[Miscellany]

Since I've purchased my own little slice of land (or rather, no land - all house) I've been subject to the rather strange phenomena on behalf of my female friends of the 'husband lend out'. In all things domesticated I have been offered a slightly worn 30-something to 'fix it' for me. I certainly haven't asked for it, complained about the lack of it in my own life or even secretly wished for it (okay maybe I have... they're just so damn handy around the house!) - even so, they have been offered seemingly out of nowhere.

The thing is, and this is what keeps me from taking up the offer... I'm doubting said handymen know anything about this deal at all. They're being lent out without prior consent. I got to thinking... Is this a normal occurrence? Do husbands/live in boyfriends and other strapping blokes wake up to lady friends randomly saying err..[insert male name here] I promised my best friend you'd go round and fix her leaking tap today. Hop to it! Is this something that happens often?

Girls, do you do this to your men? Does it happen via prior agreement? And do you accept the offer when it's laid on the table like that?

Guys, does it happen to you? What do you get hired out for? And do you resent it?

Labels: friends, ladies, lend out, men, musings, questions, what women want, wonderings

posted by M at 9:13 pm 19 comments

A couple of months ago when I wrote a post about the (lack of) visibility of the penis in contemporary mainstream cinema I never thought that it would be so soon between drinks (so to speak) and I could again be subjected to the same enjoyable spectacle. Yes folks, penis spotting is alive an well in the Sex and the City movie currently doing the rounds at the cinemas.

Funnily enough it wasn't really the penis itself that interested me this time, more that the so called traditional male gaze of the camera had been flipped and twisted for a second into an almost unheard of female gaze. It was a bit of a shock to me that I became so aware of the switch in the first place. I had just assumed that a movie about women and basically made for women would be filmed primarily with a female gaze - god knows the subject matter would probably bore any heterosexual man to a slow and painful death -but I assumed wrong. It seems that the female gaze remains as highly elusive in popular mainstream cinema as it ever was and I don't think this phenomenon is due to any kind of big conspiracy either - it just is that way, god knows why but it just is. The fact is that a female perspective in cinema may exist in so far as subject matter and characterisation is concerned but not in terms of cinematography. Does it even matter? I don't know - does it? Women look at women's bodies all the time - the difference is that while we will, can and do appreciate the female form this is not necessarily a sexually laden gaze - does the male gaze of the camera lens take this concept fully into consideration or is it just all knowing and omnipresent like God? It is all gazes, it is the only gaze, it is supreme and all accommodating? And if this is the case why did I get the shock of my life when I finally recognised the female camera gaze? Hm, why indeed?

The scene in question was the a shower scene where man-crazy Samantha pervs on her neighbour as he takes a naked outdoor shower (as you do in California apparently). The camera moves slowly and lovingly over the man's body, focusing on his heavily defined and muscular back and perfect bum and right down to his strong, tanned and not too hairy legs before it travels back up again to it's final destination - the money shot. If I ever needed a moment to tell me what women see when they are having a good perv that was it. I had become so accustomed to viewing cinema through the filter of the male gaze (camera) that I had to think twice in order to recognise my own. It felt foreign to see something filmed so entirely from the point of view of a woman that I completely disengaged from watching the movie. I remember thinking "oh, now that's interesting" - but it wasn't his body, it was the camera that I found interesting. Also the sudden representation of a female filter by which to watch a movie, one I had naively assumed I had always viewed movies with, was just so strange. The fact that I had just realised then just how strange it was unnerved me - the movie while being female-centric was filmed primarily in classic male gaze form. The point being of course not that this was done in order to exclude women, just the opposite the point is that we, women, are most comfortable in viewing cinema (all art?) in this way. The question of course then is why?

When I have theorised the male gaze of the camera in the past it is always with reference to old movies of the Hitchcockian era (and of course Laura Mulvey) where scopophilia really was a male dominated art form. I'd assumed due to various changes in movie subject matter, the rise of female directors and indeed the societal changes due to the women's movement that cinema had changed too. Ahem - perhaps not.

It's funny that it took *this* particular movie based on a series so obsessed with highlighting the *look we've come so far because now we can have sex like men* cliche, to drum the point home. We women are comfortable seeing ourselves through the point of view of how men see us - and perhaps this is highlighted in many of the female-centric things we partake in
(beauty myth etc) and I don't know that we'd even want to change that if we had the chance anyway. The question for me still is, why? I still can't answer it - it's ingrained there somewhere between why we will willingly pay for the pleasure of ripping the hair out of our most sensitive places and why GW Bush was ever re-elected. Questions I guess that answering will open a can of worms so big it can never be contained. Maybe we need that, I don't know but I do think it's highly fucked up that the so called female camera gaze existed for a grand total of 10 seconds in a movie based on women and made for women. Food for thought.

On another note, almost every (straight) guy I know loathes these women, the series, the whole premise of the show etc. Is it hated because it's subversive or because it's bullshit? I've said it before but when something is hated then it's always because a few buttons are in the process of being well and truly pushed.

What say you? Are there any movies you can recommend that show the female gaze in action? Remember female subject matter/characterisation do not necessarily mean a female gaze..

Sex and the City - do you hate it/them? Why?


And now my musical choice today comes of my female gaze quite happily looking through the filter of the male gaze. Go figure! Here we have the Duck Man performing probably my favourite of all songs I've ever discovered through watching a movie - Otis Redding's Try a Little Tenderness. A scene I love so much I shared it with my university film class as "a favourite" and a song I love so much I rang Gold FM to request it and was sternly told that "we don't play *that*". Hmph! Here are my two favourite things, movies and music combined. Okay, three favourites: Duckie.
...Apparently he has strong lips. Bless!

Try A Little Tenderness - Otis Redding.

Labels: bodies, cinema, dirty femmo, film theory, gaze, men, movies, musical monday, objectification, scopophilia, sex, women

posted by M at 9:36 pm 25 comments

* Working too hard - begrudgingly.
* Planning a trip OS.
* Bought self outrageously priced piece of self indulgent jewelery. No regrets.
* Bored with ...most things.
* Not sleeping very well.
* Watching too much crap reality tele.
* Wondering what is going on with all those people on the BB forums who hate Dixie just because she's not a size 6? Shouldn't we instead be hating on the people who hate people for such superficial reasons? We have our priorities about hate screwed up. I say we should hate the people that are dickheads instead.
* Got a pay raise - but I'm in the bracket that doesn't benefit very much (no, it's not an equal pay raise for teachers..). Still a raise is a raise. Someone in the staffroom remarked "yes, I can almost afford to go on maternity leave now". That about says it all.
* Found myself stuck in the city during the taxi strike a couple of weeks ago. Why don't they also warn people who DON'T listen to AM radio talk back about these things?
* Got caught in the middle of a Scientology protest in the city a few days ago. Honestly, what is going on the city these days? I wonder if word got back to Tom.
* Am becoming anti-social. Some of it is intentional. I just can't seem to make myself care all that much about others lately and some of it stems because I'm not really getting anything by way of caring and sharing back from the old friends either.
* Music isn't really helping me any but old episodes of Prisoner: Cell Block H are. Weird I know.
* Popped in to see #1. Stayed for an a couple of hours. She never once asked me about myself. She just talked about her baby - on and on and on. This supports that part of me that is being intentionally anti-social.
* Finding myself running into road blocks every which way I go. It's like the world is conspiring against me doing the things I really want to do.

Stupid wondering for the day:

Can men ever get TOO old for Hollywood?

Harrison Ford is doing a new Indiana Jones movie. Honestly, the man is one ill timed leap frog away from a hip replacement and magnetic bed underlay for the rest of his (steak puree for dinner) life. I don't get it. I loves me some Indiana Jones, don't you worry and I did squeal like a little girl when I heard they were making a new movie. I still crack out the old movies when I need a little pep up - they are genius. I DO happen have a gigantic crush on Harrison ford circa 1980s so maybe I don't want my dreams shattered but surely there must be a limit on his adventuresome days. A girl can't get a job in Hollywood as a 40+ year old except as "grandma" lest they repulse anyone too much, but 70 year old men are still kicking it Leisure Suit Larry style? I don't understand how this can be. It's not even like he looks so good for his age that he's fooling us into thinking he can pass for 40 or 50. Pappy has NOT aged THAT well! He looks all of his 350 years! I wonder if the movie is going to have lots of "I'm too old for this shit" type jokes.



Having said all that. Still looking forward to it!

Labels: cinema, crap reality tele, media, men, old, women, wonderings

posted by M at 9:21 pm 9 comments

There isn't a lot of full frontal male nudity around in mainstream movies is there?

