[Please welcome Amanda Marcotte to our comments. -- dn]
Damn, I wish we’d had this book 20 years ago.
Back in the ’70s and ’80s, an earlier generation of young feminists donned sturdy discrimination-proof (at least, we hoped) dark suits, sensible heels and floppy bow ties; armed ourselves with graduate degrees, expensive briefcases and game smiles; and set out for the newly-opened wilderness of the working world in the jaunty assurance that with just the right amount of spunk, smarts, and sex appeal, we’d soon convince the boys that there was plenty o’ room in the wide world of commerce for everybody. Sure, there’d be adjustments — and the odd snake-in-the-grass or dinosaur encounter to tell your granddaughters and the EEOC about — but by and large, we were pretty convinced that taking or rightful place alongside the men was going to be good for everyone, once the guys got over the initial shock of seeing us there.
Of course, the old joke says that you can always tell the pioneers by the arrows sticking out of their backs. It soon became clear that the wilderness we were breaking wasn’t a wide-open prairie readily welcoming new homesteaders; it was a treacherous swamp, dark and mysterious and filled with venomous creatures we’d never seen before — stealthy and dangerously territorial beasts that would rise suddenly out of calm waters, drop unexpectedly out of trees, or come streaming out of the ground in numberless hordes to halt your progress at the moment you least expected it.
It was a jungle. And the weapon we needed most was the one we were most specifically forbidden to wield: a sharp sense of humor, flexible enough to adapt to a vast range of circumstances and pointed enough to draw some real blood and stop predatory critters in their tracks.
Amanda Marcotte, who broke a lot of tough new trail herself as member of the first wave of progressive feminist bloggers, has finally written the guidebook to this jungle as it stands now (and oh, yes, you better believe it still stands) in 2008. It’s A Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments is a brave, insightful, and comprehensive tour of the whole swamp. And what I got out of it was what Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, knew all along — that floppy bow ties, sensible heels, and even graduate degrees won’t get you nearly as far in this jungle as a cheetah-print loincloth, matching gold bicep cuffs, and swift and deadly aim when sinking a well-honed arrow of laughter straight into the black heart of looming and fearsome stupidity.
And oh my goddess, is that stupidity ever out there. Marcotte has an uncanny instinct for homing in on the various double binds and rank hypocrisies that sustain the patriarchy, and there’s not a rock, bush, or thicket of modern feminist life she leaves unexplored. High school. College. Abstinence-only education, the anti-choice cult, and other high fundamentalist weirdness. Obnoxiously conservative family members who ask unanswerable questions about your love life, family intentions, or politics. Dating strategies — and the men who try to run "feminist" head-fucks on us. Men’s rights activists, women’s magazines, Playboy, and the Girl Scouts. And the full range of modern female bonding rituals, including cooking, shoe shopping, sororities, motherhood, and weddings.
Marcotte, who grew up in West Texas and now lives in Austin, says that she set out to make feminism appealing to younger women who are facing a different landscape — and have recourse to different weapons and tactics. I was hooked in the very first chapters, when she went straight to a truth that’s been formative in my life, but I’ve never seen discussed in any feminist book in the Official Canon. That truth is that Red America is, if anything, more intransigently patriarchal than ever — but also produces feminist heroes of its own, and offers its own unique contexts (e.g. when all the women are stuck in the kitchen together doing dishes while the men laze around the porch) for feminist dialogue. Feminism does exist out there in the boonies; it just doesn’t look, dress, or talk anything like the feminism you see in more educated and urban areas. It has different issues, and it deals with them in different ways, many of which are invisible to feminists from the city. As a result, America’s two feminisms tend to talk right past each other, when they’re not eyeing each other with deep suspicion and contempt.
An early musing on country music stars brings this home. "It’s a sick obsession and I know I should abandon it, but it’s hard," writes Marcotte. "Many of them are Republicans. Many of them are badly educated rednecks. And pretty much all of them are sanctimonious Christians. But I love me some sassy female country music stars. And they are a source, for many a red-state-surviving feminist, of tips for hanging in and kicking ass."
As a daughter of the rural West myself, I’ve always known that that the sturdy ranch women who raised me were unbelievably independent and tough, and had their own ways and means of keeping the men on their side and out of their way — most of which would never be found in any women’s studies syllabus. But Marcotte knows that towns like Lubbock are where the biggest battles are still being fought — and that country music stars are probably doing a better job than anyone of pointing up the similarities between the two camps.
Deconstructing consumer culture is a fine old feminist sport, but Marcotte skewers its seductions with a light and easy hand that’s seldom angry or mean. By now, it’s a given that $27,000 weddings, four-inch-heels, and college sororities are symbols of patriarchal oppression. Nobody needs to tell us that anymore. So Marcotte spares us the academic exegesis and goes straight to the more visceral point, which is: this stuff is patently, simply, undisputably absurd. It’s expensive, distracting, and adds almost nothing to a life well-lived. Decades carefully-inculcated princess dream bubbles have proven surprisingly durable in the face of stern feminist finger-wagging; but Marcotte shows just how fast a quick spritz of derisive laughter can make them pop.
Your mileage will no doubt vary, but the part of the book that spoke most deeply to me was Marcotte’s deft explanation of why and how we ended up in that 1980s work jungle without the most devastating and useful weapon of all — our sense of humor. The root of the problem, she notes, is a double standard in how we define "a sense of humor." Men are display their sense of humor by telling jokes. Women show theirs by laughing at men’s jokes. Which sets up a great double bind where:
- Women who don’t laugh at men’s jokes (even when they’re mean and sexist and not funny) are Not Funny.
- Women who tell their own jokes are, by definition, Not Funny.
- Women who tell jokes that make fun of individual men, the patriarchy, or men’s sacred cows are dangerously, seriously Not Funny.
