Banter in the Garden
|Presenting the 51st… on Guest Post: Women’s Refu…|
|Fuck off, Bob Jones,… on Risky Business|
|Daniel Copeland on Risky Business|
|Emma on Risky Business|
|Deborah on A plea for your voice.|
Tea and Strumpets
Paula Joye is well known for her “fashion” “articles”, in which she likes to tell women everything that’s wrong with them, in the name of making them look better. This time, she’s excelled herself at pitching fashion as a “battle of the sexes“.
I don’t want to comment on the article, except to say that you can pry my leopard print from my cold, dead hands, bitch. But, as a service to you, I read the comments. Because they are brilliant.
First up, James, with my favourite internet comment ever:
Rule number 1: if she is tattooed up, she is not marriage material. Damaged/defaced goods.
+1 for tattoos. Also fake breasts, most especially when much exposed. Ditto fake tans and large fake eyelashes and too much makeup. You look like those Jersy Shore bimbos.
You forgot the cool word of the day “Misogyny” all the sheeple’s are using it
Saw a trainee checkout worker, size 24? With jeggings tight tee and a skimpy sheer short top just this week. The visual is still in my head.
Not good, and surely the employer should have a word.
I wish I say that to all the overweight women that like to wear them near where I live. Not a good thing to see. Shame they don’t want to dress to suit their figures. And no – black leggings aren’t slimming on those of us that are overweight (and yes I’m unfortunately one of them)
The worst enemies of women are (1) themselves, (2) other women and (3) women’s magazines. If you are genuine and confident, men don’t really care what you wear. Sure we don’t get animal print but hey, if you look great overall… we don’t care. Have a nice day ladies!
LOL – I was in hairdresser recently and commented to wife on how first 1/3 of these mags is all about losing weight & who is thin or lost weight, next 1/3 is about who is fat and gained pounds and last 1/3 is recipes with ads galore all way through for weight loss mixes, pills and other products like makeup & stuff to get rid of cellulite. WTF. How low does self esteem have to be to buy those trash mags ?
Fail – Add the thong hanging out above the jeans like a plumbers crack. Almost as bad as wearing a huge bra with a singlet. Its mens equal to wearing undies over pants.
The article isn’t all about you Phillip, or you personal tastes and preferences. Nor is it about your mates or most men you know either. It’s just the majority opinion from the author’s sample.The author isn’t telling women how to act, or even what to wear. She is just telling them which clothes don’t appeal to a lot of men.Women take decide for themselves if they want to take any notice or ignore the information.So take your quest for victimhood elsewhere.
(If I go on a quest for victimhood, what do I need to take? A sword, a dragon and a short skirt? No, leggings, right? They REALLY hate leggings.)
Clothes aren’t the issue, it’s who’s wearing them, guys or girls. Muffin tops, cauliflower thighs, camel toes and the trailer park or “heroin-chic” look are NEVER going to be in. Noting worse than seeing a size 16 crammed into a pair of leopard sheen-printed leggings. If you’re overweight, underweight, disproportionate, covered in scars or tatts, then wear clothes that won’t highlight the issue. Wear something that presents you well (as opposed to trying to look the bandwagon part by wearing the latest trend). That’s about it.
I would also add Tattoos. You know the little ones on the ankle, wrist, back of the neck – the ones women think make them so unique, oblivious to the fact that almost every girl/middle-aged woman in the office suddenly has one. And no, the little star you have tattooed behind your ear is not discreet or cool.
+1 on tattoo’s, no bigger turn off than a scrag tag.
Perhaps a cigarette hanging out of one side of the mouth goes close.
Men get labelled paternalistic misogynists if we voice an opinion on behalf of women.
Do you hate men? Do you think they are all a bit useless and pointless, and now that you’ve got your “modern woman” accoutrements like a career and easy sex, wonder why they are still around? Do you refuse to let your “mate” love and provide for you?
Congratulations. You are no longer a woman.
I know, right! I mean here I was, laboring under the albeit cissexist assumption that I am a woman. I’ve always assumed that, even though my uppity ways would suggest that while I might be a woman, I’m certainly no lady.
It’s strange though. You see, apparently feminism won me all these things. A career, though odds are good I’ll still be paid less than the men in my profession. Apparently I can have “sex at hello”. Which would be nice, if I weren’t threatened with sexual assault for doing just that, and if I couldn’t remember in vivid detail the most recent time I was called a slut for wearing a tight skirt. It won me the right to parent as I like – with or without a job – but seemingly I need to cave to men over that, because I need them to “pick up the slack at the office”.
She’s right. I am angry. And probably more than my fair share of defensive. But I’m not angry because I think of men as the enemy. Trite as it is, I think of the patriarchy as the enemy, and that it hurts all genders as much as it hurts me. And Ms Venker here is apparently a High Priestess of the Institutionalised Sexism denomination.
Maybe I should just admit it. I hate men. I don’t want them around, and I don’t ever want to get married or have babies, because that would get in the way of my plans to smash the glass ceiling and have all the sex I want. With *gasp* whoever I want. Oh, and I hate porn.
So, I took the quiz. I thought i might need the 12 step programme to get over my ridiculous fantasies (of equality, perv). I thought, maybe, this was true:
…there’s nothing empowering about moving in and out of intense romantic relationships, postponing marriage indefinitely, or pursuing careers with a verve that belies common sense. There’s nothing empowering about shacking up, rejecting your husband’s surname, ignoring your biological clock, refusing to depend on a husband, or becoming a single mom.
To be truly empowered, you’re going to have to do a 180.
You mean, there’s NOTHING empowering about having a life of my own? That any man who might want to marry me might value my career and not just my capacity to breed. That (get those pearls ready for clutching) I Might Not Even Want Children. That I might want to keep my own name as a sign of my independence and that I am not just my husband’s property.
