[Miscellany]
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Rambling Crazy Lady Post
It's been a funny old contemplative weekend. I caught up with an old friend on Friday night. K is resplendent in the later stages of her pregnancy and I am torn with being so happy for her and with noticing my own utter lack in this department. Soon I will be the only one in that particular friendship group sans child. This is not exactly a welcome concept, mostly due to the fact that our conversations already revolve around poop and children and never around those philosophical and political arguments that we used to have and I wonder how much more baby centered they can become. It scares me for the state of our friendship, how much longer can I sustain not ever being asked how I am? Maybe soon I'll be able to slip away in the middle of a conversation and steal into the gin cupboard and no one will even notice. Even the crazy little voice inside my head is now telling me I need new friends that are at the same stage in life as I am that is (spinsters and lunatics).
K and I were still able to have a rational conversation on the account of the child still being in utero so we made the most of it by me moaning about my job and her looking at me pityingly and K discussing her fears about giving birth and me (unwisely) advising her to take all the drugs available (preferably at once). The birth thing sounds rather hard, scary and horrible but I can't pity it. It's a beautiful miracle and she is so fortunate to have the love in her life that has afforded this experience for her. I am trying to think of the fortunate things in my life. I keep coming up with 'at least I'm not homeless' or 'I never have to compromise over the remote control', which is absolutely true but also kind of sad if that is the best I can do.
EM whom I had dinner with last night is in my predicament but she has made peace with her childless, spinster state. I don't even know how you would begin to do that. I'm the opposite. Case in point - this is the photo I'm staring at right now as I type this. It lives on the wall of my study.
It's beautiful, no? It's a vision of (my) stupid, ridiculous hope and although I love looking at it I hate that I harbor these hopes still. It only makes it harder to move on with my life.
Despite that difference between EM and I, we are of one mind when it comes to the plight of the single lady in her 30s. I like having friends who completely understand what it is like not to want to go to weddings alone and lament on the unfairness of always giving the gift but never being the recipient of any. Also this:
Anyway we are now living in post-feminist glory (apparently) and a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle (or so I've heard) but my God, when will the wilderness years be over? I don't give a shit about being independent or see taking the garbage out as a 'win' in the division of labour. I don't see being single as freeing at all. In fact I think you are more restricted as a single person. I can't quit my job and 'find myself'. Who exactly is going to pay the mortgage when I do that? If I get sick, there is a series of complicated measures I have to go through in order to get through it. There's no depending on someone to pick up the slack when things go wrong. I am not so much fearing being eaten by Alsatians as I am planning it now.
As for breeding. I can almost literally hear the tick-tocking of that old biological clock ringing in my ears and I realise that this is it. Halle Berry may be able to get away with having a baby in her late 40s but I won't be able to. It's now or never and this scares me because... well now is ...NOW. I have thought about this a bit and I have my own set of morals here about the subject but is it selfish to 'go it alone?' I'm not counting it out completely, but let's just say I'm not making any appointments to the clinic either...
I'm not even sure what the point of this entry is. I was going to write about the beauty in the passage of time as symbolised in seeing Before Midnight with K but um... I guess not. Sorry about that.
K and I were still able to have a rational conversation on the account of the child still being in utero so we made the most of it by me moaning about my job and her looking at me pityingly and K discussing her fears about giving birth and me (unwisely) advising her to take all the drugs available (preferably at once). The birth thing sounds rather hard, scary and horrible but I can't pity it. It's a beautiful miracle and she is so fortunate to have the love in her life that has afforded this experience for her. I am trying to think of the fortunate things in my life. I keep coming up with 'at least I'm not homeless' or 'I never have to compromise over the remote control', which is absolutely true but also kind of sad if that is the best I can do.
EM whom I had dinner with last night is in my predicament but she has made peace with her childless, spinster state. I don't even know how you would begin to do that. I'm the opposite. Case in point - this is the photo I'm staring at right now as I type this. It lives on the wall of my study.
It's beautiful, no? It's a vision of (my) stupid, ridiculous hope and although I love looking at it I hate that I harbor these hopes still. It only makes it harder to move on with my life.