I learned this hard way once — I gently teased a hip, young, high-tech CEO in front of other people. (Actually, the remark was self-depricating; but he misinterpreted it to think I was talking about him — it’s always about them — and not myself.) Miscommunication aside, I’d been at the company for quite a while — long enough to know men at all levels kidded this guy all the time, in ways that were far rougher than anything I’d dare to dish out. But coming from a woman, it was Not Funny. In fact, it was so Not Funny that the entire executive staff was outraged at my apparent cheek….and I was out on the street in a matter of weeks.
Marcotte lays out the consequences for would-be subversives. Being a funny woman makes you insufficiently pious, possibly crazy, and almost certainly unfuckable — though men won’t hesitate to steal your jokes if they’re the least bit good, and completely forget that they didn’t think them up themselves. It also makes you a mortal threat to male pretensions of competence and power. The more seriously a man takes himself, the more viscerally he dreads being laughed at.
And that’s what makes funny feminists like Marcotte an asset to the struggle. It’s a Jungle Out There is a fast, easy, breezy, and very rewarding read that clarifies where our battles remain — and ensures that the next feminist generations won’t be sent out into that wilderness unarmed.
Related posts:
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Robert H. Frank, The Economic Naturalist’s Field Guide: Common Sense Principles for Troubled Times
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Adam Gopnik – Angels and Ages: A Short Book About Darwin, Lincoln, and Modern Life
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Hillary Rettig, The Lifelong Activist: How to Change the World Without Losing Your Way
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Nicholas Schmidle, To Live or to Perish Forever: Two Tumultuous Years in Pakistan
- FDL Book Salon Welcomes Matt Taibbi, The Great American Bubble Machine





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Welcome Amanda! It’s great to have you here.
Hi, Amanda and Sara!! Looking forward to the discussion!
Thanks for having me!
Love the observations about humor, Sara. Wasn’t it Margaret Atwood who suggested that the thing men fear most from women is that we’ll laugh at them?
Amanda — welcome to firedoglake! Wonderful to have you here.
Welcome to the Lake, Amanda. Your book is excellent — recommended for the white males out there too. Especially the complacent ones.
Welcome Amanda!
What a nice introduction Sara
Amanda, I will cop to the fact that I’m still reading the book — although I’m in the final pages now. I particularly liked your dissection of the men’s rights activists (who, as you point out, tend to be Nice Guys gone toxic). “Child support is the greatest evil the world has ever known.” And the delicious irony that the same men who complain of being seen as “success objects” are the same one heading off to Russia to look for mail-order brides (who, ostensibly, won’t see them that way?)
The ironies abound, and I’m astonished by your eye for them. How long did it take you to pull together such a comprehensive list?
The humor point is an interesting one. Even as a man, I find that jokes that poke fun at privilege really, really piss people off, regardless of who they come from.
Hey Sara and Amanda, welcome to Saturday at FDL!
Amanda, have you seen any reviews of your book by MRA groups?
Somehow, I don’t think they would understand your message or appreciate it.
(Note: I have not had an opportunity to read your book as yet)
It may have been Atwood; but whoever it was, she was prophetic. I do think it’s the thing they fear most: that we won’t be sufficiently respectful.
Oo, DK, good question.
Physioprof, my own observation is that the flip side of this is that men really, desperately want women’s approval. And the ones who seem to be most indifferent to that are the ones who are the hungriest for it.
Blogging is really a great way to hone your ideas over time. I got the list by examining what issues kept coming up on feminist blogs and what got a lot of comments, traction, links, and just bile. A lot of feminist bloggers lament that you’ll get more comments, say, by talking about silly wedding customs than something deep and important. But I don’t regret that so much as think that shows that wedding customs are far more likely to trip up defensive reactions, contradictions in thinking, and hypocrisy, especially the kind that upholds the patriarchy. Where people squirm the most is where I tend to linger.
The feminist wave of the sixies and seventies had a lot of humor in it, but maybe when the majority retired from politics do to other things, only the Really Serious people were left. Certainly the issues became divided and subdivided until they were almost incomprehensible to outsiders.
Can we get our sense of humor back? Would it help to be tickled?
And I’d argue that things like wedding customs are deep and important, because they’re rituals that embed and crystallize so many of our other attitudes about gender relationships.
There were a couple nasty comments at Amazon, but they got deleted because obviously the MRAs who wrote them hadn’t read the book. Nor do I think they will. It’s not worth their time, and all it will do is challenge their delicately sewn together myth that men are the ones who are really oppressed by all-powerful feminazis.
I guess I’ve spent too much time at the Lake, no lack of humor here.
Egregious, one of the things I liked best in the book were the chapters on the ways those funny women — especially those early ones — were marginalized as something other than “real women” because they were funny. Comediennes are fat, ethnic, or otherwise unfuckable.
Has Ann Althouse attacked this book yet, seeing as there are breasts on the cover?
Really good point. And I think one reason it confuses people is that marriage is such a sexist institution historically speaking, and the assumption from feminists for a long time was that it would basically just disappear. But instead, as you see with the gay marriage thing, society has chosen instead to remake it. We hope that it can be egalitarian, but time and time again we just ape old, sexist traditions. It’s a difficult, uphill battle.
I have some fun in the book with people I think mean well but just fail miserably to really remake old, sexist traditions in a new way that’s more equal. Like whoever thought of bringing men to baby showers was nuts. Bringing men just makes the whole childish aspect of the tradition more embarrassing. Better would be to do what Miranda did on Sex and the City, and have fried chicken and beer at your baby shower.
I almost tore someone’s head off for saying he thought feminazi was funny – by the time I got through he looked as if had been through the entire cycle in the dishwasher.
what about Murine Dowd, too?
I think one reason a lot of humor fades over time is that comedy often doesn’t age as well as drama. It relies very heavily on timeliness 99% of the time. I know it, as a humorist, and just went with that in the book.
Dowd is way too busy working on those Obambi jokes.
Amanda’s book is great — not surprising to anyone familiar with her blogging. I’d like to suggest it would make a terrific graduation present, for the male and female graduates on your list. I don’t laugh aloud while reading many books, but this was one of them.
