mean they are.

I found the thread rather depressing myself. ______'s response was detailed, on point, and said everything she wanted to say. Almost everything else just reinforces my conviction that FB is like the worst aspects of high school.

9) Dogpile and Bullying are invoked. (Remember, this man comes into this space, which was clearly dying down, to take ownership of it and make it all about him.)

what you seem to be saying is that this is a venue where you can be rude and bullying without consequences. _________'s response was a textbook case of taking the high road, and would be perfectly appropriate delivered to someone's face, not to mention a spot on, devestating rebuke to condescending assholism. About half the comments here are just textbook gang-bullying by people who probably think of themselves as decent human beings in real life. 

I've been on the bottom of these kind of dog piles, and it's no fun. The really disturbing part is seeing people who probably think of themselves as progressive resorting to bullying tactics I associate with the extreme right, like "feminizing" one's opponent by insinuating he's some kind of sissy ("did we get our wittle fee fees hurt" etc.) and a group of individuals ganging up on someone who has expressed the "wrong' opinion. It's like the mean girls club in high school.

11) Mansplaining.

If I may offer a bit of advice (yeah, I know, mansplaining") but why give a shit about being labelled a "bitch"? The men who hang that on you are assholes whose respect you don't need, and the rest of us understand that you have to drop a hammer on these twerps or they just waste everybody's time. 

It's a difficult line to walk. It's hard for me too, and the sad truth is there are plenty of men out there who don't like being "bossed around" by a women. But hey, fuck them, you know? That's their problem, not yours.

Oh my God, we were so wrong about you. You totally "get" it. You even know you're mansplaining. Thank you so much for validating our lives, and yet again telling us how we can behave. We have never seen this before.

12) Watch your tone, ladies. (I'm Darlena, so one less black mark I have to amateurishly make in paint.) Annnnyway, maybe we would get what we wanted out of our communications with men if we were just nicer. Thanks for letting us know what your idea of a discussion is. We will try to behave better and adhere to your ideal discussion.

13) Concern Trolling. They're just looking out for our best interests. As men, they can help us win this world. If we'd only let them share their valuable and relevant experiences.

Concern trolling. I'm pretty sure you knew what was going to happen if you came into this thread AS A MAN and tried to school us all, yet you decided to do it anyway. I have absolutely no doubt that you are here without any attempt at respect, and seek only to piss us all off so that you can get off to it.

14) Pre-conceived notions / Not all men. Then, inevitably, women standing up for themselves against mansplaining get the 'you don't even know me' line, sometimes plied with 'not all men are like what you say we are!' Okay, that's true. Not all men are like that. But you are.

15) The follow up. Then the conversation usually goes like this:

Woman: "I just don't understand why this even has to happen. A condescending, sexist as fuck post was made. From very early on it was very clear this post was not okay. But instead of any apology, or even at attempt at self reflection, an attempt to listen to any of us, it's just flailing and whining that we're mean bitches. I'm so sick of this shit."

White Knight: "what you seem to be saying is that I should just fuck off, butt out, and slink back into my hole. That I have no right to join this discussion in anyway unless my contribution consists of "yeahyourite." Cool. Enjoy your epistemic closure. Who died annd made you king of this thread"

16) You people.

Woman: He's acting like we did this to HIM. He's the one who came into this post to shit stir it all up again just because he clearly enjoys putting women in our place and finger wagging at us.

White Knight: If the tables were turned, I would not participate in the bullying, mob behaviour. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

This is normally where I'd write a witty conclusion, but Julia wrote one for me, right on that thread, so I'll leave you with this, the point of the deconstruction.


"Women are allowed to support each other. We're allowed to get annoyed or pissed off at men who constantly belittle our efforts, our work, our choices, at men who only want to comment on our physical attributes instead of, quite literally, ANYTHING ELSE we happen to do. Hence the anger at the original post. Which is still one of the shittiest negging posts I've read in a long, long time.

We're allowed to respond however we want. It doesn't make us stupid, or not worth being listened to, or not worthy of being right. Our response does not make it okay for you to hop into the post, insult all of us willy nilly at once, then act surprised when we respond.