Despite that difference between EM and I, we are of one mind when it comes to the plight of the single lady in her 30s. I like having friends who completely understand what it is like not to want to go to weddings alone and lament on the unfairness of always giving the gift but never being the recipient of any. Also this:
Anyway we are now living in post-feminist glory (apparently) and a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle (or so I've heard) but my God, when will the wilderness years be over? I don't give a shit about being independent or see taking the garbage out as a 'win' in the division of labour. I don't see being single as freeing at all. In fact I think you are more restricted as a single person. I can't quit my job and 'find myself'. Who exactly is going to pay the mortgage when I do that? If I get sick, there is a series of complicated measures I have to go through in order to get through it. There's no depending on someone to pick up the slack when things go wrong. I am not so much fearing being eaten by Alsatians as I am planning it now.
As for breeding. I can almost literally hear the tick-tocking of that old biological clock ringing in my ears and I realise that this is it. Halle Berry may be able to get away with having a baby in her late 40s but I won't be able to. It's now or never and this scares me because... well now is ...NOW. I have thought about this a bit and I have my own set of morals here about the subject but is it selfish to 'go it alone?' I'm not counting it out completely, but let's just say I'm not making any appointments to the clinic either...
I'm not even sure what the point of this entry is. I was going to write about the beauty in the passage of time as symbolised in seeing Before Midnight with K but um... I guess not. Sorry about that.
Labels: babies, dirty femmo, friends, girls and women, messy women, rant, singletons, there is no life after babies for the mothers in the equation but maybe they don't mind so much anyway, what women want, women
Monday, June 16, 2008
How to look...
I've watched the show on and off for the last few weeks and it's not bad. Basically How to Look Good Naked takes a new woman every episode who hates her own body (with a gut wrenching passion) and shows her how to love it, just as it is - perhaps with a little bit of frosting by way of a better bra/hair do but essentially without an extreme makeover. Pretty good idea, huh?*
There are so many women who hate their bodies. I have never met one woman in my life who is completely at ease with her body. I don't even know OF any women who are completely at ease with their body actually. I do however know size 6 (I think that's size 0 in the US) women who complain they are fat, who live at the gym, who think their legs are fat. It's wrong. Perhaps one might be more accepting of their own body after years of dieting or after the extreme makeover like you see on the those TV shows but as a whole we women are very good at hating our bodies. I think the stats the show talks about is that 4 out of every 5 American women hate their body and people who we see in magazines are skinnier than 98% of us. It's really no wonder we have a problem with normality when what we compare ourselves to is completely unrealistic?
Know anyone with an eating disorder?
Ever had one yourself?
I'm guessing there would be a lot of yes answers to that - it's sad.
I think the biggest problem with all this is that hating your body means that:
1) you don't get out there and live your life.
2) you are more vulnerable to feeling less worthy than a magazine cover that has been airbrushed.
3) you feel like shit.
If 4 out of 5 women feels like that then wow, how easy would it be to keep us girls down? Pretty fucking easy. It's always easier to make people with low self worth feel even worse about themselves.
Easily my favourite part of the show is when the girl in question is asked to slot herself into a line of near naked ladies - in accordance to the size she thinks she is. Every woman's self image so far has been of herself being larger than she is. They slot themselves into the larger side. That says a lot about self perception.
Even if the girls were being modest during this and don't see themselves as large (even though they put themselves down the larger end of the line) it says a lot about how we women represent and view ourselves. If 4 out of every 5 women feel like crap because they're not good enough for some reason or another then 4 out of every 5 women are not big noting themselves, even when they do deserve it. I'm reminded of this:
Research in Linda Babcock’s 2004 book Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, found that 93 per cent of female graduates from a US university simply accepted the starting salaries they were offered in their first job, while more than half of the male graduates tried to negotiate up.
Is it any wonder this happens? 4 out of 5 women can't even look at themselves in the mirror, do you really think these same women are going to ask for a pay rise? Um, no. I'm not saying this is all due to hating our bodies but I do think that yes, it's all tied in with a greater feeling of unworthiness for us. Who knows where it really comes from originally (do we go back to Eve?), and who knows why we willingly adhere to it so readily by buying into the beauty myth time and again but yes, it exists, yes it's very real, yes it affects our everyday lives.