The three-page chapter entitled “How to Decide Whether to Out Someone” was worth the price of admission.
Thanks for this book, Amanda, and thank you, Sara, for a wonderful introduction.
Men don’t respect us if we laugh at them. I think that is really funny.
When men are by themselves, the humor tends very much towards one-upmanship and displays of dominance through “kidding”. Is women’s humor fundamentally different from this, you think, or similar?
I concur with Teddy. I’m planning on handing my review copy off to my daughter, who graduated last night from high school. (The grad ball’s tonight. Am moderating this, along with a hairdo disaster — she just went back to the shower to start over.)
Isn’t all women’s solo humor about the ABSURDITY of the penis?
Christopher Hitchens openly stated that women he found sexually attractive and women he thought were funny were mutually exclusive categories. People point to conventionally attractive female comedians that have emerged in recent years—Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Sarah Silverman—and that pretty much settles that argument. I wish there was a more delicate was to talk about that, a way that doesn’t degrade the looks of women that aren’t bone thin, young, etc., but that’s the sort of hair-splitting that makes the funny disappear.
It’s really weird. In my real world life, being funny is WHY I’m ever considered attractive. I make the dudes laugh, and they like me. But when I started to ply it online, suddenly I tripped over the fact that I was a huge threat. And I think I realized how much I honed my sense of humor in matriarchal environments of the kind Sara describes in the introduction. When I was growing up, women would get together without men and laugh and crack foul jokes and carry on. So I got the message that women should be funny. Less the message that we shouldn’t scare men with it. But then again, once I was out in the world, I was living in a liberal city where there’s lots of men who like funny women.
Or is it simply about absurdity generally? Being female is, at its core, a pretty damned absurd experience.
Welcome to the Lake, Amanda.
Looking back to humor I saw women peddle growing up, it had that element of one-upmanship, but honestly, it was about “surviving”. Which is why I wanted to write a survival guide. Life is really absurd for a lot of women living under sexism, and so like getting together with other women and making fun of the world was a release more than a game. Less MarioKart, more Katamari Damacy.
It seems possible that not taking yourself seriously is one of the major differences between liberal men and conservative men. Conservative men seem to take themselves much more seriously — and react badly when we’re insufficiently respectful of their gravitas.
Of course, that said, I have no compunction about one upmanship with men now that I’m an adult. That’s why I was on the speech team in high school and not a cheerleader.
A continuation of the competitiveness of young boys?
What a great gift to give to each of my two nieces, one graduating from high school, the other college! As well as for myself. Part of the 4 choice generation of women: wife/mother, teacher, nurse, and secretary.
This is so well timed post all the HRC discussion.
As a liberal man, I’m not entirely sure the liberal men are as self-effacing as you’re optimistically suggesting. I’d say that IF a man doesn’t take himself seriously, THEN he’s probably liberal, but I wouldn’t say the assumption goes the opposite direction.
Ugh. Christopher Hitchens. Now there’s a model of maleness …
One thing I’ve noticed about conservative men vs. liberal men in using humor as a one upmanship thing is that conservative men are far more likely to aim it at people they think are their social inferiors. So, racist jokes, sexist jokes, male bonding. But liberal men I know have honed the art of trash-talking amongst themselves in a controlled situation like a game. But that’s just my experience.
Racist and sexist jokes in conservative environments are also a gate-keeping mechanism. If someone makes one and you don’t laugh, you are given shit. It’s not about being funny for its own sake, but about controlling the boundaries and surpressing dissent.
Isn’t part of the “problem” with women being funny that funny = smart? Men who think they are funny, and thus smart, may simply not want to share yet another arena with women. It’s their loss, of course.
HAHAHAH! Amanda, I am too fucking old for many of your pop culture references (which I assume that is)!
Undoubtedly.
Sara, Amanda, welcome to the Lake.
SUZ!!! where’s the brain bleach?
Well, actually, I would rephrase as follows:
Young boys practicing for the competitiveness of adult males.
Yeah, it’s a video game reference. MarioKart is usually a vicious party game, all competition. Katamari Damacy is like the ideal stoner game. You just roll a big ball around collecting stuff. It’s not really very competitive, but weirdly relaxing.
Auguste, I’m not sure I implied causality; I certainly didn’t intend to. But the correlation seems pretty strong: men who are comfortable with themselves don’t feel nearly so assaulted when a woman teases them, or makes jokes about men. And they’re also more open to the world generally, which usually does mean liberal in their worldview.
For fifteen years I have been getting together with my women friends the first Tuesday of every month for martini night. We are from 45 to 80 years old. Our daughters can come. No men ever. We are the nastiest funniest peeps I know. We are without constrain and mostly post menipausal. And we are dangerous.
No, I guess what I was saying was: Don’t give liberal men too much credit.
It’s also about being allowed among the permitted oppressed, thus Andrew Sullivan’s love of South Park, which prominently features — and has made mainstream — the phrase “That’s so gay.”
I like Lily Tomlin’s joke so much better,
Actually, if you know either game, you know the analogy is dead spot on. Women’s humor — like our lives — tends to be more spontanous and non-zero-sum.
I really hate the way W uses humor to keep people in their place. Since I’ve become aware of that, I notice other high-status men doing it, too, and find it really offensive.
I find them boring. Same thing with a lot of the conservative women I know. Both are so full of themselves they’ve either forgotten or fail to see that there are so many little things in our lives that are funny.
Spending more time on the blogosphere I am finding it hard to tell at times whether the person behind the pseudonym is male or female when there are no clues in an androgynous self-title. I had a discussion on one progressive website and was about to congratulate a guy for being so evolved… and it was a woman commenter. Aha. In a way, this veil before us in posting brings a bottom-line honesty without the subliminal assumed and maybe unwitting stereotypes of sexism and the reverse, ageism and the reverse, and racism and the reverse.