The point was hammered home yesterday when I went to see Forgetting Sarah Marshall at the cinema. Yes, yes fine I realise it's not exactly high quality cinema but then again I don't have a stick up my arse about only watching movies that win at Sundance. Anyway, within the first 20 minutes or so there is a rather unassuming and flaccid CINEMASCOPE SIZED PENIS displayed for all to see. Hellooooooo sailor!

Perhaps the copious amounts of xxx porn I consume (What? Who said that?) has desensitized me to all penises -big and small- but I wasn't all that shocked to see it hanging there. In context, sure I realised that you don't usually pay your $15 bucks for penis and popcorn but overall it was pretty underwhelming. This view was not shared by the woman and man sitting behind me who clucked their tongues and she even said "oh my god, can you believe this?" and he replied with another disapproving click of the tongue.

Okay there are a couple of things going on here:

Firstly - Surely "from the makers of Knocked Up and 40 Year old Virgin" highlighted on the poster should have been a big giveaway that this wasn't going to be a deMille classic.

Secondly - I bet if a couple of enormous, plastic surgeried (made up word), blemish/scar free, perfectly airbrushed chesticles with nipples so erect that they could poke a man blind were presented on an actress of anorexic proportions who sported a bush that was expertly waxed to show a "landing strip" and little else then noone but the bible bashers from friggin Alabama would complain. Am I right? Ohhhh, but put a penis on screen for literally one second and everyone is clucking their tongues disapprovingly.

The hypocrisy kills me. I grew up seeing more boobs and bush on television than I saw green veggies on my dinner plate - penises simply don't get a gong on the tele. Why is it okay for the mainstream camera to linger on a naked woman's body like she's being stalked but a penis is rarely if ever shown in any context other than comedy or in a blink and you'll miss it sequence? Pretty much every building in the world is a homage to the brilliant architecture of the penis and every war that has ever been fought is a testament to the mighty power of those dick(head)s, every hotted up red sports car a metaphor for a man who wishes he had one and pretty much every man drunk off his man boobs figures he has the supreme privilege to flash it to anyone who has eyes - and yet penis on screen - oh no, we've gone too far now.

I can think of one type of cinema where lingering shots of the penis are displayed in their glory. Gay cinema. Maybe there's something in that. If gay cinema has the market on the penis then does that mean that mainstream cinema is hetero-sexist?

Is a penis really more offensive than a vulva? Or... Is it too sacred to be displayed in a manner where we can purchase it easily and without embarrassment on DVD like we can with the female body (take your pick of movie, there's millions)? Or can we boil all this down to rampant homophobia on the part of the consumers and studio system alike, thus: a fear of men watching other men's penises in a darkened cinema will turn all straight men gay?

What is it about the penis?

Labels: cinema, men, movies, objectification, penis, scopophilia, voyerism, women

posted by M at 9:18 am 15 comments

When I heard about Thomas Beatie, the transgendered man who is now pregnant, I didn't really even bat an eyelid. Well, maybe one eyelid..but it was only for a second. I probably have more of a problem with the traditional nuclear family than I do with gays, straights, transgendered people or even men giving birth. Why? Well, I figure that if you're about to go through hell or high water like that - with your every move under scrutiny - in order to have a baby, then that means you are really going to want one. People who really want babies are probably not going to end up mistreating them or using them in order to manipulate their partners. This is more than I can say for the love 'em and leave 'em scenario that seems to happen in too many so called traditional families. In any case - this Beatie baby (if it's even true) will be born into a nuclear family anyway - (mum and dad), so neh.

Out of all the hoopla surrounding the issue it was really this quote from Thomas Beatie that made me stop and think

“Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire but a human desire.”

And I realised that no one ever really talks about children as something that men desire. Sure you hear about men who 'one day want a family' etc but I'm not talking about in these general terms - I mean the real deal; the desperate urge to have one NOW. Women (of a certain age) are consistently made fun of for having a biological clock or for being what we call "clucky" - really wanting a child. Since procreating is ..well the ONLY way of keeping our species alive and thriving you'd think it'd be a female AND male urge to want children, and I'm pretty sure it is* but it's rarely discussed in such terms. It's usually discussed more in terms of women desperately wanting a baby and trapping the poor husband/guy into being a father. It's seen as something that happens *to them* rather than something they desperately desire.

I'd like to think it IS something they desire as much as we do but I have to admit I know a lot of girls who really want babies, but not so many men who do. Maybe the guys just don't talk about it all that much. Maybe it's a big myth created by the media..to perpetuate an image of the sturdy bloke who is tough and strong and without desires that tie him down. I don't know. If this is the case, surely it's as damaging to men as much as it is to women.

Why do you think that men are not ever thought of as "clucky"? Do they have a biological clock and if so just how loudly does it tick? If the option was available would they want to "go it alone" like women sometimes do? Do you know men who are clucky (I mean who really talk about wishing they had a baby and wanting to find a girl and have one, not in some distant future but NOW, right NOW)? If you are a guy, are you clucky now, or have you ever been?


* I realise not all men or WOMEN want babies.

Labels: babies, blokes, men, pressure, questions, what men want, what women want, women, wonderings

posted by M at 10:37 pm 24 comments

A few months ago I saw the Tarantino movie Death Proof and it got me thinking. For the record, I am a fan of his work - mostly for his brilliant use of quick dialogue but also for the blur that exists in his depicting a concrete era. I like the fact that Pulp Fiction is 50s influenced however also very much a contemporary look at the culture at the time. It's like all of his work, not quite retro, not quite a homage but very much flavourful of a genre or era without being overpowered by it. I also happen to think he has flawless taste in music and so, no matter the film I know that the soundtrack will be a killer.

I remember though when PF came out. Tarantino got a lot of flack for
a) language.
b) violence.
c) lack of strong female characters in his work.

Personally I think all three were bogus complaints all based in truth of course, but bogus nevertheless. I enjoyed the language and violence and if a man can't make a boy centered movie with a bit of grit then I don't want to know him. Yes, he uses excessive language and yes some of the scenes in all of his movies are disgusting. So what? Deal with it.

Tarantino was a smart cookie though, he saw how popular his character Mrs Mia Wallace (from PF) was among both ladies and gents that he addressed his lack of strong female leads quick smart and made one of the most kickarse lady movies ever - Kill Bill vol 1 and 2. Death Proof once again looks at female leads, however, he also adds in a strong male character to mix it up: Stuntman Mike.

The movie Death Proof has two parts within the movie - and this is going to be full of spoilers folks... The first part - three girls who think they are "badass" take to the road, visit a bar meet Stuntman Mike and end up dead. The second part - another group of girls, take to the road, visit a diner, meet Stuntman Mike and kick the shit out of him.

What was different? And just how did the second lot of girls outsmart and out kick Stuntman Mike? I mean, this guy had his sadist act down. He has a death proof car folks and he was not afraid to use it to kill women of his choosing.

Let's just have a little look see at wider society and women. One could argue in this era of post-feminism we have two kinds of women - women who don't take any shit and women who do. Of course, the reality is that there are many kinds of women, all individual - but this is a MOVIE guys, let's be serious - plus, we're looking at generalities here and in terms of a generality this would be right. Shit takers and shit givers. One could argue the same for men as well. People. People are shit takers or shit givers.

The shit takers in this movie would be seen in the first part of the movie. They are the hot, sexy girls who flirt with any man that moves. Why? Well just because they can folks, just because they can. For the record, no man complains about this fact. Who doesn't want a hot girl dressing sexy and flirting with them? Hell, did I mention they are hot? The guys are lining up to buy them drinks and the girls accept the drinks, give the boys a little sugar by way of kisses and flirting and then leave. Hell, that's their prerogative, girls don't have to put out if they don't want to do they? These girls in part one, in no uncertain terms know what they want. They are not stepford wives. They are not on a hunt for a husband. They are not gold diggers or any of that. They have careers and their own minds. This is very important to the plot because in no way are we to think of these girls as traditionally "weak".

Things for these girls seem pretty peachy. Everyone thinks they are a lovely, and they are. In the land of successful females they go very far. The thing is though, even though they seem so in control of their lives they are not. All men's interactions with these girls are only based on sex. The men buy drinks for them because they want sex. The girls promise lap dances for a certain password from men. In fact they are much more crude than the men in the film - they would see themselves as the type of women who are empowered by their sexuality. Watching the movie, you get that impression too. Their "careers" (or just the way they live their lives) are based around sex, or being sexy. Now, sex is a powerful tool and it has been theorised ad nauseum that sex is the most powerful tool that a woman can have in this world. I'm inclined to agree that it IS but I also happen to think that this SUCKS. It means that our options are quite limited if we want to be successful doesn't it? Here's what I think about these kinds of women: women who use sex to their advantage in dealings with men (by sex I mean flirting, being sexy to get what they want etc) are not the kind of women I like. I think they are selling all of us short and quite frankly demeaning themselves. HOWEVER, I do think that women who do use sex as power get very far. Mostly because our society rewards this kind of behaviour from women, rather than from men.