Probably though the biggest question I have coming out of the show How to Look Good Naked though is why it takes a gay man to tell us women to love ourselves? You'd think a woman would be willing to tell us because we should love ourselves, or perhaps the straight men who are supposed to love us for who we are could let us know. No? Not going to happen any time soon huh? Interesting.
In the meanwhile - while we all scramble to get our acts together. Thank you, Carson (and Gok Wan - also openly gay and hosted the original series) <3
* Honestly I've heard some people argue that this kind of show is horrible simply because we shouldn't let people believe that they are beautiful when they so obviously are not (ie: they are too fat and since fat is not beautiful by society's standrads then they shouldn't be allowed to love themselves because if they loved themselves then they wouldn't lose weight). This kind of argument disgusts me to no end.
On to music - Their first album Lesser Matters has been on constant rotation in my car over the last few weeks. I can't tell you how much I am loving this band lately. This song is particular makes me want to run through a valley of golden wild flowers for some reason. I have strange fantasies.
Where Damage Isn't Already Done - The Radio Dept.
Labels: bodies, crap reality tele, dirty femmo, messy women, questions, real women, the price of beauty, TV, women, wonderings
Monday, June 09, 2008
Gaze and the City
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
Monday, May 12, 2008
Recap.
* 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!
* 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
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Bigger than a baby's arm and yet, nowhere to be seen.
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?
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
Thursday, March 27, 2008
buh-buh-buh-buh baby!
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
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Babies and femmos.
Being a non-babied up person living in a world where it seems like everyone has spawned has afforded me the opportunity to observe things without being too emotionally involved. I have my pet peeves with how mums and dads behave just like I have my pet peeves by how ordinary everyday people behave. In fact, one might argue that I have a lot of pet peeves. Oh well, I'm peevey - you really got a problem with that?
A little issue has arisen lately in baby-land and I have to say, it's given me more peeves than ever thought possible. I'm talking about how people react to the weight of babies. Now I realise that weight is probably the most important way that one can distinguish how healthy a baby is but I'm not talking about that. It's the language that people use.
My friend S's little miracle (really, he actually is - spend first couple of months at the Children's hospital and really was touch and go for a while there) has been growing in leaps and bounds since he was released from the hospital. Really he is one of the cutest babies in the world. He's one of those babies that strangers will boldly approach and want to hold. Things started off a little rough for the poor guy but now he's doing well. In fact when people see him how they ALWAYS comment about what a big boy he is, and how chubby he is getting and ...hey maybe mum should be putting him on a little feeding restriction. The thing is little N is not like those big babies you see on Phil Donohue where the baby is actually half the size of mum at 1 year of age and looks basically like an adult in diapers (though, I might be confusing this with a whoooole other episode of Donohue). Little N is in fact precisely in the 50th percentile for his weight. He's the epitome of normality. He's not 1 percent below or above he's just right. Meanwhile mothers of babies born on the 15th percentile are commenting about what a chubbster N is - not in a nice way either - in an I'm slightly worried about your baby way - patronising, utterly patronising. Like as if being born thin and still thin is somehow better than than being normal and healthy.
The reason why it's a peeve of mine is that I can see where this is leading. We already have this preoccupation with children's weight and the so-called obesity crisis in children. I wish I could link to an entry that "pubby" wrote about this issue but he's taken his blog offline - but he also asked whether these figures were sincere because he hadn't noticed that suddenly all these kids were supposedly fat. I work with kids. I see kids everyday and there is probably 1 per class who is overweight. IF THAT. I don't have any this year at all. In fact I'm looking at all the children I know who started school this year and there is not ONE who would even be considered chubby - that's almost 100 new children! Figures point to something like 40% of children being fat but from what I've seen it's actually about 5% which is called a NORMAL DISTRIBUTION of fat folks. Maybe it's 10% in some areas...yes, more concerning but still, hardly an epidemic! I don't know if figures are being inflated or whether the way we measure fat is right off the scale (pun intended) but if it's an epidemic then I don't bloody see it at all.