Fucking goddamn ridiculous.

You've tried to police women for how we respond to sexism with more sexism. You've derailed the conversation completely with your own intense need to finger wag at women.

You have NO BUSINESS telling women how we should or should not respond to asshole men. We live this life every single fucking day and we have every single right to get pissed off if we want to. Just because YOU don't like our tone does not mean our message and our points are invalidated, no matter how hard you're trying to invalidate them and pretend they aren't important because of the words chosen to express ourselves.

You have talked over women, you have talked down to us. You have tried to mansplain how we should respond to situations that are, quite frankly, none of your fucking business.

You call us bullies, a mob. And yet you're perfectly content to try to bully us into being silent, to bully us into responding how you see fit. You are doing the exact same shit you claim we are, when you're the one who jumped into this thread for no reason only than to be a condescending asshole.

In short: go fuck yourself."

So, if you are a man, thinking about engaging in a debate with a woman about how society treats her...

DON'T.






   

Equal Pay Day Controversy

So, Tuesday was equal pay day. For those of you who somehow don't know about this, it represents the day women have to work up to before they've made as much as men made the previous year.

At 77 cents to the dollar, we have to work an extra 98 days.

Anyway, if you want more information about how this came about or what it actually measures, click on the link above, because what I'm doing in this post is taking on these two bullshit questions from this post over here.

Question 1:

Do women go into lower-paying sectors because they prefer them, or because employers discriminate against them? 

I don't know about you, but I don't know too many people in general who look at themselves and think, you know what I'm worth? Very little money.

There are more women in teaching and administrative work than men, and you know what, when asking many of them, they'd say they do enjoy the work. They are where they want to be. Great! Let's pay them more.

The women workforce also has a lot more part-time workers, which apparently messes up the average? They're working part time usually because they have a family at home, right? And daycare is incredibly expensive...more expensive than college.

And having families is something that people do, don't you know. And our society is still set up in such a way where the responsibility usually falls on the woman to care for the child, and if alternate care is used, the woman actually has to be making some money. However, since she only makes 77 cents to a man's dollar, she often saves money by not going to work.

Not to mention that we are constantly saying we need more women in science, yet to be in science you need a PhD and to get a PhD plus some experience, you need to not have kids until about your mid-30s.

In fact Freeman Dyson, the world-renowned mathematical physicist who helped found quantum electrodynamics thinks academia is bunk:

"I’m very proud of not having a Ph.D. I think the Ph.D. system is an abomination. It was invented as a system for educating German professors in the 19th century, and it works well under those conditions. It’s good for a very small number of people who are going to spend their lives being professors. But it has become now a kind of union card that you have to have in order to have a job, whether it’s being a professor or other things, and it’s quite inappropriate for that. It forces people to waste years and years of their lives sort of pretending to do research for which they’re not at all well-suited. In the end, they have this piece of paper which says they’re qualified, but it really doesn’t mean anything. The Ph.D. takes far too long and discourages women from becoming scientists, which I consider a great tragedy. So I have opposed it all my life without any success at all."

Question 2:

Do women stay home with the kids because of cultural norms, or because of the way parental leave policies are set up?
I don't understand this question. I mean, both? First of all, don't kid yourself, we don't have any  parental leave in this country so there is no "way it is set up" because it does not exist. Secondly, yeah, there are definitely cultural norms still in place that need to go away because they are annoying and they make people feel bad. Not to mention that they perpetuate stereotypes that women cannot hold positions of power because "they won't give as much to the company" or women "choose not to make as much" because they "chose to have children."

Okay, well, since we're the only ones who can have children, how about you help us out and not put us through those shitty choices.

The long and short of it is that women are still struggling to be seen as a serious force in the workplace because of outmoded ideas of family, cost of childcare, and doucheheads who think if a woman chose to birth a child, she decided she didn't want to work for a lot of money so she should shut up.

We need future people, right? And to get them to the adult stage, we need to feed them. And if we're going to feed them and teach them healthy things about the world, we deserve a livable wage for doing something we have been trained in.

And if a woman works as hard as a man in her profession, she should make as much money as he does. Period.

