I hadn't intended to post anything about the whole "Open Source Boob Project" thing that so many of my friendslisters have been talking about cause, honestly, y'all have way stronger opinions on the subject than I do. On both sides. And I don't know - I can imagine a kinder, more utopian form of sexuality where people were simply curious about touching (which is how I read the thing when I first saw it, and how I'd still like to imagine it), but I also realize that people can get way out of hand with the public skeevitude without the aid of a regulated invitation to groping... especially at cons. Which are, oh, by the way, places where women often really really really hope to get away from that physical-appearance-and-sexual-availability-defines-us crap. Alas, geekitude does not guarantee a safe, grunch-free, space. Note the massive "milady, blahblahblahblahblah" comeons at Pennsic, ferinstance. And the Boob Project? It doesn't help that the dude who posted it comes of as King Skeeve in other posts. Or that, you know, they're "boobs" all jeering middleschooler style.

But. Whatever perspective one may have on free-touching passes in public spaces, I think it's safe to say that interpreting participation in such a 'project' as self-victimization and an invitation to sexual assault is RANK BULLSHIT. It isn't the only "don't walk alone at night" style post I've seen on the subject, but it & its comments are by far the worst. There's some nice sexism with a hint of classism and racism in a variety of the other counter-projects, too.

It disturbs me greatly how much wrong shit surfaces when we start to talk about sex and sexism.

Last week I voted for Clinton. Which I did, honestly, because both she and Obama are decent candidates on many issues I care about, enough that they were essentially even in my mind. And she's female.

And someone turned her likeness into a nutcracker figurine. You know, her thighs crack nuts.
And people who don't like her often do so for the bumbling, inarticulate reason that "she's a cunt".
And every damned person in the country likes to call her by her first name and all the dudes by their last ones.
And because I live in the state of Virginia, and have never even voted in a county where a woman's name was on the ballot.
And because, when talking about her leadership ability, someone invariably brings up that she either does or does not "stand by her man" as they believe she should or shouldn't.
And because Shakesville can list 62 citations of sexist talk about Clinton in the last six months.

I understand not wanting a specific woman to be president because she has political views with which you disagree. But "BECAUSE SHE'S A CUNT"? Seriously? That's just stupid. I worry, given the overt and depressing sexism that people and the media are directing and targeting at Clinton that Obama, when he wins the Democrats' nomination, will face just the same thing - but less overt, cause I just don't see even conservative pundits getting by calling him a "porch monkey" the way they do with calling her a "she devil". Is this country backwards enough that we still can't really handle the concept of a woman (or a black man) in charge?

Some dude called my decision "sexist". Emotional, it may be. But sexism isn't just making choices based on gender, idiot: it's systematic. There are 86 women in the US Congress (out of the 425 total, in case that number isn't at the front of your mind). And 62 ways Clinton is a fulcrum for this country's sexism. Damn straight in an even-to-me contest, I'll pick the candidate who gets excoriated for looking like me.

And she has a fucking last name, okay?

Owning and wearing dozens of pairs of shoes is a compelling way for a woman to announce that she is strong and independent, and can shoe herself without the help of a man. She's saying, 'Look out, male-dominated world, here comes me and my shoes.'

That's right, I can shoe myself, dammit! I love the Onion. Though I do wish they'd have their fake interviewees use less jarring grammar.

Bellies are beautiful. [not all photos are work safe]

Here's the deal. I'm helping sheana out with some graphic ideas for fatgirlriot. Which is a community/blog/politics site.

And I have this idea. I've gotten more literal about community in design equaling actually showing your community. Thus, say, the reworking of TTE's website driven entirely by photos of the actual tribe and students.

So yeah. I'd like pictures of fat - as defined by you, fat person in or making the picture - feminists [I'm gonna assume that despite the girl in the site's title, that a relatively un-gendered design is still preferable, so consider your personal gender to be included when I say "feminists", got it?]. Ideally doing something marchy, or rioty, or art-making or fist-raising or active in some way. I think if I can get enough images they're gonna be like, spilling out of something. Should these be photos? Art? I have no clue. I tend to get graphic ideas in a vague, intangible way, and I don't know what to do with them until I have the pieces to play with.

Right? So you'll send me pieces to play with, right? Give me visual toys!

You realise, of course, that if you send me stuff, you're letting the future fgr use it on the site and any associated promo.

It's the Roe v. Wade anniversary today. And we? Still can have abortions. *

So, that should be a good enough reason to get up this morning. Thanks to all of you who are out defending clinics and funding abortions today.


* unless we're poor. or live in south dakota. or most rural areas. some restrictions may apply.

There's an interesting discussion (mostly in its veering into Rosie O'Donnell's racist comments) on fatshionista about Rosie O'Donnell and Donald Trump being asshats to each other.