The point is the weight obsession starts with babies. All these mothers (let's face it, mostly mums) are obsessed with talking about the weight of their own children but not only that, I sense some smugness and defensiveness about weight, depending on where on the percentile the baby falls. Once I commented on how F's baby J had grown into a big boy. I hadn't seen him in about 3 months and he was like a new child. So what, he got big! Big deal, it's great, it's called growing. But I got flicked with the end of the wrath stick quick smart by F who snapped that actually he's only on the 30th percentile now and not big at all. Ohhhhh kay, sorry didn't think I was suggesting that your baby was a sumo wrestler but hey, whatever.
Incidentally why is it so wrong to say that a female baby is a "big strong girl". Ever try saying that one? It's like you're saying "hey I've just noticed that your daughter is a big fat dyke. I can see that she's a breath away from letting her body hair get to unflattering lengths and start listening to angry girl rock" I thought, growing was supposed to be a good thing! Maybe not in girls.
In other news concerning dirty femmo stuff, I was intrigued by a column in Sunday's Age by Angela Pippos "What's Wrong with Being a Fashionista Feminist Anyway?" where she addresses just how diverse feminists are in this era. She also says
She goes on to list a few examples of questioning she is immediately dealt by affronted men "Do you expect men to open doors for you?" "Do you want a man to pay for dinner on a first date?" etc. You know the typical questions asked of femnos that makes everyone want to stab their eyes out. What really interests me about her column is the underlying question for me about feminism. Why is it still a dirty word? Yes, I'm being serious. In all my years of being a feminist I've never met one who hates men. I've never met one who burns her bra. I've never met one who spends all night planing to picket the local men's club or any of the other stereotypes that are prescribed to so called ..here is comes "feminazis". Do I know lesbian femmos? Of course. Does that mean ALL feminists are gay? Do I know femmos who are frustrated by the status quo and frustrated by some perceptions perpetrated by men. Hell yes, does that mean that they are frustrated with men in general? Pssssh, I don't think so. I hate that type of generalising of feminists that happens but actually has little grounds in reality.
I don't know about you but when I hear the old "you're a man hater" (often comes in a feminist type entry) and it's been written here on this journal as well me reading it on so many other feminist blogs that I've lost count - I often think that the person writing it either has shit for brains, doesn't actually KNOW any feminists or rather...doesn't KNOW any women AT ALL or that maybe..just maybe THEY don't really like women all that much themselves, or feel threatened by them expressing an opinion - whatever. The fact that I *am* a feminist and I don't actually know ANY feminists who hate men NOR do I hate them myself sort of makes me wonder why on earth that's a phrase that is so easily thrown around by others when confronted with someone who claims to be a feminist? I mean I always hear about these so-called feminists who are supposed to hate men, usually it comes in the form of "yeah I know a feminist who hates men" but you know..it's sort of like an urban myth to me. Have you heard the one about the lady with the boil on her face that exploded and 50 tiny spiders came out? Yeah, that common. If anything feminists have so much problem in appearing a unified group with unifying beliefs in the first place that *men* aren't even the issue. It's women and what women think that is more of an issue.
Perhaps it's that feminist discourse is centered around the fact that things are not quite right in the world of woman. That there are certain issues that affect our gender and those issues maybe be life threatening or indeed socially confining to women. Maybe there's some resentment too, that women get the focus for this type of discourse? The fact that they are discussed might be a little too confronting for some people and confused with hate - when really it's not about hate at all, it's about getting answers and asking WHY does this happen to women? Is that a wrong question to ask? I certainly don't think so. It does NOT negate the FACT that things happen to men too and that is an important point. That in fact we are all individuals who have shit happen to us at some stage or another and that there are issues for men that are just as concerning that in fact SHOULD be discussed too. They should be discussed by the same people that are complaining that are sick of hearing about women's issues and say that yeah, men have issues too can't you see that? Well, dude, discuss away! Indeed, asking why the world is a certain way is not about hating anyone. It's about trying to get answers about how things are and perhaps start discourse that will affect change. One can only hope anyway.