As my friend on Facebook said:


" If you are too much of a goddamn pithy simple-minded asshole to see the structural problem with putting a tax on working women of as much as $1000/month per child, there's nothing anyone can say to talk you to a place of reason.

I never want another person coming at me about the "personal choice" of mothers to take low-paying jobs who doesn't have a solution to this nightmare of a decision-making process we put women through."

Pay equity. Because we're effing worth it. And so are our kids.

 

You Don't Get to Tell Me Why I Do Things

Dear Jon from Babble who has a lot to say on feminism and selfies:

You are wrong.

Now, I know that, as someone with a penis, hearing that you are wrong will make you flare up with anger for a split second, before you catch yourself and laugh it off with bravado, telling yourself that someone who thinks you could possibly be wrong obviously doesn't know anything.

Oh, wait, I don't know that.

I don't know that because I don't know anything about you. And I certainly don't know anything about your penis, or how it would possibly play into your inner monologue. I also know nothing about your inner monologue.

Even though I have a husband, and a father, and am also full of rage, much, apparently like yourself.

As such, with my admitted lack of knowledge, I would not presume to tell you about how you would react to being wrong, or why you would react that way.


Can you do me the same favor?

Because, frankly, I am getting fed up with you people telling me what to do.

Now we'll skip the lazy argument here (man talking about feminism full stop) because I know several men who talk well about feminism, and go right to a similar, but not quite the same argument (man thinking he is using sound logic to tell women how to be better feminists). I cannot abide this.

Your whole argument is lost when you say: "The thrust of the 365 feminist selfie project attempts to destabilize traditionally restrictive notions of beauty to make room for all women in the Palace of Pretty."

That's not what the project is about for me. You don't get to tell me what a project I'm doing is about. I don't owe you this, but for me this project is a chronicle through picture of my achievements and struggles this year, as a person. It is about self-exploration, and documentation in a way I've never been free to do before. It has nothing to do with acceptance into your Pretty Palace.

Then you really nail your coffin together when you follow that ridiculous generalization up with this: "She might write a poem a day or learn about a new woman author every day. Maybe she could do a science experiment a day or plant a tree every day. Run a mile every day? Or maybe she could make it a point to seek out a sad looking girl every day and say something kind to her (NOT about her appearance)."

After attributing faulty reasoning to the project in which I am partaking (which you do not get to do), you further do not get to tell me that projects that you deem more important than physical beauty are better for my feminism.

And seriously, I dare you to go find a "sad-looking" girl and say something "kind" to her. You don't get to tell girls to cheer up. Neither do I. People, anyone, right now, should not be imposing their opinions on what "sad" is on poor random girls who are probably not even sad anyway. Talk about your narcissism. What makes you think anything a random person has to say to a woman he is guessing is sad would make any difference to her? You're not talking about a tangible thing here, like, someone is struggling with the groceries so you help them out, or someone's got a flat tire, so you lend them a jack. You're talking about an intangible assessment of a stranger's mental well-being.

Which basically sums up your whole piece in a microcosm example.

Other insulting things you have said include this gem: "I see your need to redefine beauty and raise you one need to question the female defined by her appearance. Women can be more than how they look and deserve to be. Step away from the cameras. Seek new ways to appear. As you explore new adjectives through which to be defined, you will emerge as more complicated nouns than pretty ones. This is perhaps the direction toward a feminism beyond beauty."

I pretty much can't even stand you right now, so I'm going to hand this one off to Raeven Zayas, a woman in my closed FB group for the #365feministselfie project. (It's closed, you see, because it's not for you, or the public, or anyone. It is for us.)

Rae aptly points out your weak attempt at generalizing to an entire population with your sample set of, um, two. Here's a huge clue for you, Jon, women are not the same. We are not a neatly categorizable group. I am sorry for your loss.