I’ve noticed a marked increase lately in the level racial and sexual hostility just in the email jokes that are sent to me by men I know who happen to be Republicans. Nastier than ever, anyone else feeling this, too?
This is a bit OT, but Digby has some wistful regrets about allowing herself to be gendered. Being completely without gender gave her a freedom that she misses. And she says she definitely takes more shit now than she did when people weren’t sure.
Heh, I use humor to police the comments at my blog. Trolls are, to my mind, a socially acceptable group to just relentlessly mock to their virtual faces.
I found long ago that people stopped sending these when I responded immediately, “Don’t send me stuff like this, ever again.”
wow. That’s telling.
I did enjoy when you would “dis-emvowel” the trolls who persisted in their idiocy.
Any particular troll-busting tactics you’d care to pass on?
Absolutely. And instead of just deleting them and cutting the sender some slack I am ONLY beginning to gently respond with a proactive assertion of why it made me uncomfortable. I think it is going to cut down on my mailbox inflow. But I think I need to stop “enduring” prejudice from extended family and acquaintances and “BE THE CHANGE”.
I’ve noticed that, too. I dread reading any forwarded emails lately. They used to more reliably be a mix of stupid jokes, treacly “inspiring” stories, and other such stuff. Now, more racist jokes. I think I blame the conservative attempts to turn Mexican immigrants into this year’s bogeyman more than I do anything else.
Amanda, you share something with my favorite comedian, Kathy Griffin: the wrath of the odious Bill Donohue. I wonder if you have ever compared notes with Kathy about your experiences?
Disemvowelment has gotten around. Amanda, was that your innovation?
shades of gray – nuance – appreciating, studying differing and varied points of view goes with liberalism and a broader sense of humor.
Seeking black and white distinctions – often based on tribalism, mores or folkways – is aligned with conservatism and a narrowed perspective – fostering the inability to appreciate any humor beyond fart jokes.
when I first jumped into the Lake, I deliberately chose a ambiguous name.
I’m going to remember this, being the troll lover I am. Hmmmmmm…
I’m getting the idea the trolls are in for a baaddd time here shortly.
How interesting is that! I know we women were raised to give men more full and patient attention and cut them more slack. But the double standard still stalks us. And yet I do want to assert my gender, since it is a big part of my character building when I share. I know some men of my acquaintance don’t like “libbyliberal”. Told me it wasn’t serious enough. I like the alliteration, and I am making a statement that I don’t make an apology for being liberal. But it would be interesting to have an androgynous moniker, too.
No, it was invented, I do believe, by the people at Making Light. There’s a website where you can c/p their comments into it, have them automatically disemvowled, and then c/p it back into the edit field.
Fighting trolls one on one is hard to boil down. Some you really don’t want to provoke, because they are crazy stalker dudes who will completely come undone if bested by a woman cracking jokes at their expense. But some will be shamed enough to slink off….temporarily. One thing I’ve learned about conservative men is that they really do feel entitled to feel like the smartest, most important people in the room even if all evidence to the contrary is glaringly obvious.
I consider it also fair to mercilessly mock demented fucking right-wing wackaloon assholes, even if they are not “trolls”.
I think this is a key insight.
I really believe that Roman Catholicism exerts too much patriarchal influence, because of it’s closed ecclesiology, a pope who is by canon law required to be male and celibate. It’s tough for the other mainline Xtian denominations to get much traction. FWIW, the pope respects the sacraments of Eastern Orthodox Catholics who reject his authority. They have married priests, but sadly still restrict ordination to one gender. Mainline protestants have made much greater headway in ordaining both genders and Luther was always open to married ministers. As someone who was raised RC, it’s always bothered me that a denomination that invested so much in education remained so damn patriarchal. BTW, the quality of RC priests is just terrible. It’s not that they’re all child molesters. It’s just that they are for the most part so overwhelmingly (for lack of a better term) dumb.
Nice catch on the feminism in CW music.
Just be careful though; not everyone who disagrees or is disagreeable is actually a troll.
In fact, often, troll is over used as a descriptor.
And the intensely religious and sentimental and superstitious all mixed up into one. Those alarm me as much as the malicious ones. The all or nothing, no shades of gray, “patriotic” mandates still come frequently.
I hang out on a college football blog and you bet I can confirm it.
respectfully disagree.Think of the Jesuits
I think it was a good thing on the whole for Griffin, but maybe I’m wrong. It probably was good in the long run for me—gave me focus on what to do with my life, and campaign work ain’t it. In the short term, giving up a good job and becoming Public Enemy #1 was not fun.
But like the proper egotist humorist I am, I got a little jolt of pride ever time a newscast or article mentioned my joke about the Holy Spirit. You just don’t repeat a joke like that over and over unless it’s a good one. Donohue has a real knack for getting offended at stuff that’s genuinely funny. Griffin’s joke made me smirk. I think he realizes the funnier the joke that he gets mad at, the more traction it gets in the media, because a good joke has repeat value, even if you’re clutching your pearls at it. Does that make sense?
Amanda, that squares with my experience at Orcinus, where we got lots and lots of conservative male trolls. Being the only woman there was rough and tumble at times, but I found that drawing on that red-state-woman thing helped a lot.
One of the amazing things is how easy it is to sexually intimidate men. They want to be in control. And all you need to do is suggest that maybe they won’t be if you’re around, and they just sort of shrivel up and hiss.
Bullseye.
Oh, I wait until I can determine the difference between someone who sincerely believes what they write and one who’s just here to create hate and discontent. I don’t mind engaging someone who’s serious, of whatever stripe, but I’m gonna give it to a troll. There’s just something about them that puts my back up.
I think bunnying (replacing the offending comment with a youtube video of a bunny) was invented by Chris Clarke while blogging at Pandagon, though.
Wasn’t it Margaret Atwood who suggested that the thing men fear most from women is that we’ll laugh at them?
or, even worse, laugh and point towards their nether regions
Of course, some of our trolls aren’t just “conservative” …
Thanks, Elliot. I was struggling to come up with a better word than androgynous. Ambiguous.