I know that discussions about rape, prostitution, maternity leave and domestic violence gets a lot of backs up, especially with men but the fact of the matter is that these things DO happen and they DO happen mostly to women and the fact that we make up more than half the population means that it's something that everyone should be worried about. These are things that SHOULD be discussed widely and without refrain. It happens and the fact that it happens disturbingly often to one gender over another is a cause for feminist discourse. Live with it! I've read so many "anti-feminist" blogs (mostly written by anonymous people with anonymous comments - just goes to show doesn't it?) that will reference one article where a woman has beaten her husband in a show of domestic violence. Yes it happens and this is horrible. I don't want to diminish that - but the anti-feminist blogger will then say (and this happens in almost 100 percent of all anti-feminist bloggers) something along the lines of "and now you see why I refuse to get involved with all women. Women are evil etc etc". This is in direct opposition to most feminist blogs which takes issue on women's issues in society and how that affects us and in fact are a celebration of female achievement in the arts and culture. They are positive places that actually reserve any condensation of men to specific examples ie: THIS MAN said something not quite right about women. THIS MAN is wrong. Whereas the anti-feminist blogs that I've read are all about generalising one act to mean *all* women and being defensive about it too. Perhaps I've yet to come across a anti-feminist blog that is about being male positive instead of female negative. I'm know that there are some feminist blogs that really ARE venomous about a lot of things too, including men but definitely not the popular ones. The popular feminist blogs are generally very political places that invite discussion by men and indeed a lot of them have a dedicated male following too.
For the record I have read many male written gender positive blogs that have nothing to do with anti-feminism - they don't shy away from bringing up issues that are specific to men either! They are great and there should be more of them. They write about male and female issues with sex, violence and everything in between and they are so great because they don't fall into that age old trap of 'what I admire about women is their breasts, bum, legs, they look beautiful, they smell beautiful' - which is quite typical in what DOES tend to get written about women from a male perspective. I mean that kind of blog is great and all but male blogs that go beyond that REALLY need to be applauded for being so great - and they're not great because I agree with them, because I don't always, they're great because they are truthful without falling into "all feminists are bitches" type rhetoric.
Considering that not all feminists are the same, nor do any of the old stereotypes stand up why is it that the F-word is still a dirty one?
Anyway, on to Musical Monday in this haphazard post of mine. Of course, let's just complete the entry with a reference to Kat Bjelland; an artist I'm pretty much so in awe of I can't quite figure out the right words. She looks like an angel but has the voice of a terrifying demon. That's the best I can come up with. In the early days she cavorted around with Courtney Love and Jennifer Finch experimenting in a couple of bands before all went their separate ways and all became highly influential artists in their own right, with their own bands. I sigh here as I make the distinction and say they were 'female centered' bands - grrl rock if you will. Why? Oh because I've featured many, many bands who have all male members and sing about manly things but never distinguished them by saying 'all male' or 'male centered'. It's funny how these distinctions work in rock for women as opposed to men but there you have it.
Babes in Toyland had been around for a good many years before I got into them. I was completely taken with Kat Bjelland and in particular her rock operatic meets screaming banshee type singing voice.
She was a cheerleader in high school by the way.
A cheerleader AND a dirty femmo too. Oh my god, is your mind about to explode? Yes, it's true, us dirty femmos aren't just one type of person. I guess, that was my whole point. Mother's can be feminists. Hot girls can be feminists. Women who love men can be feminists. Scientists can be feminists. Radio personalities can be feminists. Men can be feminists. Cheerleaders can be feminists. It's not just one type of person. And for the record I've read many a comment implying that those people mentioned above CAN'T be feminists - like mum's can't be feminists. ha! Well I'm linking right here to a GREAT entry by a femmo mum who outlines some great points about how to raise your daughter a feminist and you know what? The initial question about 'how do I raise my daughter a feminist?' came from a bloke. How's that for breaking down a few barriers. Yes folks, it's not actually about man hating. Sorry to disappoint - on with the music.
Bruise Violet - Babes In Toyland (apparently not about Courtney Love..but I doubt it! lol).
Sweet 69 - Babes in Toyland
A little issue has arisen lately in baby-land and I have to say, it's given me more peeves than ever thought possible. I'm talking about how people react to the weight of babies. Now I realise that weight is probably the most important way that one can distinguish how healthy a baby is but I'm not talking about that. It's the language that people use.