Okay, she says,

"Never mind that some of us are in Grad school, and some of us are parents, and some of us are both, and some of us are neither, and some of us have fancy jobs, and some of us are tough as nails, and some of us could get a blood stain out of a white satin wedding dress, and some of us can train a horse, and some of us have survived cancer, and some of us use our pasts and our traumas to help each other, and some of us can push a baby out of us under the water at our house with no pain medication, and some of us have awesome dreads, and some of us do amazing makeup, and some of us can make a giant cake with a Magic Mike style dancer that pops out of it, and some of us are recovering addicts, and some of us have made a huge connection to other women through this project that has indeed been empowering, and some of us have realized that perhaps we aren't alone in our own insecurities, and some of us have helped one another embrace and love those insecurities, and some of us have learned beautiful things about each other that do not, in fact, have much to do with our physical appearance and our ability to Get a man."

Oh, did I forget to quote you on that part? Hold on, here it is: "What if the seemingly natural, and cunning, desire of women to be physically beautiful — to either be included in the culture’s definition of beauty OR to alter the culture’s definition of beauty to include them — all stemmed from the basic desire to attract (uh-oh) a man?"

Yes, we are so cunning. We are so cunning in fact, that we think taking pictures of ourselves will prove to men that there is room for everybody in the Pretty Palace. Also, lesbians don't exist in your world of seemingly academic ponderings. Good to know.

Are you even listening to yourself?

Rae continues:

"This isn't his movement, it's ours. And if he really wants the truth, I do this for my daughter. All feminism has ever been about for me is my daughter. As a mother who has a little girl that I still get to watch grow up and find her own empowerment and struggle against harsh societal standards of beauty and will spend every day judging herself as harshly as I did about the way she looks, this absofuckinglutely is about my kid. And she will be amazing, and funny, and kind, and intelligent, and generous, and understanding, and compassionate, and driven, and stubborn, and fuck him if he thinks I don't want her to feel beautiful, too."

And there you have it. Two different women with two different motivations for doing the same project, and both of us feeling empowered because of it.

Should we do another one? Let's do another one. This is from Rebecca:

"For me, taking these pics, and being involved in this project is more about creating a supportive community, one where women can be vulnerable and honest about who they are and their daily lives (struggles and successes). For me, it has very little to do with physical beauty."

I ask you, dear sir, why does our feeling of empowerment and community force you to action?

Don't react with a hasty defense, you said. Think about it, you said.

I did think about it, even though I didn't have to.

Because you do not get to tell me what to do. You do not get to tell me why I do things.

You do not get to tell me what to do.

Also, your scholar jargon makes you sound like a douche. And I'm a scholar, so I know about that one.





   

There's Only One Rule for Being a Human in 2014

I'm not big on lists of rules. In fact, since I errantly read "The Rules" when I was a young teenager, I've pretty much hated them with a passion. This year's list is no exception.

So, before I get into it with the "24 Rules of a Lady" or whatever they are, here's my list for how to be a human, and it's a list only for me (but if you like, you can adopt it).

1. Don't make lists of rules for people who are not you.

Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's dissect this lady-list, shall we?

1. Master at least one dish that you can whip up on relatively short notice, for when you’re having people over and don’t want to be like, “There’s a box of stale Wheat Thins left if you want to fight over those.”

Okay...um, check?

2. Hold doors for everyone, especially older people or people carrying heavy things.

Yeah, I do that. I'm actually perpetually holding doors because my kids walk at .0000000000001 miles an hour, and I get to the door about 30 minutes before them, and then hold it open the whole time.

So far, I'm two for two.

3. Make plans with friends you haven’t seen in a while, and actually follow through with them. (This includes not scheduling things on a morning when you know you’re going to be too hungover to go anywhere.)

Okay, here's my first fail. But I'll try to pencil you in between the library and losing my damn mind, okay?

4. If one of your friends is a little too drunk to handle herself at the bar/club/house party, do the right thing and remain sober-ish enough to properly babysit and facilitate her trip home.

If one of my friends is a little too drunk to handle herself, it will be long after I left at 10 p.m. to pay off the babysitter and actually make my kids go to sleep.

5. Do not assign moral value to food items, on your own plate or anyone else’s. A mozzarella stick is a mozzarella stick, and nothing more.

Sorry, but these Doritos are evil. Just look at them. Sitting there. Being evil. I can judge them, you see, because they aren't people.