I think people do pick up soon enough on gender with at least more self-disclosing types soon enough. But an interesting option to try.
I think you and I had really similar experiences being brought onto blogs that were run by men before. When I joined Pandagon, Jesse was downright confused how many emails he’d get from guys who would use this “Just between us men” tone and ask him to get rid of me. Some of them seemed not to understand that he’d asked me to join. The only way to describe it was that they seemed to think I used my feminine wiles to trick him into allowing me onto his blog. Which makes no sense at all, since we hadn’t met in person at the time.
I’ve got a young lady at work who dings me every chance she gets. We have a great time.
I think people who are truly funny need to be able to enjoy pissing people off, and gain ego gratification from people talking about them, even when what they are saying is “What a fucking asshole!”
Welcome, Amanda, and thanks very much Sara.
Yes, I think the arrows Digby took for being gender ambiguous were minor compared to those she suffered once people knew she was a woman. I myself always cited her as a man who wrote well about women’s issues before I knew who she was. Once she came “out” she was subject to a lot of bullying and disrespect that she just didn’t suffer before.
Of course, I think the online conversation has really degenerated recently, so maybe that’s a part of it.
Which is all a roundabout way of saying that some odious wingnuts seemed to think they could appeal to Jesse’s gender as a trump card, like he had more in common with them (penises) than he did with me (sense of humor, values system).
And some of our conservatives aren’t just trolls!
It’s both a source of inspiration and a coping mechanism. Every time Bill O’Reilly has decided I’m a menace to society, I try to remember what Oscar Wilde said and just tell people, “At least he pronounces ‘Marcotte’ right.”
But “issues with women” seems to be a unifying theme with them — and the farther out on the loony right they are, the truer that seems to be.
Oh, how true (that they feel entitled to be the smartest, most powerful, particularly in a public setting.) One of the most delicious comments aabout me during my activist years (60, 70, 80’s) was made by an adversary (male) describing me to someone (a male) who had to deal with me on a public board. After running me down, he said, “but don’t underestimate her”… I roll that around in my head with silent chuckles.
I really admire your willingness to put yourself out there like that.
IMHO, Benny 16 and JP2 effectively destroyed the Jebbies. I don’t have a problem with celibacy. As Jebbies know, it’s mandatory celibacy that is so ahistorical.
It wasn’t mandatory until the 11th Century.
Their willingness to enable the ordination of only one gender is unacceptable in the West, especially after they pray at Mass for more vocations. RC Church is arm-pit deep in highly qualified vocations that they refuse to ordain. Pedro Arrupe, S.J. was a great man, but institutionally, you don’t survive only ordaining one gender and within that subset make them promise to be permanently celibate. Talented people don’t like to live like that. Plus it symbolically sends a horrible message about sex and women to RC men, women, boys, and girls.
Yeah, look at it this way: People stopped trying to delete your Wikipedia article and now they just vandalize it. That’s the difference between obscurity and fame.
Dave doesn’t even get that much respect usually — either with pronunciation or spelling.
Kathy makes the point that everyone in the auditorium loved her joke and that is was favorably received in the trade press on Day One. On Day Two, when Donohue started railing, people turned on her.
Your description of him as a sort of humor limpet makes sense — he has a finely tuned sense of how the media works. That aspect had not occurred to me, that he picks on people whose jokes the media enjoys repeating, even when expressing shock. That was also the case, I suppose, with Chocolate Jesus.
The Digby thing was interesting. I was using the pronoun “she” in reference to her long before her official outing, and every time, people would call me out for it. And would reasonably feel bad when it was pointed out to them that “she” is as acceptable as a gender-neutral pronoun as “he”. But I figured it out before she was outed, though I won’t lie—I was told by others that Digby is female.
I was only referencing education,pretty much agree on every thing else
That was true for us too, though it wasn’t just a guy thing. I even got an inquiry from one of my readers — a woman, as it happened — who wanted to know if Sara was my mistress.
Yeah, the title of the Chocolate Jesus was “My Sweet Lord”. Tell me that’s not funny.
Amanda, I’ve got a problem I’m running into more and more as I deal with fairly high-powered liberal guys. In a conversation where there’s, say, three of them and me, I’ll routinely get interrupted and talked over. And this is LIBERAL men, who you’d think oughta know better.
Since I have to work with these guys (and consider them friends), I don’t want to pop them particularly hard; but I do want to call out the behavior and get them to knock it off.
Am thinking through ways of handling this. Suggestions welcome.
Yes indeed. The farther out the more cartoonlike their thinking gets, for one thing.
You never told me that.
Sure would come as a shock to your wife and my husband…..
well, is she?
j/k
Kind of an off the wall question, but I was just reading Charles Morris’ THE TRILLION DOLLAR MELTDOWN. And I noticed a feminine pronoun “her” where usually authors use the masculine to indicate both genders. Any idea if this was a copy error or a quiet, unassuming attempt at reforming language? I’m unable to tell you if it’s a pattern in the book. It’s the first time I’ve noticed it in this work.
jk: Is that any of your business?
Actually, Dave’s wife has made funny comments about his “online wife” — which may have been precipitated by questions from readers in that regard.
I hope she used the word “mistress”. Because you should at least get martinis in your blogger liasions.
Kick them in the nuts. /s
Thanks.
My comment came out with less diplomacy than I would have liked. I know a lot of Jebbies and I have had a lot of discussions with them.
Boo, I routinely do that when I write or edit things. Unless I’m writing about a specific person, I’ll switch off examples between men and women. I alternate very consciously, to get a balance in the text.
Just to avoid any unneeded tension, I’ll point out that jk isn’t a signoff, it’s an abbreviation for “just kidding.”