My friend S's little miracle (really, he actually is - spend first couple of months at the Children's hospital and really was touch and go for a while there) has been growing in leaps and bounds since he was released from the hospital. Really he is one of the cutest babies in the world. He's one of those babies that strangers will boldly approach and want to hold. Things started off a little rough for the poor guy but now he's doing well. In fact when people see him how they ALWAYS comment about what a big boy he is, and how chubby he is getting and ...hey maybe mum should be putting him on a little feeding restriction. The thing is little N is not like those big babies you see on Phil Donohue where the baby is actually half the size of mum at 1 year of age and looks basically like an adult in diapers (though, I might be confusing this with a whoooole other episode of Donohue). Little N is in fact precisely in the 50th percentile for his weight. He's the epitome of normality. He's not 1 percent below or above he's just right. Meanwhile mothers of babies born on the 15th percentile are commenting about what a chubbster N is - not in a nice way either - in an I'm slightly worried about your baby way - patronising, utterly patronising. Like as if being born thin and still thin is somehow better than than being normal and healthy.
The reason why it's a peeve of mine is that I can see where this is leading. We already have this preoccupation with children's weight and the so-called obesity crisis in children. I wish I could link to an entry that "pubby" wrote about this issue but he's taken his blog offline - but he also asked whether these figures were sincere because he hadn't noticed that suddenly all these kids were supposedly fat. I work with kids. I see kids everyday and there is probably 1 per class who is overweight. IF THAT. I don't have any this year at all. In fact I'm looking at all the children I know who started school this year and there is not ONE who would even be considered chubby - that's almost 100 new children! Figures point to something like 40% of children being fat but from what I've seen it's actually about 5% which is called a NORMAL DISTRIBUTION of fat folks. Maybe it's 10% in some areas...yes, more concerning but still, hardly an epidemic! I don't know if figures are being inflated or whether the way we measure fat is right off the scale (pun intended) but if it's an epidemic then I don't bloody see it at all.
The point is the weight obsession starts with babies. All these mothers (let's face it, mostly mums) are obsessed with talking about the weight of their own children but not only that, I sense some smugness and defensiveness about weight, depending on where on the percentile the baby falls. Once I commented on how F's baby J had grown into a big boy. I hadn't seen him in about 3 months and he was like a new child. So what, he got big! Big deal, it's great, it's called growing. But I got flicked with the end of the wrath stick quick smart by F who snapped that actually he's only on the 30th percentile now and not big at all. Ohhhhh kay, sorry didn't think I was suggesting that your baby was a sumo wrestler but hey, whatever.
Incidentally why is it so wrong to say that a female baby is a "big strong girl". Ever try saying that one? It's like you're saying "hey I've just noticed that your daughter is a big fat dyke. I can see that she's a breath away from letting her body hair get to unflattering lengths and start listening to angry girl rock" I thought, growing was supposed to be a good thing! Maybe not in girls.
In other news concerning dirty femmo stuff, I was intrigued by a column in Sunday's Age by Angela Pippos "What's Wrong with Being a Fashionista Feminist Anyway?" where she addresses just how diverse feminists are in this era. She also says
I'm a feminist. Was that so hard?
It's really not a big deal. I simply believe that women should be given the same opportunities as men. Throw me in in the river and see if I float. It's hardly radical but, in my experience, any mention of the "f" word in male company can bring on a type of behaviour often seen in a David Attenborough documentary, followed by a sudden attack of mundane questioning".
She goes on to list a few examples of questioning she is immediately dealt by affronted men "Do you expect men to open doors for you?" "Do you want a man to pay for dinner on a first date?" etc. You know the typical questions asked of femnos that makes everyone want to stab their eyes out. What really interests me about her column is the underlying question for me about feminism. Why is it still a dirty word? Yes, I'm being serious. In all my years of being a feminist I've never met one who hates men. I've never met one who burns her bra. I've never met one who spends all night planing to picket the local men's club or any of the other stereotypes that are prescribed to so called ..here is comes "feminazis". Do I know lesbian femmos? Of course. Does that mean ALL feminists are gay? Do I know femmos who are frustrated by the status quo and frustrated by some perceptions perpetrated by men. Hell yes, does that mean that they are frustrated with men in general? Pssssh, I don't think so. I hate that type of generalising of feminists that happens but actually has little grounds in reality.