The thing that particularly strikes me is O'Donnell saying He wounded millions of women by saying that I was fat, you know? Celebrities make really awful fat empowerment icons. Cause they say things like that - calling me fat is wounding me? The hell? Trying to diminish my arguments (which in this case sure seem pretty small anyhow) with attacks on my Otherness certainly makes you a sizeist, heterosexist shit, and I definitely see the contribution of public comments that reduce a person to their Otherness as contributing to the Fuckedupitude. But. I have a hard time perceiving the word fat as a wound, which I think is what she meant.

Anyhow. Worth reading.

So, I'm home sick (I keep insisting in my mind that I'm not sick, but then sneezing incessantly and acting kinda wobbly and cranky), and I'm watching West Wing 6. And there are things in Faith Based Initiative that I think somone must have been trying to offend humorless feminist hags with. Like, within the first 2 minutes, we have Josh & Toby calling a temp "this girl" and the camera pointedly watching CJ put on lipstick. Cause, you know, that obviously means she's still a girl despite the whole chief of staff thing and the allegations of lesbianness.

Hee. It's like there was a bet that someone couldn't get angry feminists to call in at the same time as the pissed-off "pro-marriage" people.

Whenever I say something about the whole "women are supposed to be pretty and valued for their bodies" thing, at least one person has to respond in all positive, sweet & loving intent...

"Don't worry! You are pretty!"

Gah. Okay, I admit I am. Shut up, okay? That is almost never my point. I mean that we need to stop valuing women so much as pretty physical objects - versus all our other fine qualities, for which men are often valued more (not that they aren't also evaluated on appearance; it's just not as central). And, in fact, the need to reassure me of my value attractiveness kinda proves the point, doesn't it?

Also, when people insist on reassuring me that I'm pretty when that's not what I'm talking about, I assume that they also kinda mean I'm not - since they jump so quickly to that assumption.

Ahem. So, really, what I mean is never tell a feminist she's pretty. We're all such sourpusses and incapable of lightening up, you know. I know cause people on Big Fat Blog told me so. Not that I'm bitter or anything.

Guardian takes on that stupid Forbes article about women who have careers. (from cavlec; it's a fun read)

Also, Feministe on the traffic generated by 'lifestyle' (er, crap) reporting by Forbes.com.

In case you missed it - Plan B approval for OTC use!

There's an interesting article up on Feministe about Kids (girls) and designer clothes in specific and beauty consumerism in general.

Articles like the one Feministe references always sorta bother me. You get people talking about how kids live, and so many of us become stupid.

I disagree with a lot of the comments people make about kids trying to act adult (like Oh, noes, they have Sidekicks and I never had such things and Aieee, the clothes are too sexxay) - those kinds of comments seem upset that kids are different from us-as-kids; they almost seem jealous, you know? They're not growing up too fast so much as they're growing up differently. Kids have always modeled adults, and I'd much rather see an eight year old having conversations just like mom's on her phone than watch her be "just like mom" making dinner and taking care of kids. I think feminism is directly and positively contributing to that change.

Not that Feministe doesn't have a point about introducing consumerism to kids early - I think that's a sign of how much most popular media are driven by the market, though. Kids want to buy stuff cause that's what we think adults want, too. I don't think it's any more appalling coming from a 4 year old than it is coming from me (and yes, I am appallingly stuff-driven at times); the problem isn't specific to kids - they're just imitating what they think adults do.

And of course people reporting on these changes in kids' behavior aren't saying "hey, check out the advances of feminism!" or questioning why we as a culture value stuff acquisition over, say, critical thought - no, they want to show either a) how cute or b) how spoilt kids are. They're neglecting to see children as individuals or even a force/trend/whatever.

A guy in an HVAC truck pulled up alongside me on my way home from work (where my favorite colleague & I sniped at each other earlier in the afternoon) and on my way to drum practice (where I not only sucked, but made other people think they sucked, too). He was a wee, smiling older fellow, and he leans out the window and says: I love your plates! then gives me this simultaneously cheesy and utterly sincere thumbs up.

Really! A thumbs up! For my feminist license plates.

Today was awesome. [Or well, it was, if I choose to focus on this one moment. Which I do.]

Have y'all noticed that I haven't been doing as much fat and gender blogging lately?

I mean, sure, I've been self-obsessed with the apartment hunting and work and my personal life, but it's still rare for me to go even a few days without talking much about size or sexism.

I think this is why: I'm entering (or maybe have already entered) a different phase in my relationship to fat. This occurred to me in the context of our dance troupe's many inherent politicizations - we are almost de facto fat, queer & disability advocates just because we're performers. I find myself lately thinking "I'm fat, so what?" when it's called out to me & not really identifying with Fat in the ways I'm accustomed to. In my head, I might even be living (temporarily, I imagine) in a world where fat isn't a signifier of anything other than, ya know, size. My glances in the mirror have been more about how I move and balance and while I still register people as fat and not-fat, it feels more like counting off men and women or blue-eyed vs. brown-eyed.