Actually, this has been a topic of extensive discussion on some science blogs recently. Female scientists–who get this shit a lot from pompous male windbags like me–have found that simply saying, “Please let me finish” or “I’m still talking”, work well. And they have also found that talking loud and over someone who attempts to interrupt is important.
Sounds unpleasant, but fuck, this is what men learn to do conversationally, so I guess you can turn our own shit back on us, no?
j/k meant just kidding, honest, I was just kidding.
Good question. Perhaps creating an obnoxious hand signal that stops conversation and then saying, “Can I finish?” would do it. Like pick up a legal pad and wave it. Relying on people’s pre-existing guilt, while obnoxious, is often effective.
Or you could be passive aggressive. Wait until one is done and say, “Yeah, that’s what I was going to say if you let me finish.”
Yeah, I thought we’d had a laugh over it in the San Juans with Lisa and Evan, for some reason. But it’s true. I wrote back a brief note pretty much laughing at her.
Kayaking with orcas and camping in the most beautiful spot on earth beats martinis hands down.
And that’s been a perk of being Dave’s online wife.
But we are way off-topic now. Amanda, you’re at the end of a book promotion tour. Anything interesting happen during your encounter with the public?
There’s a great book by Dorothy Dinnerstein The Mermaid and the Minotaur who speaks of the bonding and anti-bonding of women with women and men with women. Since traditionally the mother was more of the “raiser” of the kids, little boys needed to fight off too close bonding with their larger than life, rules making mother to build a male identity, so separation is a big deal with them. With little girls they see bonding as healthier in a way, but they also need to separate from the mother figure to be more than a mini-mom. But there may be some guilt in doing that too, or at least a torn feeling. As for the father out in the world more than at home, there was more ideation of the male figure, he was considered more exotic and worth more curious attention and respect.
I think I can imagine one.
In my science blogging I refer to all generic scientists using “she/her”. I figure it’s a small way of reminding people that the default assumption that scientists are “he/him” is bullshit.
One of my mom’s friends came to my reading at Book People in Austin, and joked after the fact that she probably the only Ron Paul voter there. Because I’m an asshole, I singled her out as a proxy to give my mom a hard time. I said, “I planned to read this chapter on asshole bleaching, and I’m still going to do it, but it’s not going to be easy because one of my mom’s friends is here.” I had to apologize after the fact and let her know I was just doing it for comic effect, that I’m not unaware that women my mom’s age find asshole bleaching to be as disturbingly funny as I find it. Emails were exchanged after the fact, and my mother did in fact find it funny.
As someone who moved from the East Coast to the more conversationally civilized San Francisco, I can tell you from personal experience what worked on me, and quite quickly:
I just wanted to throw this out as data. To me it’s a hopeful sign at the same time it confirms how far we have to go.
Here’s the link, unfortunately, it’s from a pay-siteLori Nickel 1 June 2008
I also think it’s important to remind everyone that feminism is all about humanism. It’s not possible to damage one gender without injuring the other as well.
amanda: any luck finding The Ideal Feminist Shoes?
That was a cute chapter — sort of anti-Carrie-Bradshaw.
Born is my friend.
The great myth about feminism is that it’s about tearing men down. And I won’t lie; the longer I do work in social justice, the more I see people who think tearing down the privileged is a fine substitute for lifting up the underprivileged. I refuse to go there.
Not that men won’t have to make sacrifices. Housework needs to be done, women need to be given time to speak, and the gentle ego stroking that you get from women free of charge will have to be returned in kind.
you could always do the “Horshack” move from “Welcome Back, Kotter”
How did you decide on this as a topic for a book? Was there a germ of the idea from a particular blog post, or did was it more of a coalescing of various ideas?
Hahahahahahhahaa. I got interviewed by a journalist who pointed out that I completely forgot to address cowboy boots. And I had to confess, cowboy boots on Texan feminists present no problems. And so I wore my cowboy boots to the Book People reading.
However, cowboy boots can only be worn cheekily. Unless you are in a psychobilly band, I don’t think you can wear them ironically. So I don’t know how feminists from non-Western states could pull them off.
Bullseye. Thank you.
Hey Amanda, have you read “Stiffed” by Susan Faludi? Whatcha think?
In reference to what Sara said, I think a lot of my ideas about feminism make me think about growing up in a really sexist culture, and how so much of what made me a feminist was surviving. I wasn’t conquering shit. Escape was easier than remaking the society of West Texas, and escape I did. And so the germ of the idea was there—how to survive politically inhospitable environments like West Texas—and my editor suggested that sexism thrives even in liberal areas, so no need to limit it.
So I take it that Loubitins might not be a preferred footwear for you?
Molly wore cowboy boots. And you dedicated the book to her.
I married my husband in wildly embroidered red cowboy boots, which were one of the most treasured gifts my father ever gave me.
Cowboy boots ARE cheeky. And for women from the left end of the country, a perfect feminist statement in so many ways.
But I wouldn’t turn up my nose at a pair of nice red-soled $800 Louboutin pumps, no.
I felt during the 60s and the 70s period of time when the women’s movement was gaining momentum, straight women and gay women did not join forces in the name of feminism enough. I mean there was a lot to cope with for sure. I think that evolution and support is happening more now … and I guess time and maturing was required. Now it is about men’s true liberation in a way.
It all does come down to humanism. That was a very wise remark. (sorry…forgot who cited that…. will look back)
Yes. I think it’s going to turn out that Faludi was ahead of her time. When it came out, there was a sense that worrying about anxious masculinity was a little silly. And then lookee here, you have an entire culture in a full-blown panic about what manhood even means anymore. I think that without understanding anxious masculinity, you don’t understand the Bush administration. I recommend reading Stephen Ducat’s “The Wimp Factor” for more on that.
We need to talk shoes sometime.
I will admit, I don’t like trying to replace the word “feminism” with “humanism”. Feminism is a subset of humanism, but it has special tools and purposes that get lost if you petulantly demand we abandon the word “feminism”.
Saying, “Feminism is just humanism,” is like saying, “Biology is just science.” Technically true, but missing the reason that we specialize.