I don't know about you but when I hear the old "you're a man hater" (often comes in a feminist type entry) and it's been written here on this journal as well me reading it on so many other feminist blogs that I've lost count - I often think that the person writing it either has shit for brains, doesn't actually KNOW any feminists or rather...doesn't KNOW any women AT ALL or that maybe..just maybe THEY don't really like women all that much themselves, or feel threatened by them expressing an opinion - whatever. The fact that I *am* a feminist and I don't actually know ANY feminists who hate men NOR do I hate them myself sort of makes me wonder why on earth that's a phrase that is so easily thrown around by others when confronted with someone who claims to be a feminist? I mean I always hear about these so-called feminists who are supposed to hate men, usually it comes in the form of "yeah I know a feminist who hates men" but you know..it's sort of like an urban myth to me. Have you heard the one about the lady with the boil on her face that exploded and 50 tiny spiders came out? Yeah, that common. If anything feminists have so much problem in appearing a unified group with unifying beliefs in the first place that *men* aren't even the issue. It's women and what women think that is more of an issue.
Perhaps it's that feminist discourse is centered around the fact that things are not quite right in the world of woman. That there are certain issues that affect our gender and those issues maybe be life threatening or indeed socially confining to women. Maybe there's some resentment too, that women get the focus for this type of discourse? The fact that they are discussed might be a little too confronting for some people and confused with hate - when really it's not about hate at all, it's about getting answers and asking WHY does this happen to women? Is that a wrong question to ask? I certainly don't think so. It does NOT negate the FACT that things happen to men too and that is an important point. That in fact we are all individuals who have shit happen to us at some stage or another and that there are issues for men that are just as concerning that in fact SHOULD be discussed too. They should be discussed by the same people that are complaining that are sick of hearing about women's issues and say that yeah, men have issues too can't you see that? Well, dude, discuss away! Indeed, asking why the world is a certain way is not about hating anyone. It's about trying to get answers about how things are and perhaps start discourse that will affect change. One can only hope anyway.
I know that discussions about rape, prostitution, maternity leave and domestic violence gets a lot of backs up, especially with men but the fact of the matter is that these things DO happen and they DO happen mostly to women and the fact that we make up more than half the population means that it's something that everyone should be worried about. These are things that SHOULD be discussed widely and without refrain. It happens and the fact that it happens disturbingly often to one gender over another is a cause for feminist discourse. Live with it! I've read so many "anti-feminist" blogs (mostly written by anonymous people with anonymous comments - just goes to show doesn't it?) that will reference one article where a woman has beaten her husband in a show of domestic violence. Yes it happens and this is horrible. I don't want to diminish that - but the anti-feminist blogger will then say (and this happens in almost 100 percent of all anti-feminist bloggers) something along the lines of "and now you see why I refuse to get involved with all women. Women are evil etc etc". This is in direct opposition to most feminist blogs which takes issue on women's issues in society and how that affects us and in fact are a celebration of female achievement in the arts and culture. They are positive places that actually reserve any condensation of men to specific examples ie: THIS MAN said something not quite right about women. THIS MAN is wrong. Whereas the anti-feminist blogs that I've read are all about generalising one act to mean *all* women and being defensive about it too. Perhaps I've yet to come across a anti-feminist blog that is about being male positive instead of female negative. I'm know that there are some feminist blogs that really ARE venomous about a lot of things too, including men but definitely not the popular ones. The popular feminist blogs are generally very political places that invite discussion by men and indeed a lot of them have a dedicated male following too.
For the record I have read many male written gender positive blogs that have nothing to do with anti-feminism - they don't shy away from bringing up issues that are specific to men either! They are great and there should be more of them. They write about male and female issues with sex, violence and everything in between and they are so great because they don't fall into that age old trap of 'what I admire about women is their breasts, bum, legs, they look beautiful, they smell beautiful' - which is quite typical in what DOES tend to get written about women from a male perspective. I mean that kind of blog is great and all but male blogs that go beyond that REALLY need to be applauded for being so great - and they're not great because I agree with them, because I don't always, they're great because they are truthful without falling into "all feminists are bitches" type rhetoric.
Considering that not all feminists are the same, nor do any of the old stereotypes stand up why is it that the F-word is still a dirty one?