6. When another woman compliments your cute bag/shoes/dress and asks you where it’s from, it is your moral obligation to tell you where you got it — especially if it was on sale. Thou shalt not withold (sic) the deals.

It's from Walmart. The white band though only comes from wearing it for a year with no rest. Good luck achieving that kind of class.

7. When taking a boy shopping, always make sure there is at least a comfy place for him to sit if you’re going to be trying on more than one outfit (and you know that you likely are, even if you state otherwise upon entering the store).

Clearly, you don't know me (or all women) at all. I haven't tried anything on in a store in five years. Also, what's a boy? A boy? Really? (I mean, below, you tell us we're not 19 anymore, so...)

8. Always give someone the chance to make up for it if they’ve hurt your feelings, and the best way to start that process off is giving them the dignity of telling them how they hurt you. Ladies don’t subtweet, they earnestly reach out on Gchat.

I use a phone, but you know, I also don't tell people how to run their grudges, their boundaries and their lives.

9. Be happy for friends when they announce big life moments, such as engagement or pregnancy, if only on the surface. (Exceptions of course being made for situations that are seriously unhealthy or endangering.) When it comes time for your big moment, you’ll want the same kind of support.

Oh, look! I'm back on the lady list! Huzzah! But I guarantee you, I'm happy for all my friends all the way through. There is no surface-happiness here.

10. Have at least one outfit in the closet for job interview, one for first date, and one for going home to see family (yours or someone else’s). The amount of headaches that can be spared by simply having a versatile blazer and pencil skirt at one’s disposal are incalculable.

Job interview, first date, and home to see family. Bam. One tidy package. (I'm beginning to think this list isn't for moms. But did you know that moms can be ladies, too? Shocking.)

11. Never disparage another woman for choosing and embracing the domestic/housewive (sic)/stay-at-home-mom life.

Yes, all this could, too, be yours!

12. Never disparage another woman for choosing a really demanding career instead of family life, if that’s what she wants.

Why does this one have a "if that's what she wants" tacked on the end of it, but housewifery gets a free implication pass?

13. Keep a small bar in your apartment with the basics to make a few classic, tasty drinks for a small variety of tastes. There is a time and a place for having only a bottle of Mad Dog and some Boone’s in your cupboards, and that time is 19 years old.

Oh, so, so classy over here. I really enjoy the juxtaposition against the kids' artwork and pictures. Anyway, ask me how many "classic, tasty drinks" I make. The answer would be all of them. Ain't nothin' tastier than a shot from the bottle, amirite? Have I lost my lady pass yet?

14. Learn the worlds of options there are between “orthopedically (sic) criminal high heels” and “computer programmer running shoes.” Find something stylish that also works for your life and tastes.

Okay, first, I look fabulous in both and I can walk in both. So, what are you saying up there? Also, I got them off shoedazzle and ebay, respectively (since you're all about the deals, and I feel the need to prove to you that I haven't tried anything on in the better part of a decade.) And finally, may I direct you to your own number 15? Because, damn.

15. Never base your feminism in telling other women what makes them a “good” or “bad” feminist. Being a good, compassionate person should be your only criteria, and wearing makeup or liking Sex and the City should not be an issue.

See above.

16. Keep fresh-cut flowers in your house.

Yeehaw! Back on the lady train! (Hey, you didn't say how often to change those flowers, dude, and we've only got money for fresh ones once every two weeks. They're fab. Like me.)

17. Be a good hostess — learn how to make people feel comfortable and welcome in your house, and leave feeling like they got to be themselves.

Spoken as if it's that easy. Have you ever met an introvert? You can't just have a rule like this and not tell anyone how to do it.

18. Stop looking at marriage as the defining endeavor in a woman’s life, no matter how much it has been ingrained into you. It should neither be something you actively disdain, nor something you seek out with white-knuckled deadlines.

Have you read #15, though? Just wondering.

19. While you are not obligated to like any other woman strictly on the basis of being a woman, and there are certain things that are totally fair criticisms, her weight is never one of them.

Oh, hey, I run a website about this.