Interesting, neh? It's as if I'm managing, off and on, to think in the ways I've hoped people in general could think.

My political leanings have often gone this kind of path - not marching straight to victory, but winding through various spots as I integrate them into a worldview. It seems pretty common. Like, my early ZOMG I Don't Need A Scale days are analogous to the process of coming out - I'm sure most of you have been or known someone who went through a period of identifying say, Disney characters as queer and not-queer, right? - where suddenly all fat people were komrades. And there was a period when it made me really sadangry that so many fat people and feminists really weren't komrades. So this is something different.

I was catching up on the all-state bellydancer drama, and I came upon this: oh, wow, another article about Why Men Cheat. On the surface it's the usual women's mag fare, buuuuut it's also kinda cool, cause at the end a handful of experts weigh in, and they all say the same things: faithfulness and sexuality have little to do with gender, and sociobiology is silly. 

Alright, I translated their responses a bit, but that's what they meant. 

Hey, I haven't read a women's magazine in awhile! I wonder if they've all started having experts say smart things. Just like regular grocery stores started having organic food pop up in all sorts of crazy places.

In case you haven't heard, Betty Friedan died this weekend. Good journey, Ms. Friedan.

It seems like the year of all the famous second wavers kicking it. Sigh.

In honor of her passing, I went looking for a photo of myself dressed as the Feminine Mystique from a Halloween party a few years ago, but I can't find it.

Why do so many feminists misinterpret Robert Bly so often and so [seemingly] wilfully? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like theories.

I was happily reading bell hooks' All About Love in the car on Saturday when she swings off into this chapter about how the patriarchy makes women guide men in love & the men's movement prevents men from sharing emotion outside the safety of groups of men, and that Robert Bly never talks about love or cross-gender relationships.

*Sputter.*

Robert Bly! Doesn't talk about love! Or gender!

Ahem.

I realize that, as a feminist who's read most of what Bly wrote (including his poetry), I'm a bit of a freak. Most feminists have read, if anything, feminist critiques of Iron John, or at best the book itself (which is, though his most popular, also one of his weaker works). But even then. I mean, all the man talks about is how emotionality differs across gender - and while he never says the word "patriarchy", it is majorly, majorly implied.

Now, he does tend towards some annoying essentialist views of gender, but I think he's actually arguing the exact same point as hooks when he talks about post-feminist feminisation of men - which is that women can't define the new masculinity (whether in relation to love or otherwise), men have to, and men mostly didn't step up on that one. Thus, messed up concepts of masculinity.

Read that way (the right way, if you ask me) Bly is feminist critique of masculinity. And it really surprises me to read bell hooks, of all people, not getting that. They're such perfect visionary counterparts in so many ways.

If you'd like to be in on the Second Annual Ladies CD Swap, there's an important question you must answer...

Poll #531565
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: None

What's your address, Kenneth?

You know what we need, folks?

If you guessed "The Second Annual Ladies CD Swap partay", you're right! Have a cookie! [Or you know, whatever you'd rather have than a cookie. Think about Supersize Me and go get a cheeseburger!]

Yeah. While this is slightly complicated for me by the fact that my CD burner has just moved out of my house, I think it's that time again, ladies [and people of any gender who are down with the Second Annual Ladies CD Swap].

Here's the 411:
1. You pick a bunch of songs by women artists [or woman-dominated bands, or trans artists, or other artists who make sense to you] that you want to share with other rock-out feminists.
2. You put these songs on CDs.
3. I email you a list of addresses, and you send your CD to everyone on the list.

Last year it was all about the March. This year I challenge everyone to somehow connect that spirit of empowerment to something else on a lot of our minds: breakup music.

So, yeah. Who's in?

Some of you know this already, but some of you don't: I was interviewed for a feminist/size acceptance article in iris (a Charlottesville feminist mag) so many months ago I'd actually forgotten it. And now the issue's out.

It's funny to read it, because I was at a very specific point on my ideological path - shifting out of being Really Very Angry about fat women's fixation on the male gaze and feminist's tendency to talk about how you can be Too Fat and everyone needs to Try To Be Healthy (everyone's favorite euphemism for "diet, damn fatty"). And I was shifting into finding all these points of intersection quite fascinating, a fact that I state like 22 times in the exact same words in the article.

If you're local, you can see it at Plan 9. If you're regional, you can probably find it in independent/feministy bookstores. If you're neither, well... sucks to be you [assuming your definition of "sucking" involves not being able to read me babbling in a magazine].

I sound like a twelve year old, apparently talk! like I use exclamation points! all! the! time! and, in my opinion, come off way less articulate than everyone. But overall the issue and article are pretty good. And I'd rather seem dumb in a smart magazine than vice versa. Also, mad props to cavlec, who is mentioned by idea though not name in my interview.