So why then do these women die if they have all the power? Well because like all people with only one source of power they are easy targets. These are the girls who are watched and while there is power in being 'beheld' there is absolutely no autonomy. All their power is based in sex and so when you take that away - ie: you're not interested in their sex then you render them completely powerless and useless. They don't matter any more. They are nothing. And Stuntman Mike, he's a sadist from way back, he doesn't care about the sex - only the cruelty that comes with exploiting that. They have no power when it comes to him and rightly so; they all die. Now you see why I think those girls who base all their power in sex sell the rest of us short. They don't really prosper in dire situations - and life itself is one dire situation after another really.

Enter part 2; 14 months after the part 1 girls have been brutally murdered by Stuntman Mike. Life has changed dramatically in this time. The opening shot, of a cheerleader makes you think that these are going to be yet another bunch of archetypal females that make male fantasies churn, and yet it is realised immediately that this is a big joke on us. These girls might be watched but they also do the looking, and the choosing. These girls are nothing like the ones that came before. It feels like one decade has gone by, socially speaking, rather than only a year. Enter our four main protagonists - again, all sexy/pretty girls who hang out in a male dominated world. They talk about their boyfriends, they talk about their jobs - but they pay their own way. These girls are lovely as well, but they just do their own thing. Their power is based somewhere outside the realm of sex, though it is apparent that they are not abstaining from sex, nor from men. They are just not concerned with flirting it up with randoms. Stuntman Mike notices them though and he's getting ready to kill again but something happens: The girls won't be bullied. He can't take away their sexual power by hating them, because their power isn't based in sex. They've got something different going on.
1) They stick together when it counts.
2) They make their own fun.
3) They are not afraid to get down and dirty.

This is extremely different from the girls in part 1. Both sets of girls have their own jobs and have lives and their own money. On the surface they are poster children for 'new woman' - but as always it's the inside that counts. The part two girls aren't basing their power in sex. They don't need their sexuality reaffirmed everywhere they go. And so, when Stuntman Mike approaches them, they aren't scared into a corner by him, nor are they titillated or charmed like the part 1 girls were. Sure the circumstances were different in part 2, but in the end the part 2 girls were not to be beaten down and killed. They got back on the horse and chased the man down and then beat him until he died. As in, with their bare hands. I have to make the distinction that they're not targeting normal everyday guys - they aren't the perpetrators of violence but they can turn it on when someone else starts it - I love that.

In the second part, the twist is that the girls win. Which comes as a surprise because actually no one expects that to happen - it's so rare in a movie of this sort (slasher/car movie - incidentally movies I grew up watching - especially car movies which I had major nightmares about). These women also stick together and this is an important point. When women base their power in sex then you can easily tear them apart - you don't even have to try. This is because when you have a group of women who all base their power in the reaffirmation of their sexuality and you add one man into the mix then that group of women will immediately begin tearing each other down in order to get to the man. I've seen it a million times before with girlfriends. In the case of the movie you have the part one girls arguing about whether to take the guys home with them, even though they all agreed not to. And you also have them exchange rivalries with each other over men. This isn't good when you're trying to make it out alive. The part two girls stick together and don't have any interest in being rivals at all. It's why they come out alive.

I guess what I'm saying is, and Tarantino touches on it to, that there are girls who look to men to reaffirm their sexuality and those girls are always going to be beaten down because not only does that not last forever but also there will always be people who will want to exploit that. Hell society exploits that all the time. It may be a HUGE power source to be perpetually sexy - but it's also one of the EASIEST to exploit and manipulate. A girl who is thought of only as a sum of body parts (only praised because she has a great arse or great legs or whatever it is that is admired at the time) is easily cut down into body parts when it comes down to it. She's never whole, she's just legs, or neck, or lips etc. That kind of blows. If a girl only has that going for her then she doesn't really have all that much at all and if that's all she's admired for then it says little about those doing the admiring. You see these kinds of girls everywhere, in life and in blog-land too funnily enough. Sometimes words are enough without pictures even. Everything comes back to sex - or rather to the odd comment or entry that screams; 'remember, I'm sexy!'. Couple that with being ultra competitive with other women and you have someone who is easily dismantled, humiliated and left alone without backup. Not a good position to be in when being hunted down (aka, life)

Girls, keep your girlfriends close and your interests varied. Girlfriends will back your shit up with the chips are down and if you're not afraid to smudge the mascara a bit then you can kick some major arse! Don't worry, you can always keep a makeup compact in your purse, for the touch up afterwards.

Should girls kick arses or are they better off just using sex to get what they want? Is not using sex too utopian for the society we live in - do women HAVE to use their sexuality to their advantage in order to get ahead, not just in work but in life, generally speaking?
How do men use their sexuality to get what THEY want - and why doesn't anyone ever call them on it?

Labels: dirty femmo, gender stuff, generalisations, hang it up daddy, men, movies, pop culture, women

posted by M at 1:22 am 24 comments

 # posted by M @ 1:22 am

A friend of mine recently met a man online through a popular dating website. She's very thrilled with him and indeed from what I hear so far he sounds like a really good person. Yay, for good people! High Five!

Anyway, since I am a ball breaker from way back I was asking my friend every question under the sun about their relationship and it soon came out that though they had been dating for a while now they had still not made the leap into the bedroom. I was surprised, not because it was such a long time to date without sleeping with each other, but because it was a long time for this girl in question.

She explained that due to a suggestion she heard on a popular daytime TV talk show headed by a powerful woman (you know the one) that it was worth her while to wait. By worth her while, she meant that it would have more chance of succeeding past a few weeks than not. My friend is a wonderful person; she's funny as fuck, she's lovely, smart, gorgeous, bubbly and positive and yet she never seems to last long with men. She's not one of these ultra picky women either - she's just your normal everyday kind of girl. She decided that she wanted to give the relationship a chance to develop before they slept together.

I totally applauded the move and she told me that although they were both frustrated as anything that they are both glad they have waited. They have gotten to know each other really well, they really like each other - really, they've discovered a connection beyond "dating", they've met each other's friends and families, are very open with the fact that they are "in a relationship" (again, rather than just dating) AND have discovered something about themselves which is really nice: That they are both gagging for it. Not just for *it*, but IT with EACH OTHER. They're not just horny you see. It's personal. Sounds pretty cool.

You know, I do think that people jump right into sex sometimes. I am no prude but I don't know many people who enjoy *that* feeling of anticipation anymore. Sure anticipation exists with anything, including buying a pair of shoes and wanting to wear them but I mean this is a real anticipation, one that consumes you totally and one that is coupled with something substantial behind it.

In any case, though he is more than thrilled with my friend - her boyfriend still hates Oprah, lol. He IS still a man, after all.

But what say you?
Is there merit in waiting?
How long is too long?
Guys - do you ever put the lid on it or does waiting depend on whether the girl wants to (ie: you're always good to go)?

(I just realised that all my closest friends who are married did not jump into sex with their husbands. They all waited a good deal longer than is customary in this day and age. I *do* have friends who have married their "one night stand" however, even upon examining that I realised that for those that did, they went back and dated them for a good while without sleeping together - even though obviously they HAD already slept together. Funny how that turned out).

Thinking music today courtesy of The Chemical Brothers. This song is awesome and definitely one I have on repeat (along with much of their back catalogue actually) a lot.

Hey Boy, Hey Girl - The Chemical Brothers

Labels: love or lust, men, musical monday, oprah can turn anything into a best seller, relationships, sex, what women want, women

posted by M at 7:45 pm 33 comments

I'm not even going to apologise for watching Oprah, but it IS the holidays folks. I've been an Oprah hater for many years, and so of course I watch her when I have the chance. Yes, I am a healthy and well adjusted person! Thanks for asking. Incidentally I'm under the impression that even O has pretty much just given up on the schmultzy TV she's producing. She's not even polite to people who have an opposing point of view these days. If Obama doesn't win that election I think she'll throw her hat in next time.

Anyway, today on Oprah was a doozy. Basically speaking it was about single women (and how many of us there are - again no distinction made between women who are thinking of marrying their cats and women who are in long term relationships with a man but just not married. Which in my view is a HUGE distinction).

It was yet another typical episode of O: Blonde white chicks wearing Laura Ashley classics giggling hopelessly and taking the prudish high ground while O raises her eyebrows and says "riiiiight". Black women talking sense and O laughing while falling sideways off her chair. Fun!