20. Do not consume media which you know, before you even see it, is going to make you feel badly about yourself. If you watched the VS Fashion Show and spent the whole time liveblogging about how ugly and inadequate it made you feel, do not give it your mental health next year. It doesn’t deserve it.

BUT HAVE YOU READ NUMBER FIFTEEN YET? Let people do what they want, Jeebus.

21. Always have a backup plan.

Yeah, otherwise this could happen. Oh, did you mean in general? Because that's pretty general.

22. Give other women compliments when they are sincere and non-selfish, because girl-on-girl compliments are the greatest thing and the mark of a true lady.

I mean, what's a selfish, insincere compliment, anyway? Are you listening to yourself?

23. Do not hold gender-based expectations about who is “supposed” to pay for things. Everyone contribute, everyone do what they can, everyone take pleasure in being the one who gets to treat the other sometimes.

I thought this was a list for 2014. I didn't realize we were back in 1987.

24. Be the one to kiss first sometimes, and don’t ever think that makes you weird or too forward. First kisses are too great a joy not to be shared by all genders.

Oh good. I'm glad you said something. Now I have the confidence I need to kiss first. Here's me, kissing your list of ridiculous rules goodbye.




 

One Size Fits Some - Contributor Post

Today, I'm lucky enough to have an important topic discussed by Pollychromatic. When it comes to defining women based on their experiences...perhaps we shouldn't. She says it better than I ever could in this piece.

...

Kelly Rose Pflug-Back wrote this piece that appeared on The Feminist Wire. Then it appeared on Huffpo. Then it appeared within my social media.

Then I went crazy.

So here’s where I present my creds, right? Here’s where I state that I’m part of the estimated one out of every four women who have been sexually assaulted. And yes, it’s true. Multiple times, in multiple ways, and with multiple accompanying levels of other trauma that were inflicted at the same time.

It’s also true that that does not define me. Nor does it define my sexuality. Nor does it define my ability to have a healthy sexuality. And frankly, I’m kind of getting sick of this presumption that it does, or that it should. Or that there’s something wrong about me if it doesn’t.

The assumption that all women should be treated as victims of sexual assault, or even that all women who have been victimized by sexual assault want to be labeled as victims of sexual assault forever and ever is a pretty big assumption.

It’s not all of me, and it seems part and parcel of the kyriarchal worldview that the actions of those in oppressive power positions leave no option for those who aren’t in those power positions to be nothing else but receiving vessels of the oppression. As I said angrily after reading this article, I am more than the sculpture that was left behind after the wax and mold of the assaults have been removed. I resent the implication that it was a molding act at all for me. I don’t resent it if it was such to someone else, but for me, I resent it.

Culturally we do not expect a man who has been held up at gunpoint and robbed to feel defined by that forever. Nor do we expect them to always live in fear. Or to always need to be approached with caution. Or expect them to want to be called victims of gun violence forever. Yet we do so with women who have lived through sexual assault. We expect them to feel broken. To feel as though all sex is suspect. To have flashbacks if touched wrong, perhaps, and then we give them the title sexual assault survivor forever.

That doesn’t really work for everyone. It certainly doesn’t work for me. I don’t want to be treated with kid gloves like I am a wounded creature ready to bolt at the first sign of a trigger warning. There’s a level of condescension in the assumption that you know how I feel that is pretty intolerable for me.

I caution that I do not feel it is wrong to feel any of these large spectrum of things, from the man who was held up at gunpoint having flashbacks to the woman (or man, because hey, it happens to men too) who was sexually assaulted to feel however they feel about it.

Maybe instead of assuming that there is one right way to behave, we treat people as the individuals we all are. There definitely is a universality in the spectrum that is the human existence, and common experiences often tie us together, but our actions and reactions are so much larger than a simple narrative gives room for. Let’s start actually asking people how they feel and how they want to be treated, and give room for any answer to be acceptable, even if it doesn’t fall within what we can personally do. There’s a few billion people on this planet. We don’t need everybody to treat everybody like lovers, best friends, family, co-workers, or even acquaintances. There’s this concept of boundaries within psychology wherein we expect different levels of deference and awareness from different people. Boundaries are often some of the first things to blur when we start having any sort of trauma or tough time, mentally. This is sort of my plea to get back to some level of them.