Anyway, now I’m confused. I don’t need the programme. I felt so sure I would. I felt so sure Ms Venker and Fox news and their ilk would consider me such a pointless woman, with my career and my high heels and my disturbingly silent biological clock. But. I don’t consider myself better than men. I’m not holding out for Brad Pitt. Or George Clooney for that matter. I’m (through luck rather than design) not a product of divorce, nor do I need to be right all the time. As often as possible, but not every time. Smart, stable and kind sounds lovely, though I’d throw in funny, and certain…other requirements. (Mostly grammar-related.) Even mustering the loosest definitions possible, I still only managed four yesses.
One last thing.
What exactly are “the consequences of sex”? As in
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever. It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life.
You’re talking about babies, right? They’re the consequences of sex? First, how delightful. Second, women are left, quite literally, holding the baby, and it’s FUCKING FEMINISM THAT IS THE PROBLEM?
So yeah, another tech conference, more problems with racism and sexism. BritRuby has been cancelled. (And yes, I’m as startled as you are that it’s a Jezebel article that gives the best run-down of the issues. You can also read here, but please, for the love of bunnies and sanity, don’t read the comments.)
You may at this point be idly wondering, “Why should I, weighing everything up here, bother giving a fuck?” Because the otherwise pointless fuckuporama produced this: Geeks and Privilege.
The reason we’re seeing such vicious anti-equality bullshit in the geek community over the BritRuby situation and other conference type stuff is because the very existence of societal inequalities (against women, racial minorities, gender/sexual minorities) threatens the whole idea that hackers got where they are because they are super-fucking-smart.
That piece is a really good run-down of unacknowledged privilege in the geek community. What I want to add to it is basically, “Because Intersectionality.”
Intersectionality is a long word, but not a difficult concept, at all. One day I might strip it back to its bare bones for Public Address, but here I’m going to assume people have a grasp of it.
One of the reasons that geek men are resistant to having their privilege pointed out to them is that they perceive themselves as outsiders. Not so much for geeks my son’s age, but for my cohort, people who were interested in (or, more accurately, obsessed with) science and computers and role-playing were not the Cool Kids. Part of the whole Freaks and Geeks stereotype is being the socially-awkward outcast. Hardly the recipients of social privilege in the adolescent hierarchy.
So like Pakeha women and gay men, if you’ve been on the receiving end of social bigotry and put-downs and people making life hard for you, it’s much harder to recognise that not only do you have privilege over other people you’re not aware of, but you might actually be exercising it against them.
And no, privilege is not luck. Finding ten bucks on the ground is luck. Having a family with money is privilege.
I don’t feel guilty about being a man but I do realise that it has certain benefits that women don’t get and certain opportunities I get that women have to fight much harder for. This doesn’t mean I’m a bad person. But denying that this is the case in order to preserve my illusions makes me an ignorant person.
Now, I’ve seen conference organisers, and other people too, try very hard to find willing female voices, and fail. But they’re not pretending that diversity and privilege aren’t problems. These guys really were. And, y’know, fuck those guys. Don’t be those guys.
Ah, Twitter. Both a boon and a bane. Great for organising social outings and sourcing hot shoes. Really, really bad at social justice.
It’s somewhat depressing to jump on Twitter after a nap, only to find people who should know better making fat jokes. In the guise of punning about music. I really wish this were an uncommon occurrence. Sadly, it really, really isn’t.
Oh! You’re so funny! Fat people like to eat lots! They’re obsessed with buffets and friands and ham. Great.
And of course, when a bunch of people called out the fatshaming, there was a chorus of whining of “but I just wanted to make puns about food!”. How nice for you. Then why did you have to include the hashtag about fat people? Why denigrate people because of how they look and their perceived relationship with food? Because you can, because you didn’t think, because fat people don’t have feelings you could possibly hurt.
Here’s the thing. If the Beatles were fat dudes? It’s very, very unlikely they would be famous enough for you to be making puns about them. Sure, random dude on Twitter, you can name four fat artists (Adele, Beth Ditto, Aretha, Fat Joe), so everything must be OK, and there’s no imperative in the music industry to be thin. Or something. Would the girls have screamed, so long and so loud, if they four nice-looking boys from Liverpool have been overweight.
I wonder if the people who wrote that hashtag over and over again took a moment to think about the people they might be hurting when they tweeted. The teenage singer who wants a career but was told she can’t because she’s too big. The boy who wanted to be on TV, but was fat. Any overweight person who had the temerity to think that despite their size they might be entitled to personhood. I can only speak for myself, but it felt like being punched in the stomach. I mean, I couldn’t feel it, on account of being so desperately addicted to curly fries, but still.
Incumbent Roger Rivard (R), lost his Congressional seat to Steven Smith (D). Rivard was the chap who told passed on his father’s wisdom that “some girls rape easy.”
Todd Akin (R) failed to take what should have been a winnable senate seat for the Republicans. Akin was the chap who told us that if a rape was “legitimate”, then a woman could not get pregnant because her body would shut conception down.
Tea Party backed candidate Richard Mourdock couldn’t win what should have been a wide open race, giving the Democrats one more seat in the Senate. Mourdock was the chap who told us that pregnancy resulting from rape was something that God intended.
But why should we care, here in New Zealand, an ocean away from the United States?
Here’s why. We should care because the anti-women rhetoric coming from conservatives in the US travels down here swiftly. Rape culture is alive and flourishing in New Zealand, and concepts like “legitimate rape” and “can’t get pregnant from rape” and “some girls rape easy” and “God meant for you to be raped” play into it, and sustain it.
I am so very glad that voters in the United States rejected these men who endorsed rape. It’s a push back, a small step towards dismantling the narrative of hatred and contempt for women.