The bit that got my attention was when in the context of 'there are a lot of single women these days' O says:

Everybody's waiting for a certain cut of meat and that cut is NOT AVAILABLE!

Oprah

Personally I agree with Oprah (for the first time ever). I don't just think that only women do this though. Men are picky, picky, picky as hell these days. A lot of them are looking for 11s, or Jessica Alba (but like, thinner cause she's too fat). Likewise a lot of women are looking for Mr Macho but with secret sensitive side and the fashion sense of Armani meets Ksubi (but cooler). Why do we do this? My take on the matter is that unless you are an exact replica of Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie (WITH their bank balances) then you can't expect your mate to look like that or be as successful. The rest of us humans are going to have to make do with other humans, don't you think?

What do you think causes us to be so picky?
Is this new or an age old thing?
Have you ever been told you have unrealistic expectations?
Do you write people off because they don't immediately meet your criteria?
If so, are you going to stop?
Why?/Why not?

Labels: average guys don't get to judge women on their beauty, average women don't get to judge men on their salaries, men, relationships, what men don't see, what women want, women

posted by M at 1:31 pm 29 comments

Man #1: Funny thing about women. If you don't make big a pitch for them they get mad. If you do...they get mad. How can you win?

Man #2: You can't - they're not playing for the same stakes.

Where the Boys Are (1960).

I was watching this old 1960s classic about women, men sex and Fort Lauderdale during Spring Break. While the women grapple with whether they should or shouldn't..go all the way. The men are busy trying to convince them that there's only one option. After all cats it's the 1960s, what are we antiquated or something? Get with it!

The problem with all this perfectly outlined by the dialogue above is that men and women in 1960 aren't playing for the same stakes. The stakes being - virtue, love and marriage versus lust, fun and immediacy. Both wonderful in their own way - just very different. It makes for interesting viewing. The boys are trying to persuade the girls to give it up and the girls are trying to convince the boys to give up something too: their bachelorhood. It seems that they'll never quite get it together - either the boys need a little convincing or the girls do.

So a lot has changed, right?

Just a few short years later the sexual revolution was in full swing. Girls didn't have to wait for marriage in order to explore their sexuality anymore. Indeed, women were exploring a lot of things, including being the bread winner as well as cooking that bread and exploring for the first time a decision about the bun in the oven .

One didn't have to get married anymore to do anything they wanted, but that didn't mean that people didn't get married young. It still happened. In fact most women I know from that era DID get married, very very young - this is despite their "options".

Nowadays girls give it up big time and some even proclaim (and personally I hate this saying) that they can "have sex like a man". Waiting to get married until after one fulfills their personal dreams is something that happens more often. In fact every single woman I know who has gotten married in the last..oh say 20 years (since I started noticing that people actually got married) has had not only a career but earning on par or beyond their husbands. Yes things have certainly changed since 1960.

You'd think though, that things had changed so much that marriage would have been made redundant. Certainly one doesn't "need" to get married like one did in the old days. However, marriage is vibrantly alive. The truth of the matter is that people are still running down the isle, one, two even three times isn't uncommon. Just because we're breaking up more often hasn't actually affected the marriage game. Let's not forget that those who decide not to make it legal are still engaging in married like behaviour - making a home, having children, monogamy - defacto. While the cost of a ring has been spared, in the eyes of the law these people are as good as married, so the point still stands. Marriage is not dead. Far from it.

Has the concept of men being trapped by marriage (by women) changed though? Surely, since remember we don't *have* to get married anymore but you know what? No, it hasn't. If men needed to be convinced back in the 60s then they still have to be convinced now.

Has the concept of the fallen woman versus the healthy bachelor changed? Well, yes and no. Men who sleep around are still thought of as playboys which hasn't changed much since the 60s. Women who sleep around certainly aren't considered fallen anymore. However, there is a rather nasty stigma attached to women who decide to have frequent sexual liaisons with numerous men - and indeed women who specifically decide not to turn the sex into a relationship.

So things in that regard have changed in some ways but not in all ways.

The stakes you'd think would be evened out. But at the core of it all there's still that old struggle between wanting to get married versus (and we all know one) - the commitment-phobe. And there's still the struggle in cultural opinion of the slut versus the bachelor.

It's been 48 years since the 1960s dawned and in 48 years of enormous social, political and technological change. We have all the earmarks of change happening around us ... but when it comes down to the big things what has actually changed? I keep coming up with nothing significant except ...underwear. Women's underwear has definitely changed.

Labels: dirty femmo, gender stuff, men, movies, pop culture, women

posted by M at 10:12 pm 19 comments

Maybe I'm too Australian (and too much of a dirty femmo) to really ever understand but there's something I just don't get about Halloween: What the fuck is up with all these girls dressing up like skanks? Slutty kitten, Slutty nun, slutty playboy bunny, Slutty zombie, Skanky McFishnets and a short slutty skirt, Slutty librarian, Slutty vampiress etc.

This is what I understand about Halloween as provided to me in info from American movies and blogs.
1) kids go trick or treating
2) men dressing up as something gross or funny
3) Normal women by day find the biggest cliche of a skank they can in pop culture or otherwise and then use the excuse of Halloween to 'go to town' on that cliche or worse turn something that has nothing to do with sexy into something completely sexy (sexy zombie)
4) Booze.

I am reminded of that scene in Mean Girls when Lohan turns up at her first Halloween party as ...a scary bride of Frankenstein - but quickly realises that girls don't dress up as something scary on Halloween even though one SHOULD (because that's what it's about, duh) - they go as sluts instead. Am I nuffy for finding this more than mildly disturbing? Girls can't even go the 'scary holiday' without being sexy.

Becuase we don't celebrate Halloween here I can't even look at people I know and evaluate whether they have self esteem issues in order to be doing this (though one could argue that most girls do have self esteem issues). Perhaps it's a cultural thing - girls do this because girls "should be" sexy and men are "allowed" to be funny and goofy instead.

Since I am more of a funny and goofy kind of girl, it confuses and irritates me to know that I'm breaking some kind of weird unspoken gender rule by being funny and quirky or a big dag instead of being Jessica Rabbit. Especially since I'm just being myself. News flash kids, I don't wake up sexy. News flash kids, most women don't.

I find it sort of weird that girls are always "supposed" to be sexy in order to be found attractive by men when really ask any girl how she feels when she's on her period or after a long day at work, or during her lunch break or while completing any kind of menial task, or cleaning up her child's vomit, or scrubbing the toilet, or cooking dinner not for a dinner party but for a family filled with cranky or crying kids - does she feel sexy? Um I'd bank on no. How often does one do those everyday things I ask? Well about 99% (made up stat) of one's day is taken up with shitty menial tasks so I'm guessing that most of any person's day is not dedicated to feeling sexy - it's just dedicated to bloody well not killing someone before lunchtime! How does the image of that everyday 'normal' woman compare with this weird sort of "always available" image of woman that permeates our subconscious and culture and indeed how does that fit with the skanky slut dress up on Halloween?

I understand it's sexy, it's fun, men like it - and women want to impress men. But seriously, why is it all I ever read and see about Halloween is the skanky outfit for women?

Girls please get some creativity.
Go as Jan Brady for once. Get some head gear on.
Or how about an ACTUAL Catholic school girl. Total goody goodie with pimples, a hairy upper lip (a la "Superstar")?

Are girls allowed to be funny, or is skanky our only choice?

Labels: dirty femmo, gender stuff, halloween, men, skanks, women

posted by M at 12:27 am 41 comments

* Do married people/coupled up people still masturbate even if they are having sex regularly? I'm not talking about the kind of masturbation that involves your partner, voyeur fantasties or whatever it is that categorises the act as a couples activity. I mean the real kind of masturbation the kind that says - this is all about me, alone.

* Does anyone seriously not masturbate or are they just lying when they say they don't EVER?

* It's generally thought that girls use vibrators or some other form of masturbatory aide in order to 'get there' but do men use "stuff" like that too? If so, what? I mean is that apple pie thing for real or will a hand do?

* Do vaginal orgasms depend on the partner or on the person themselves? It's been theorised that many (most, in fact) women have a difficult time achieving vaginal orgasm - more than we'd like to admit. Is this because their partners aren't doing the right things or because of some sort of physiological problem?

* Is any man out there absolutely certain that their partner/s have never faked it? Never? Really? Are you sure? How are you sure?

* Do men ever fake it? And if so..how the hell does THAT work?

*edit: when doing it do you have a fantasy, a visual or literal something, or just go for it without either - purely physical?