Anyway, on to Musical Monday in this haphazard post of mine. Of course, let's just complete the entry with a reference to Kat Bjelland; an artist I'm pretty much so in awe of I can't quite figure out the right words. She looks like an angel but has the voice of a terrifying demon. That's the best I can come up with. In the early days she cavorted around with Courtney Love and Jennifer Finch experimenting in a couple of bands before all went their separate ways and all became highly influential artists in their own right, with their own bands. I sigh here as I make the distinction and say they were 'female centered' bands - grrl rock if you will. Why? Oh because I've featured many, many bands who have all male members and sing about manly things but never distinguished them by saying 'all male' or 'male centered'. It's funny how these distinctions work in rock for women as opposed to men but there you have it.
Babes in Toyland had been around for a good many years before I got into them. I was completely taken with Kat Bjelland and in particular her rock operatic meets screaming banshee type singing voice.
She was a cheerleader in high school by the way.
A cheerleader AND a dirty femmo too. Oh my god, is your mind about to explode? Yes, it's true, us dirty femmos aren't just one type of person. I guess, that was my whole point. Mother's can be feminists. Hot girls can be feminists. Women who love men can be feminists. Scientists can be feminists. Radio personalities can be feminists. Men can be feminists. Cheerleaders can be feminists. It's not just one type of person. And for the record I've read many a comment implying that those people mentioned above CAN'T be feminists - like mum's can't be feminists. ha! Well I'm linking right here to a GREAT entry by a femmo mum who outlines some great points about how to raise your daughter a feminist and you know what? The initial question about 'how do I raise my daughter a feminist?' came from a bloke. How's that for breaking down a few barriers. Yes folks, it's not actually about man hating. Sorry to disappoint - on with the music.
Bruise Violet - Babes In Toyland (apparently not about Courtney Love..but I doubt it! lol).
Sweet 69 - Babes in Toyland
Labels: babies, dirty femmo, girls and women, messy women, musical monday, real women, vicious women, what women want, why, why do people get so touchy when it comes to talking about these things?, women
Friday, February 08, 2008
Hang up the Chick Habit.
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?
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
Monday, January 14, 2008
Boys and girls - I'm talking about penis and vagina.
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
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
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Single meat.
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:
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?
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
Friday, January 04, 2008
Where the Boys Are
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
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Word to your mother
It's nearly the end of the school year and everything seems to be piling up on me. I'm desperately trying to finish off my program, while keeping the kids happy, clean up the art room, put up new displays, assess the art work, write reports (hahahaha) and think about the orientation program I have to teach for the next 5 weeks. Meanwhile everyone seems to be having a birthday lately, or is holding a dinner I'm required to attend, or I'm dealing with urgent family business dramas while also house hunting. My plate is a little full, and since everything is piling up I feel like I'm rushing everything I do.This is all important as today in between finishing late at work and going out for dinner with the girls I found myself in front of the mirror with only 5 minutes to tidy up my eyebrows. I was in so much of a rush (yes, okay I was already late) that I accidentally ripped off half the bloody hair on my right eyebrow! I just stared at my hideous reflection in the mirror with my mouth gaping open and no sound coming out. I look like fucking Vanilla Ice. I HAVE THE EYEBROWS OF VANILLA ICE! I always wondered what kind of people draw in their eyebrows. You know what kind of people they are? Unco Vanilla Ice kind of people who can't control a wax wand, that's who!
Fark.
Labels: dumb entry, news, the price of beauty, women
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Thriller night
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?
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
Sunday, October 07, 2007
The Hand that Feeds.
* 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.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Choice and control
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).
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
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Just Friends?
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
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
two of wands, two of pentacles, two of swords.
* 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?
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
Archives
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- August 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- June 2011
- November 2011
- January 2012
- April 2012
- February 2013
- April 2013
- May 2013
- June 2013
- July 2013
- August 2013
- September 2013
- January 2014
- February 2014
- April 2014
- May 2014
- June 2014
- July 2014
- August 2014
- September 2014
- November 2014
- August 2017
- September 2018
- March 2019
- April 2019
- September 2019
- November 2019
- December 2019
- April 2020
- March 2021
- September 2022