If we are coming to a place of acceptance that beauty is a spectrum, can we also come to a place of acceptance that sexuality is a spectrum, and that also the sexuality and psyche of those who have lived through sexual assault is also a spectrum?

If the point of feminism is to open the door of possible expressions of human existence, rather than closing them, should we not also leave this door open?



 

The 7 Most Horrifying Things in McCall's (Sept. 1949) - Guest Post

Amber over at Miss Parayim stumbled across an old stack of McCall's Magazine the other week. What's resulted is...horrifying. Thanks, Amber! (The "story" is my favorite.)

Last weekend, I found myself in an antique store, and came across a stack of old McCall’s magazines from 1949.  I had completely forgotten that this magazine even existed, and since I wasn’t interested in sewing when they stopped publishing it over 10 years ago I never connected the dots between the magazine and the pattern company.

I decided to buy one, and thought it would be fun to peruse the pages of what your average housewife would read for funsies 64 years ago.

My how times have changed.  THANK GOD!

First off, that iconic ad image of the 1950′s woman that has become almost a cliche at this point- the huge bright smile, wide eyes, giant full skirt- it must have started sometime in the 40′s because this thing was so full of that it was almost unreal.  I had a few “is this real life?” moments because while I knew that character must have been used, for whatever reason I didn’t expect to see it on almost every page.  It was very surreal.

Also- there are NO makeup ads, but if you take a modern women’s magazine, and replace every makeup ad with an ad for deodorant, you’ll have a sense of how weirdly prevalent those types of ads were.  Apparently late 1940′s/early 1950′s women were naturally gorgeous, but they smelled REALLY bad (or, at least, that’s what advertisers wanted them to believe).  Kind of makes you wonder about the things they advertise in those magazines today.

As I flipped through the pages of brightly smiling, malodorous women, I became more and more glad I am in my 30′s today, not 60 years ago.  Because as beautiful and fun as some of those outfits were, there’s a lot from back then that I have absolutely no desire to remake as “vintage modern”.

Presenting….  The 7 most awful and horrifying things I saw in the September 1949 McCalls (or- why I feel sorry for my grandmothers)

#1  Crisco- it’s digestable!

Let’s start off with an easy one. This was early in the magazine, and is the sort of whimsical and humorous tag line we like to expect. Digestible! How quaint!

#2 Green food coloring = instant pistachio!

Yeah…. I don’t buy it. And I’m starting to doubt the image of the mid-century housewife that was an amazing homemaker and cook that they would even suggest such a thing.

#3 You’re a bad mom if you don’t buy our product!

Gee- thanks for the guilt trip, McCalls. Not only do I not have any oil-o-sol in my medicine cabinet, I had never heard of it until now. Consider my children, unloved :(

#4- You can never be too clean!

Can you read the subheading? This is number ELEVEN in a series. I don’t want to know how long that series was. This article was several pages long :(

#5 You are getting sleepy….

This article was about 6 pages long, and “Cook it for him good” was splattered across every page in large font. One page even had it twice. Brainwashing by repetition? It is my womanly duty, after all…

#6 I’m not even going to try to make this one entertaining. It’s that awful.

Think twice before you tell the man “make yourself at home” I can’t even put into words… The man is actually the “hero” of this story. That girl is supposed to be 11 years old. I only skimmed the story, and what’s implied by this picture doesn’t happen (which kind of makes it even worse that they would dream this up to lure in readers). The gist of the story is- man gets invited to dinner at his high-school girlfriend’s house. He is completely disgusted by how unkempt the place is (there are crumbs on the kitchen counter!). He says some borderline inappropriate things to the daughter. Later the mom propositions him, but can’t decide if he can be with someone that keeps such a filthy house (crumbs!!! on the counter!!!!) . He later decides to call the mom and take her up on the offer, and she pretends he dialed the wrong number. The whole thing was just weird, and the mediocre housekeeping seemed like the real point of the story. Or maybe that unclean houses are magnets for pedophiles? I thought this might be something of a Lolita rip off since the mom in that book was kind of a slob, but that wasn’t published until 1955. Maybe this was just an ongoing theme until that book defined it. Whatever it is, it’s gross on several levels.