Contrary to popular belief, personally I'm not huge on the gadgets at all.

This post was bought to you by one too many vodka gimlets and weird thoughts on a Saturday night.

Labels: men, sex, solo, women

posted by M at 12:24 pm 37 comments

I didn't post a Musical Monday last week. It was a busy time at school, I was exhausted and most importantly I couldn't think of how I wanted to phrase my post. I still can't to tell you the truth, but I won't let that stop me this week. This is a long one.

Last week, I posted an entry about the child model Maddison Gabriel and mused about the fashion industry using someone who is not a woman to represent women on the catwalk. Obviously, I was pissed about it, with good reason I think. Then I finished up that post with a Tori Amos suggestion that those girls like Britney Spears, girls who had lost their way, bare crotch girls who behave badly, need a mother. I've been thinking a lot about this lately. By lately, I mean, my whole adult life.

The Maddion Gabriel thing from a week or so ago highlighted to me one thing with absolute certainty and that is that: the status quo does. Not. Work. For. Women. and anyone who thinks it does is completely berko. It doesn't work in the first world and it doesn't work in the 3rd world. I shouldn't have to spell out why it doesn't work but in case you need it have a look at violence on the streets, sex, religion, fashion, education, corporation, politics and capitalism for a taste of that why. I don't even think it works for men either, to tell you the truth - but if we're going to compare (and yes we are) then well, you're not seeing 12 year old boys being sexualised by the media. You wouldn't see men standing for that either - which is an important point. Us girls, in terms of media representation and politics allow ourselves to be degraded - and then some of us actively take part in that degradation. That's why you have someone like Maddison Gabriel saying that it's all she ever wanted to do. That old gem: "It's my choice".

People get confused a bit about the difference between women's choice and women making the only choice they can in a situation that is not quite the best. I get confused because some choices seem really dumb, also some choices are applauded and some are not. For instance, musically speaking why is it accepted and applauded for a woman to wear a skimpy bikini in a soft porn video clip while allowing some fat pig of a producer to write their songs for them and market them to young girls and horny boys in a way that has nothing to do with music at all. Whereas it's not quite the same for a curvaceous, outspoken lesbian woman to write her own lyrics that are political and demonstrative. The first will have a lot of success because she fits into the accepted role of female as valued by both men and women - the other will struggle both musically and socially. Which choice would you make, the easy road or the high (and harder) road? Taking the easy road propagates the myth - taking the high road changes things but ultimately means that you might be ostricised. Some choices are easier to make than others and some choices are made for those who don't have the guts to stand up and fight against them.

When I quoted that Tori Amos little ditty about Britney needing a mother, I wasn't really thinking about the tennis club attending, SUV driving (quick, key it!), latte drinking, hot MILFS of the Eastern suburbs. I was thinking about women paying attention to who we are, and where we have come from rather than what society wants us to be. We are rather important to the human race, us little ladies but unfortunately the story changed with Adam and Eve and we're all a bit lost now I fear, it's not just Britney. The story that women came of the rib is fiction, we never came of the rib, instead women carry BOTH male and female within us and so, perhaps rather than Adam's rib producing Eve it is actually Eve that produces Adam and in fact all of humanity. Not just a one trick pony mind you - it's happening right now somewhere. I'm of course talking about the Earth and universe itself which produces all (and personified by woman or mother) and which was once worshiped in its own right favoured only much, much later for another deity: God (personified by man or father).

I'm not going to turn this into religious bashing because this is purely social commentary but the point is - civilisations are built and ruined on the back of a story but stories change, the way we live now - our politics, our degradation or choices or whatever, is due basically to a fundamental shift away from the way we viewed those stories back then not because we are living in the way it should be or because it is the natural order of all things. Things change - the way of the world is not ever absolute. I'm saying this to make a rather pertinent point about stories (both his and hers) here - not to point fingers. We both have our stories and us women just happened to forget ours.

This is why when you have someone a little bit different making a big ruckus about the way things are and how they should change then you just have to listen because it's apparent that the way things are has only worked for so long because us girls have accepted it, owned it and are now producing it ourselves.

I truly think that the most effective form of control is not overt but that which has the consent of whom you're controlling. I mean, it's harder to control those that kick and scream and bite and are willing to die just to get away from that control than it is to control one who not only agrees but comes up with their own punishment.

Why then, do women partake in it? Is it because we're making the best of a bad situation? Is it because we've forgotten where we come from? Your guess is as good as mine.

But back to music. I wanted to go back to that idea of woman in skimpy bikini in a soft porn video clip singing songs that aren't her own versus a woman with an opinion and a musical instrument. One sells more than the other. One is loved more by men. One is revered more - but it's not because of her music. If Meatloaf sang that Umbrella song by Rhianna then he'd be laughed off stage - career over (okay it's already over). But the song is a hit, so obviously something is not adding up here! The song is not a hit because the song is fantastic, alas the song is the most annoying, overplayed piece of garbage I've heard in a long time. If a serious artist sang it while wearing jeans and boots and who didn't shave their pits and then gave an interview talking about gender politics then it wouldn't be a hit at all.

So what exactly is the function of these sexy women in music? It's not the music. It's the sex - and why indeed isn't the sex the same for male artists then? While JT might dance up a storm and [insert boy band here] might make the girls scream there isn't quite the same level of porn factor going on as is done with women in music. Men are sexy but the level of degradation isn't the same - not by a long shot and I won't hear one word that says otherwise. I've got nothing against sexing it up, but then again I think that there are a lot of things that are sexy apart from the greased up plastic boobs of the video clips of today. I'd like to "bring sexy back" in terms of musical ability or being able to convey emotion, or being outspoken or funny or strong and talented or something like that. I'd like to see sexy happen in a way that isn't about women doing whatever they are doing right now on video clips on Saturday morning on channel 10. That stuff, it's not only bullshit but it's harmful to our self image and we've had a long time of it and now it's time for everyone to realise that all of us being outraged by Maddison Gabriel being so young and being a model and sexy video clips on Saturday morning television are actually related. The culture is ripe for Maddison Gabriel type "stuff" - haven't you ever wondered about why?

So what do we do girls (and for anyone who cares about us)? Do you say something and risk being ostracised or do you just let it happen and partake in it? Or, do we find little avenues in the way we live now to carve new ways into the future?

Speaking of avenues in the way things are now. A few weeks ago while watching Australian Idol one of the contestants sang the song that I'm about to play for MM today. It's a great song. I mean GREAT! It's not quite Idol though. It's too confronting for idol - it was performed originally by a woman who weighs over 200 pounds, says what she thinks, is a lesbian and rather non-conformist and totally sexy. Obviously, Beth Ditto not going to make it big in today's mainstream Umbrella type musical climate. Obviously *that* particular Idol contestant was voted out the next week - not because of the context of the song and not because of Beth Ditto, I'd doubt that anyone even knows her, but because that performance itself was very different... It wasn't a great performance, granted - but it was just too different for Idol anyway. And that's the point - you can see how choices are sometimes made for us. If that contestant had performed a more conventional, sexier routine she might still be there this week, closer to her musical dream - but then I might not have heard the song. Funny how things like choices and control work.

Before I play the song I have to finish with this. Something that is actually at the core of all my beliefs in gender politics - men are women ..perhaps we should never, ever look at gender as a form of labeling - the world would be a far better place if we recognised that everyone is individual, no one is better than any other, everyone is scared, everyone is looking for a way to make their lives better, to love, to live or just to survive. Everyone is the same and different at the same time. A much better way to live - if only, huh?

The world unfortunately is drawn in gender lines no matter how you view it and there are still inequalities that need to be addressed and by God (or Adam's rib) I will have my say as should you, whether you agree or not.

So, on that and closer to the song. I came across a quote by Beth Ditto, lead vocalist for The Gossip on gender and difference.

"Women aren't cats, we aren't pets, we are just people trying to cross the freaking street to get an ice-cream cone."

I like it. Basically we're really not so different are we? Maybe the way we are viewed should be addressed now (instead of swept under that oh so reductive 'but it's their choice' statement you hear so often) so that girls who are still children now have a bit of a chance to realise that these badly behaved girls and soft porn video clip stars are actually not really what we want to be. Or are they? Our choice? Quite - let's make better ones.

Standing in the Way of control - The Gossip
(a song about Gay rights actually, but it works for most situations I think).

Labels: choices, denial, dirty femmo, femininity, gender stuff, media, men, musical monday, pop culture, women

posted by M at 1:00 pm 16 comments

Dinner with the girls the other night took a turn towards the dark side when everyone started ganging up on E about her overly flirtatious and utterly inappropriate friendship with a male co-worker of hers. It's become a hot topic of conversation - hotter since she got married, that is. I've written about them a few times...