When Norman Mailer called Bush senior a “wimp” and he then launched Iraq War #1. The power of the patriarchal button pushing.
Just bought the book via the FDL link, thanks.
I for one am delighted that my own demographic, the white male, finally became critical to getting elected in 2008. At last we have come into our own, with pundits wondering endlessly who we will vote for. Our long era of being ignored is finally over.
Hey, I call myself libbyLIBERAL so I ain’t abandoning the word “feminism”. I just agree with the point that humanism invites a “partnership” system, not a patriarchal society that encourages separation and competition.
I wish the generation of women behind me were not allergic to the word “feminism” or used to seem so.
The nicest thing about my daughters’ generation (31 and 34) is that they see gender as being much more fluid than I did. I have learned much from them.
Raven’s a lot better read than I, I am unfamiliar with STIFFED.
I really appreciate you raising this. A lot of this imho is about understanding/mapping gender and orientation imho.
I think it shows serious progress that some of us “feminists” though impressed mightily a woman was running for top office, felt that we could support the best candidate we saw and did not feel locked into the gender mandate. Respected it, but trusted it would happen again and the glass ceiling was there for the breaking.
Thanks, I’ll get that. If, as I think, anxious masculinity in my generation is in some ways rooted in the fact that so few actually served in Vietnam I expect and even bigger uptick with this current bullshit. Add in the fact that women are serving so effectively (not that there are not serious issues there) and I think this generation of men will be as anxious as a bunch of cats crappin ground glass.
I think that it would benefit everyone to consider that feminism is a part of secular humanism. Not because it would tempt men who are hostile to women on board—they’re always going to have an excuse—but I do wish more feminists thought of the ways other branches of secular humanist thinking are useful to us. Like science, empiricism, rights-based thinking, etc.
AHahahahahah!
I was not warned that an inhaler should be standing by for STAT use!
That was a point Amanda made in our phone chat: that feminism in this era isn’t a “movement,” it’s something else that’s closer to a way of living. And that’s a good thing, because I think the remaining battles aren’t ones that can be fought through civic action.
They’re the little things that persist silently between us, like the interrupting and the sensitivity to humor and all the baggage of weddings. I really think Amanda’s scoping out the new frontier on which the next gains will be made — and humor is very often the very best way to get at some of these.
I find this observation fascinating. “Men at home now abed will hold their manhood cheap when any speaks who fought with us at Da Nang.”
And there’s a whole generation feeling just a tetch defensive about having “other priorities,” and they’re the ones who keep bringing it up. Is this your thesis?
I hope not. I hope women don’t take on too much power “machismo” to keep sexism at bay, because then we are doing the competition thing with men.
My issue with Hillary is that she gave up her “yin” to join the “yang-oriented” patriarchy. I think Obama and Edwards did not have the DNA but they had more of the altruistic (feminine ideal) style and sensibility, though I think Hillary was catching up at the end with the support of feminists and populists.
This goes right back to your point about housework, cooking….
Historically, I think a lot of those daily living tasks are associated with servants and slavery.
Well, if there are very many more Lilly Ledbetter type decisions, those old feminism battles may have to be re-fought a few more times
One of em!
FWIW, Raven is not just talking, he served in Korea.
I can’t answer for Raven but that has definitely been my experience.
Libby, my sense of the earliest wave of feminists is that they had to be very yang to endure all they did in breaking down the walls for those of us who came along behind. They fought machismo with some hembra (a fine Mexican slang term that means “stubborn as a female goat,” often but not always perjoratively) did make them a bit shrill and hard — but warriors tend to get that way after they’ve survived a few decades of battle.
I also didn’t like that in Hillary; and I think we’re entering an era where that kind of presentation is going to be seen as counterproductive.
Vietnam too
My bad.
“Shrill” is my favorite pejorative. I long to be called “shrill.” But it hasn’t happen yet.
Seconded.
That is a fascinating chapter in “Stiffed” about the Citadel. All these tasks that are so honored there, spit and polish, sewing, barracks cleaning have been traditionally seen as feminine but highly valued in this masculine environment.
BTW: the Graduation Ball Hair Crisis of 2008 has been successfully averted. While moderating this, I’ve completely re-done my daughter’s do, washed and dried and curled and sprayed and festooned the whole thing with two creamy white roses. She’s splendid in pearls and high gloves and a fabulous vintage strapless 50s gown with crinoline — elegant and girlish in a sort of Audrey Hepburn sort of way.
Amanda writes about the average wedding costing $27K. Over my dead body. This was thrill enough.
Not at all.
And some early feminists really put down the mother/housewife … who, for many of us, was already having a hell of a time dealing with the disrespect we were getting from the men around us….and feeling the loss of our professional lives while also wanting to raise our own kids. It was unpleasant. But most of us managed to raise great kids who are now much less conflicted and are able to maintain their professional lives while also being good parents (men & women seem to be more involved parents these days.) I’m proud of all of us for doing the best we could and moving down the trail without despairing.
Isn’t the price of a ladder about $50 or so these days?
Highly valued for their ability to instill discipline and teach precision in seemingly small tasks. And a measure of patience.
I agree, Sara. Look at what the suffragettes had to go through, the vilification of them to buck the tide to get us the very vote. GOD BLESS THEM AND ALL SUBSEQUENT FIGHTERS FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS.
They say patriarchal thinking is slyly coming back among a larger percentage of American males. ???
I think of the Afghanistan professional women who were forced to regress on threat of death to be enslaved once again. The suicides that caused on a massive scale.
I had a very compatible discussion with a middle Eastern man on a chance encounter about the stupidity of the Bush administration. Finally, I mentioned women’s rights and he stunned me… pushed his finger and face into my face and declared, “YOU LEAVE OUR WOMEN ALONE!!!” He was so liberated in political thinking, and so UNBELIEVABLY OPPRESSIVE about controlling women and threatened by the freedom American women have!