#7 The woman today is as bright as a toilet

Bright? You’re right! That goes for the lady- and the toilet bowl too!

Really, McCall’s?  REALLY?  Let’s compare our readers to a toilet!  That’s a great idea!
This is the one that really infuriates me.  This is 1949.  Only a few years ago, the women that were reading this magazine were keeping calm and carrying on.  They were making do and mending.  They were planting victory gardens to feed their family, and hoarding their rations so they could be lucky enough to buy one of those brand new sewing machines that you charmingly advertise in this magazine!
They were Rosie the Riveter, and you just made a buck on an advertiser that compared them to a toilet!?  REALLY???

Fucking hell, it sucked to be a woman back then….

 

Slice of Life - Rings

In honor of my five-year wedding anniversary last week, I asked people to post pictures of their rings (any rings!) that they were wearing right then. And the results? Amazing. Here are the rings people from all over the world were wearing on the Friday afternoon of August 16th, 2013:

Tiffany Hunter wears rings on both hands! In her first spot, she's got her gorgeous wedding ring.

Sascha Fernandez's college ring is full of history and legend.

Sandi Yu sports a gorgeous three-stoned ring.

Melissa Elfers goes traditional and beautiful.

Liz Hawksworth goes for a spellbinding stone.

Lauren Kerr's ring looks like its in the glossy pages of a magazine. Well done, Lawrence.

Two in a row from my hometown! Jolene Bauckman shows off the prettiest set.

Jen Mayer wears dice and wedding rings!

Jepeczenka Svadakovic's ring is an art deco meteorite ring. Read that again. Seriously. Coolest.

Gina Storozuk never takes hers off.

I love Emily Santanella's set. This is what I would want.

Cassandra Gill's ring is a present from her birth mother, hand crafted by her stepfather.

Never a dull moment with Anne Theriault.

Alyssa Lord, y'all. Bam.

Alex Nguyen's displays beautiful design work.

Alicia Helyer's ring is super sleek and classy.

Amanda Lewin with a kickass thumb piece.

Angie Birney - beautiful and classic.

Blair Celli with the ring her wife gave her on her wedding day. Aww.

Cheryl Russel, who's been married 15 years, now!

Alison Gayton with a wedding ring and her grandmother's ring.

Amber Ashgardens shows up because she does what I tell her to do. LOL

Angie Pugh with an absolutely stunning and unique ring.

Carrie Masters prefers a sapphire, and with good reason--it's gorg.

This is mine.  I love it,

Donnelle Belanger-Taylor with such a beautiful set.

Emma Wade with a classic.

Erin Newton with some tasteful pizzazz!

Greg Elfers, who proposed to his wife just steps away from where his dad proposed to his mom--unknowingly, too!

Janel Copeland is sleek and smooth.

Jennifer Kappert's is just perfect.

Jennifer Upton with a wowser!

Joan Harris and her husband. Breathtaking.

Joella Striebel doesn't have an engagement ring...because she proposed to him! Take that, gender norms.

Judith Hunter. BOOM.

Kylie and Jared Rogers. For lyfe.

Leanna Minch, who has to be careful those pointy edges don't get her baby!

Lisa Cuellar. I love this one.

Maryanne Luther's fits together just perfectly.

Myra Menchaca's is forever.

Moira Parker has worn this one from her boyfriend, Rob, for ten years now.

Raina Sadi rarely wears this ring...because she also has a ring tattoo!

Sarah Stanford's glorious classic cut and set.

Sarah Tormey's beautifully patterned band.

Tanya Noreen's expresses her personality perfectly!

Told you she'd be back! Tiffany Hunter wears this gorgeous mother's ring on her right hand.

Tobi Wolf with an amazing accented set.

And last, but certainly not least, Tracey Baker Birch stands out, too.

I really love these segments, guys. They are so incredibly interesting and beautiful. Thank you for sharing your hands, your rings and your stories with me.