It turns out that for her recent birthday Male co-worker gifted E a bottle of perfume, guaranteed to turn him on. The problem was, that by "him" he actually meant himself and not "him" the ever loving husband. She told hubby about the gift (hubby, is actually fully aware of this friendship, it's not a secret) and hubby said that she wasn't allowed to wear it. She told the girls and I (rather drunkenly) blurted "well we don't want to smell it either! Chuck it away". I'm not one to beat around the bush. As it turns out E has found herself in a group of girlfriends who all think that flirting outside the confines of marriage is a punishable offense. Lucky for her husband, unlucky for her - we are all leaning on his side, in terms of sympathy. L argued that she would be having 'words' if her husband decided to carry on as E had done. I said that I would feel so incredibly sad about it if it was my husband. C said that they have an agreement that since her husband doesn't take his own wife out for coffee then there's no way that he's going anywhere with any other girl. Ez just said that if she received a bottle of perfume from another man then her husband would pay that man a little visit. I asked bro, who simply said that he wouldn't stand that kind of shit from someone he loved.

E insists that the male co-worker's motives are purely in fun *cough* and argued that she's allowed to have friends, surely - and besides (the real crux of the issue) she doesn't really know how to tell him to back off without ruining this so called friendship. Personally I think a friendship means being supportive rather than undermining your friend's life, but anyway. She insists that hubby is fine with the friendship (she insisted this while looking the other way). I insist that hubby is only "fine with it" because has found himself in a situation where if he tells E who to be friends with there will be hell to pay - so he says nothing. Hubby does not like male co-worker, this much we know. Amusingly E discovered that hubby had a facebook request from an old flame which not only did she veto but is still upset about. E recognises the utter hypocirsy of her situation.

While I doubt anything physical has ever actually transpired between them - it still doesn't make the situation less inappropriate. There's a lot of manipulation going on on the part of 'the friend' and a lot of emotional elation going on with E, who is pretty flattered by other male attention she's getting.

If your significant other flirted with a co-worker of the opposite sex to the point where propositions are made regularly (and then laughed off) and then a personal gift is given which implies a sexual innuendo would you be okay with it? Does it have to turn physical for it to be wrong?

Where does one draw the line between "just friends" and "...uh oh" when it comes to having friendship with members of the opposite sex outside that relationship?

Can (straight) men and women ever be just friends, especially when the "sex is already out there"?

Labels: friends, men, relationships, the When Harry Met Sally conundrum, women

posted by M at 11:49 am 32 comments

* So the libs are scratching their heads re: opposition leader K-Rudd being more popular than ever after admitting that he visited the strippers 4 years ago. IMO it's not the fact that he visited the strippers that has made him popular but because he actually was matter of fact and didn't try to lie his way out of it. A politician that admits he was a bit of a "goose"? Sounds good to me - at least we agree on something.

Big surprise I'm sure but I'm not a fan of men who visit strip joints regularly. Yes, yes I accept that 99% of men have been to a strip club - wow. It's when they only keep change in 5 dollar notes and refer to their ladies by name and or go you know..cause it's Tuesday that it's a problem. Bucks night? Okay, fine. Tuesday? Um no, you suck.

Having said that I don't understand why any kind of business meeting takes place in a strip club. Why even try to make it official? Why not just say - hey, after work let's all go watch strippers hump a pole!! YEAAAHHHH *high five* - why the whole ruse about business? Is it about keeping female employees out of any position above secretary? Obviously any chick they invite along to the strip club for business they're doing so in order to intimidate, and harass. I never hear of female "business" taking place inside a male strip club. I don't get it.

But I digress, what is it about politicians pretending they've never done anything wrong - never smoked pot, never downed more than a light beer, never looked at a porno? Come the fuck on, we already think the libs are a bunch of disgusting freaks that need to be neutered before they spread their genes further than necessary (what? Is this opinion wrong?) - as if admitting they're human is going to make matters worse? I say they'd made more friends and influence people if they actually looked like they breathe the same oxygen as the rest of us.

* Prin approached me to let me know that the ex art teacher was coming back to the school and that she wasn't fussed about going back into the classroom herself. Prin told me first because she wanted the choice to be mine. I don't know what to do. In the last two years (about two of you were reading this when I made the original decision to go into the AR in the first place) I've learned that I'm much more capable than I ever imagined. I've gone from classroom management to dealing with distributors, stockists, creating and running my own program, balancing a budget, taking on a multitude of extra roles and also created a very different and dynamic art curriculum that is talked about both inside and outside the school (I get approached by people I don't even know who want to talk about it). Anyway, in terms of the role itself I've never felt more loved and indeed never felt like I've contributed more.

On the other hand I've felt very lonely and frustrated in this role too. Some days, like today I get to my 5th class of doing the same lesson over again and I just want to scream and cry. The staff meetings don't always relate to me and I don't always feel like the work I'm doing is important - this is despite kids coming up to me saying that they want to be an artist now - or parents telling me that their child has never enjoyed art so much. sigh.. I just don't know.

I like the autonomy that the art role affords me but at the same time I miss being part of a team. I hate the idea of having changed the whole program ie: creating an awesome place in the art room with new state of the art equipment (not to mention the media stuff) and then having someone else come in and reap the benefits of that, but at the same time I know I can't sustain this kind of pace forever. If I went back to the classroom I know that I would go back to feeling like my ideas weren't always being taken into consideration and that I'd be playing second fiddle again. I also know that there would be competition between myself and other teachers - especially going back to the level I want to teach at - where the teachers tend to market themselves and I absolutely LOATHE doing. And parents..god they can be horrible to classroom teachers. Then again - I love teaching in the classroom. I love the variety and indeed seeing how children learn and make really important learning steps. I like getting to know them as people rather than as kids I see one hour a week.

What am I going to do?

* I'm also trying to make a choice between two new camera lenses - for personal use. Every retailer I have spoken to says the same thing - it's a coin flip but it depends on what you want to do with it

Honey, I want to do it all.

And this is my problem overall, wouldn't you say?

Labels: art, choices, men, political musings, school, stressed teachers, tarot spread, women

posted by M at 7:13 pm 11 comments

sonnet cxxx

My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

I've been thinking a lot about this sonnet by Shakespeare and of how beauty does not create love but that the opposite is true - love creates beauty. I truly believe that for both men and women. It's part of our complexity as humans that we don't see things as they really are all of the time. Then I had a conversation with my friend about post baby bodies and had no idea what to think.

F was saying that due to a number of factors her post baby her boobs aren't as big as what they once were. She and a similar post-breastfeeding friend of hers were wondering about having a boob job to you know..fill up again. I was dumbfounded by why someone who is absolutely angelic looking and in the prime of her life would want to have such a procedure done.

I'm going to go right ahead and make an explosive comment: Do women really hate themselves THAT much?

I know that women are the masters of their own bodies yadda yadda yadda and that if a boob job is actually going to make a woman feel better about herself then what's it anyone's business but her own? I have one word for that: propaganda!

I want to know WHY altering something that is already completely normal makes a woman supposedly feel better in the first place? It's not like an overwhelming amount of women are going into surgery to remove a third breast or something - it's usually to make something that is normal look totally generic. Why is it such a good thing for a women to look generic and why god help me I'm going to kick someone right now, do women totally buy into it? Are we completely and utterly SPAZZTICATED?

Women have boobs and they all happen to be different because duh, we women are all different. Women who have breast implants for themselves have really got to ask themselves why, if they want to do something for THEMSELVES they would want that particular something to look the same as everyone elses something? Where are these messages coming from that would cause women to think that our normal functional boobs are somehow inadequate? Why would we tell that to ourselves? Why aren't we up in arms saying 'fuck you!' about this? Furthermore the scores of women who actually say they're doing it for themselves but survey men on what MEN find attractive about boobs have totally lost me. Let me get this straight you need their opinion because you're ...doing it for...yourself? Riiight.

You want to see something a bunch of women did for THEMSELVES? These women here (click link) accepted that their breasts were completely fantastic because they were actually THEIRS. This is not a work safe site and shows normal breasts that are not pornified (made up word). I encourage you to read the submissions that the women have made about their own breasts and I encourage you to read the visitor comments at the bottom on the page too.

Surely we realise that a man who picks a woman over how perfect her breasts are is a complete moron who we don't really want anywhere near our reproductive organs in the first place. Right? I'm sure they're rapt if their lady friend has really nice ta-tas, don't get me wrong I get that much about men, but for normal penis sporting men in search of a relationship - this is not actually a factor in deciding whether they like you or not, right? If anything men are more contrary and fickle than not when it comes to the subject. They tell the small chested girl that more than a handful is a waste anyway (I hate that saying btw) and the ample bosomed girl that they love big ones. Why do they do this? Well 1) they don't want their arses kicked, 2) it's like my friend said: "the only real boobs are the ones I get to touch". Amen brother.

Basically breast implants are just a big bag of poison (okay, okay foreign matter) inserted into someone's chest. If by some grace of god you don't develop the big C from them then surely you've read the stats on how MOST implants go hard because having foreign material in your body causes your body to start attacking itself and to build a shell around the implant. Not to mention that MANY women have to go back and have them replaced anyway - if you don't your breasts will be deformed. Also it's no big secret that many of them leak and rupture or deflate.

Pro-boob job sites/articles always interview women who have had breast surgery within the last 1-5ish years. It's not to say that all post 5 year implants produce suffering but you rarely hear the success story even 10 years down the track. You hear a lot of 'I wish I never did that' 10 years later actually. I've read studies that show 1/3 of women who have surgery have two ruptured implants (or deflation or something like that) - and up to 67% have ONE implant that has ruptured and needs to be replaced. That shit is fucked up. Don't you think it's fucked up?

Anyway, I was lying in bed the other morning thinking about my friend F and her already lovely boobs and lovely life. I was thinking about her being successful in her career and how she already has the man of her dreams and a gorgeous child I just couldn't figure it out. I ultimately came to this conclusion - no women is ever beautiful enough because all beauty that is held up in consumerist society - by both men and women - is unattainable (I mean it's airbrushed for fucks sake of course it's unattainable). If no women is ever beautiful enough then she will always be vulnerable to feeling inadequate - enter boob job. Women who are totally immune to this either have a strong sense of self and trust completely that they are loved for who they are on the inside or ...I don't know, live alternative lifestyles on the fringe of society rather than the mainstream (?).

Then over the radio came the news that blew both the "doing it for themselves" and "men love all boobs because duh, they're boobs" theory out the window for me.

Zoo Magazine has a competition running, in case you hadn't heard. Male readers get to win fake implants for their girlfriend. Well, FOR their girlfriend... to UNDERGO surgery that is. Could you EVER imagine Cosmo or Cleo Magazine offering women the chance to get their boyfriend penis enlargement surgery? Could you even imagine a woman subscribing to this on behalf of her man? I really can't.

What say you - boob jobs; women empowering themselves or women duped into thinking that they are empowering themselves? What part do men and Zoo have to play in all this anyway? And with my musical Monday in mind - are all women threatened by Jolene and images of women who are perfect?

And now to a song that I only recently grew to appreciate and to a singer whose chest doesn't play even a part in what I think of her music. Funny how that works eh?

Jolene - Dolly Parton



Honorable mention to The White Stripes whom have done a BRILLIANT cover of this song.

Jolene (under the Blackpool lights) - The White Stripes




[I just need to clarify here that I'm not talking about post breast cancer mastectomy augmentation or any medical procedure to do with boobs like back problems or inverted nipples etc]

[I also know women who have had boob jobs who love them, I don't doubt that women love their fake boobs - you'd better love them after spending 10,000 on them, I just wonder why we have to have them in the first place!]

Labels: boobs, men, pop culture, pressure, rant, what men don't see, what women want, why, women, wonderings

posted by M at 1:47 pm 23 comments

I hate haggling.

You'd think that ANYONE would hate bargaining for a price but as it turns out there are some wack jobs out there that actually get off on the to and fro that goes with haggling. I truly doubt the thrill in haggling has anything to do with 'beating the system' (even if you happen to manage to haggle down 50% it's still no skin off anyone's nose) it's purely about the chase that really gets people fired up.

My dad, for instance, was one of those wack jobs who loved doing it. I remember getting my very first tape deck - it was pink with white buttons. It was not a quick process. First, we went to the store and I saw my pink marshmallow and fell in love immediately. I exclaimed "that's the one" and immediately imagined myself putting my Madonna tape right in there and dancing around. My dad brought the guy over and started arguing over the price "too expensive" I remember him saying - "if you don't give us a good deal we're going somewhere else". My visions of dancing to Madonnna while worshiping my pink marshmallow tape deck were slowly dribbling into nothingness. No, I didn't want to go elsewhere for some other, obviously inferior tape deck. I wanted this very perfect one and I wanted it right now. The guy did that annoying thing that salesmen often do - you know the thing "my hands are tied. This is rock bottom". We walked out. I started pouting (okay I think I kicked someone). The guy followed us - okay, ohkaaaay... he'd take off a tenner. My dad was happy - he then mangaged to bargain extra deals for paying with cash and, of course - free batteries (for like, my street jiving).

You know that whole process I just described? Nothing about it appeals to me (except owning the pink tape deck). If I want something, I want it now. I don't want to dance around shrugging shoulders, pretending not to care, walking out, only to walk back in - putting on a sob story, acting tough then nice then tough again. It's pointless to me and wastes my time - I hate getting upset because I know the prices have been jacked up. I'd much rather the prices not be corrupt in the first place so I don't have to worry about it and I can just focus on the product itself instead. Furthermore running around in circles just so I can get 20 bucks off the price of a 2 thousand dollar piece of new electronic equipment that'll be out of warranty sooner than later is something I consider very demeaning. It's also boring - because I know it's a formality that people engage in and indeed that sales people are ready for (they're trained to deflect and appease). I don't want to haggle and struggle through a goddamn process! What kind of a person loves processes over the real deal? I want to get to the good stuff thanks. Leave all that other shit at the door. I know it's why I struggle with the process of 'dating' and men as well as buying a house. I want real, not fake. The game sucks.

If I want to buy something, anything - whether it's a clue an idea or a product I want to walk in, get it settled and walk out again. You know when there are two people flirting like crazy while everyone else is forced to vomit into their baseball caps as they watch the love fest? Well I'm the person that yells "oh for fucks sake get a ROOM". Yeah, that's me.

So with this in mind you can imagine just how frustrated I've been lately - while trying to organise a very costly media related purchase for the school. I'm gathering quotes (which is fine) and comparing quotes (again, fine) but then noticing discrepancies between quotes and having to go back and haggle the price down in a "we're giving you the business now it's your turn to come to the table" kind of way. It's annoying. I'm crossed between a decision that will hopefully bring on the "best" - but the best what I cannot answer. The best price only benefits the finance department and I'm not one for finances. The best equipment is great but it's only great if I utilise it in the best way possible and quite frankly maybe I can't do that with what/who I'm working with. The best outcome might be different for me than what it is for any of the people I'm dealing with, including my own staff who have their own ideas of what 'the best' is. I'm making one decision that will affect a lot of other processes - processes that quite frankly have less to do with me than I ever intended.

After much initial research I've been left to decide between two main contenders - doing a dance with both that is laden with ulterior motives. We all flirt and act coy and carefree with one another but underneath we're in it for ourselves. It's a serious business, very serious - this haggling. In the end I don't know if any of us will win. One will get dumped. One school will get the best price and one company will get business - the controlling factions come out okay, the process wins..

And what of me and him and the other him? We're just the cogs that keep the wheel turning so that it's nicely oiled for the next lot that get on the ride. I don't know if I even want to keep the process going. It's crappy and I want no part of something that's crappy - surely there is an easier way for everyone to get what they want - or at least for everyone to know where they stand? Surely there is something more...real underneath the bullshit that usually goes on.

I mean, aren't we real..us humans? I'm getting all worked up about a decision that is not going to do anything for my soul - and by soul I mean that part of me that is real and without pretension. All this haggling - who benefits anyway? Certainly not the part of me that loves life, that's for sure. So I make the best monetary decision - big fucking deal - what do all those material things mean in the scheme of life, death, love and humanity? I don't just mean money either.

As it goes, I took a step towards putting a nail in the process in my own small way. I put the prices and deals aside, yes I did, and looked at the people I was dealing with. I googled them both - one of them does work for charity - as a personal thing and though he's not the best in terms of a business decision he might just be the better person.
...and maybe that should be enough for anyone.

Labels: analogy, choices, decision and indecision, men, school, women, wonderings

posted by M at 10:14 pm 14 comments

It's almost midnight and I'm sitting in a comfy booth in Brunetti's eavesdropping on the conversation to my right. A group of about seven 20 somethings are huddled around a too small table and speaking animatedly and loudly - which is pretty indicative of the vibe here anyway. I remember the golden rule of Brunetti's: always circle for a table before you order, otherwise you might find yourself with a coffee but nowhere to sit or a table built for two but awkwardly accommodating 7.

Their conversation is indicative of university life. Going out on a weeknight, what lecturers they hate and what late assignments they still have to think up an excuse for. I find myself both wanting to be a part of their world and yet also happy that I'm not. My companion comes back with a selection of cakes and two cups of steaming coffee. I grab the cup with both hands and bring it up to my cheek, feeling the warmth there.

We're discussing a movie we'd both seen recently: The Last Kiss: L'Ultimo Bacio. A movie about a group of 20-something men who are scared of being trapped into marriage, babies and women. I lament these 20-something men, "does it get worse when they are 30 something I wonder"? My companion is being evasive "..yeeessss" he says slowly drawing the sound out until the last hiss disappears into the laughter of the coffee drinking crowd. "But it not true for everyone".

I make the sound I feel is most appropriate for this statement of his: "Duh".

I take my fork and make an incision into the Tiramisu, it doesn't taste as good as Tiramisu from a pasticceria section with this reputation should. I remember back to my own unimelb days when Brunetti was just a hole in the wall, a place for locals and people who 'knew' where to go for decent coffee and cake. I look at the procession line of people waiting and serving, of cakes handed over at lightening speed and the ever present crowd. Brunetti has suffered the fate of most places which get too popular and corporatised; the quality goes down. I wonder if the same is true for people, for writers, for music, anything.

"How crap is this Tiramisu?" I groan.
"It's sooo bad" he puts his fork down.

"I know 'not everyone'". I sigh - if this conversation is going to take this particular defensive route then I don't want to play. The problem is that you could apply the "not everyone" rule to anything. Not all politicians lie so does that make a difference (generally speaking) to the perception that do? Not all people living in the third world are poor and starving, does that negate the fact that most are?

"ohkaaaay, there is *some* realism to the movie though, right?" I persist.

"yeeeessss" he makes the sound again.

I offer him a nugget "women get scared of commitment too. It's not like men have got the market cornered on that. But in the end if we want love and babies we actually you know act like we want that. Why do men who obviously want love and babies, take so long to realise it?"

"I think a lot of men in their late 20s think they can have anything and anyone. If they still have that same mentality in their 30s then it's because they're idiots" he says simply.

"hmm" The answer doesn't really answer anything and yet, I know what he's trying to say. I actually know quite a few men who have married their first love. They saw a good thing and they took the chance. I know a couple of people who did that and have regretted it too. I know men in their late 20s and early 30s who don't want to be trapped by marriage. I know a few older who want marriage and kids but are wondering where all the women are.

"Is it better to take the chance and marry someone you love, because you love them, or chase the elusive dream of the perfect woman/man which may or may not come along?". I blurt.

"I guess it depends on how happy you are to be lonely" He says matter of factly. "I don't think anyone with such a list will be happy with a human female - OR MALE. They need a fembot"

"manbot" I add.

We laugh.

We've moved onto the other cake now, a chocolate mouse. The chocolate tastes like it's been in the fridge too long.

"This is terrible" I gesture to the mouse.
"This is officially the worst food we've had here" he adds.
"At least the coffee is good" I sigh.

"well, I guess this is the thing isn't it? I mean a list is a list but if you're with someone and you're in love then what makes someone say - "hey I know I'm in love but I'm just going to try for someone who's also a pole dancer, I always wanted to marry a pole dancer"

"well, those would be the idiots I talked about earlier".

"Well why do so many people I know have lists then?"

"I can't help it if you're friends with idiots".

"YOU'RE an idiot". I flick a bit of stale chocolate at him.

****

But seriously. Love or list?

And what about those people can't even DO love WITHOUT the "perfect person" list? What's up with them? Are they idiots or are they normal?

(by list I don't mean "someone who loves me, someone who is caring" etc type of list that is about human decency and what anyone DESERVES. I mean a specific 'perfect person' list" "A blonde. Someone who is a size 0. Someone who plays in a band" etc)

Labels: melbourne musings, men, questions, the list, women, wonderings

posted by M at 12:03 pm 27 comments

I have this little issue getting up in the mornings. I hate the alarm, you see. So instead of the alarm beeping I have the radio come on instead. The problem is that when the DJs have something interesting to say I end up staying in bed and listening to them instead of getting ready for work. Lately I've been pushing that "late" button to work because the last week or so has seen Hughsey and Kate (I know, I KNOW I hate the music too - please someone stab Fergie and that Umbrella (ella, ella, ella eh eh eh) chick with a blunt butter knife!) talking about "what women want".

The whole discussion started with Hughsey arguing that women are too hard to figure out, they ask for too much and they've got it so good. Meanwhile Kate's angry schpeil on the radio show says it ALL about what we DO and what we PUT UP WITH when it comes to men in relationships. Sometimes men have no idea about these things that go on, even when they are IN the relationship! You need to go listen to it (ignore the interview with Kevin Rudd in the first few minutes).

Hughsey and Kate Podcast

She also goes on to say that we realise when we're loved by men but that it should be demonstrated because a lot of what we do IN relationships IS demonstrative of our feelings. Obviously we realise that there are men who do the right thing but they're not in the fat part of the bell curve at all. They're in the skinny end that tapers off around the 10-15% mark - just like the really horrid ones lay at the OTHER end in the bottom 10-15% mark. Just like we women are. So put down the angry "but you said that ALL men..." remark. I said nothing of the sort. :P

They've continued the discussion throughout the week with many a woman AND man ringing to confirm the truth of what goes on in relationships between men and women.

I think it was Hughsey who proclaimed "well what do women want anyway?" and that prompted the making of a list of "what women REALLY want" from men.

You want the list? I think it's pretty good. It's not filled with money, bling, and bullshit either - and it's endorsed by the women who rang up and the radio station.

What Women Want*

* Acknowledgement for what we do
* To be looked after when we're sick.
* The abolition of slavery (ours)
* To be listened to when we talk
* To be romanced (pash us passionately)
* Affection (without promise of result)
* Honesty
* Equality
* Security - to love and be loved without doubt
* Respect.

All these were discussed in a lot more detail on the radio shows and all were brought up as points that we feel there is room for improvement. What do you think? Is this what you want? Is the list complete? I think it's spot on. It's not shallow or tongue in cheek. It cuts right down to the heart of the matter. We want you to respect us, acknowledge us, love us and treat us preciously. Shouldn't you?

Guys what do you think? Are you the perfect guy or is there room for improvement? I wonder what a list of "what men want" would look like? Really, what DO you want? How can we please you?

* I didn't explain earlier that this is NOT a list about what women *look for* in a man before they get him. So not just a random guy. It's about what we want WITHIN a LONG TERM relationship that already exists!

Labels: media, men, what men don't see, what women want, women

posted by M at 4:40 pm 23 comments

It seems that when I got home from work today I fell straight into a deep coma - induced by me losing my will to live - and have woken a couple of hours later to find myself afloat in a drool puddle and with a big pillow crease on the side of my face. Mmmm Attractive - I just don't understand why I haven't been snapped up by someone special yet!

Anyway, in all the excitement of being back in the thick of things at work I totally forgot about my Musical Monday today. I had given it some thought during the week and wondered whether I should go with the tried and true or whether I should go with something different. I decided on different.

Justice - D.A.N.C.E

This, I feel will divide the masses - either you love or hate this one.

I came across the song a few months ago on the radio of all places (I know, is anyone even listening anymore?) and it made me stop what I was doing to turn it up. I have to say, I was a cross between mildly amused and impressed that first time I heard it and immediately and wanted to hear it again. I felt the same way when I first heard Too Young by Phoenix. Interestingly they are both French bands (lately there has been a lot of great electronica coming out of France). Of course these days back announcing songs is a lost art so it took me quite a while of Googling lyrics before I found it again.

I have a feeling that this song might get old in a few months - not because it's a bad song but because it has elements of that are a little derivative. At the same time, what it borrows from other songs (ie: Jackson 5-esque kiddie voices, Michael Jackson string instrument sound) is exactly what makes it such a fun piece in the first place. In the end the song is a supposed to embody a bit of Michael Jackson in it so you can't blame it for being what it is - which is essentially a tribute piece. In fact I like it for being that.

I've heard a few other songs by Justice and they're quite good overall, but this song is probably the most commercially viable and the video clip is awesomeness!

I might be sick of it in a month (which makes it a risky Musical Monday) but hey that's what happens with songs sometimes. Right now, though I'm loving it.

I might have created a cardinal sin by posting a YouTube video on the journal but hey it's a great video clip. Forgive me but watch it anyway.

D.A.N.C.E - Justice



Oh okay...here's just the audio.

Labels: male, man bag, man dance, man love, man moves, man o man, manola, men, musical monday, penis, those labels are just for you bugwit :)

posted by M at 12:02 am 12 comments