There’s a lot of complaint these days that Millennials don’t have the same work ethic of earlier generations. I think the kids got the message from us: employers have zero loyalty to you, but will demand 100% from you anyway. It’s not a deal they’re taking — in large part because they saw the very one-sided tradeoffs a lot of us got screwed by.
I think I know a really proud Mom when I see one. With a daughter to be really proud of.
How high
what color!
B abe
I n
T otal
C ontrol of
H erself
Dakine, forget the ladder. I’ll give them the keys, and they can take my car.
Isn’t that always the way it is? Why, when I was a kid. . .
See ya’ll later, gotta get dinner ready for the little lady :)
ain’t that the truth
Well said.
SO WELL SAID. The older I get the more appreciative I get of the generations before me. And I see the generation(s) after me, taking advantage of the progress and yet having to deal with the same crap at times, too.
a little late to the conversation, but I really wanted to say how much I enjoyed this book and that I gave copies to BOTH my daughters!
Another original observation from the book (at least to me) was Amanda’s dissection of “nice guys” — guys who present as OK with feminism, but are really at sea with it and end up being very bitter. They’re definitely out there. A lot of them end up in men’s movements. And it’s a shame — I have to wonder why we’re minting so many of them, and what can be done to make this all work for them.
Yeah, it isn’t done. But my daughters can be accomplished (and are), can be mothers (with men who also want to be active fathers) — and can throw zingers with all their friends without frightening anyone. Maybe they just choose smart and humorous folks to hang out with.
I can’t wait to get my eyes on this book!!!
That is great that they got a sense of empowerment and entitlement! Good for you and them!!!
Yeah, I remember attending a Warren Farrell talk in the early ’80s. There was a fair amount of good sense there — the notion that men are every bit as trapped in oppressive stereotypes was a good one, but I noticed he seemed to blame women, not men, for this. My experience was rather a different one.
I partially blame Hollywood, which has created this notion that any schlub can expect to have a brilliant, perfect-looking hottie just by showing up and not beating her or something. So when normal guys don’t get Playboy models in their beds by snapping their fingers, they get annoyed and then angry at women. Why are all the hot women they only want for their appearances so shallow?
I discovered Amanda’s writings at Pandagon at about the same time I discovered FDL.
It took me a while to understand the difference as I’ve always felt I was a “Nice Guy” but it finally penetrated the difference was in perspective.
I AM a guy who happens to play nice vs the “Nice Guy” with the sense of entitlement. Once I understood the difference, then I could understand the point she was making.
And it only took one or two two-by-fours upside the head. :})
Thanks. I’m still going to send them copies of Amanda’s book! :)
We’re in the last ten minutes of the official salon (unless, of course, Amanda chooses to hang around a bit longer — but that’s entirely up to her).
So if you’ve got a final question, go for it.
yeah, the Nice Guy material was wonderful … it took me years to try to figure out what was going on with all of that
Although I wonder if the anti-codependency movement has gone a little too far to the narcissism is okay end of the dial? Maybe bring that pendulum back a little?
And have you seen the ‘babes’ on much of cable news (reminds me of how Deborah Norwich — what was her name??? — pushed out Jane Pauley back in the day) are just soooo dumb. What’s up with that. I could get all ‘uppidy’ and all.
How about when they call’em a c*nt or a trollop…? McInsane seems to have figured it out, eh?
A corollary with the right-wing “but I tried to be sensitive and all I got was this stupid t-shirt” crowd is the swift rebuttal to any other male who adopts a feminist position: We’re just sucking up so we can get laid. Which tells us everything we need to know about their motivations for “trying to be sensitive.”
Amanda, I think there are precincts where this equation is unfortunately true. My husband reads a blog called Club Life written by a bouncer in NYC. The guy points out that in his club, the girls get dressed up to the nines to compete for the guys’ attention. The guys show up in T-shirts and flip-flops — but will often get at least a blow job if they can come up with some nice drugs for the ladies.
We were in NYC last week, and our hotel had one of the city’s hot bars. We actually saw this — beautiful young girls all done up, and guys who made no effort at all, but still went home with company at the end of the night.
I kept thinking: When we envisioned sexual liberation for our daughters, this is NOT the world we had in mind. I promise it’s not.
I recently read an essay by Andy Selsburg that totally captured the Nice Guy dynamic. Selsburg was porking this 19-year-old that he only wanted because she was hot, and whose personality he not only didn’t care about but found kind of repulsive. But when this girl—11 years his junior—decided she wasn’t that into him and started dating guys that were more her stripe, he couldn’t believe how shallow she was! What a slut! It never occurred to him that everything he thought she was, he was worse many times over.
It’s the pussy-whipped thing. It never occurs to some men that other men actually might find women interesting as human beings.
I loved the Girls Gone Wild part too … I almost turned into my mother–i felt like highlighting tons of that chapter for my daughters … that whole thing gives me high blood pressure AND indigestion
What occupies your time now, Amanda, besides blogging and book tours? Are you working on anything new in the book department?
Cindy always looks like she is thinking, “How did I get involved with such a jerk? And why does he look at me like he hates me?”
Amanda, we’re in the final moments. Thank you so much again for coming. We had a great crowd and some wide-ranging discussion — and it looks like at least a few people bought, or are planning to buy the book.
So it’s all good. Thanks to everyone for participating!
Btw, Aloha, Sara and Amanda! Excellent book and salon…! Mahalo for being here at the Lake! *g*
Thanks everyone! It was so fun!
I want to make one more pitch, please: Do buy this book for someone you love who’s heading out into the world.
Thanks again for coming by, Amanda. Always a treat.
Thank you both, Amanda and Sara. It was an informative pleasure!
Dave, I’m not sure we’re ever going to find another motivation for men as compelling as the promise of getting laid.
Thank you!!!
This has been wonderful. Thanks!
LOL. I get shit for hanging out with the women when there’s anything involving a ball on the tube. Before and after the game it’s a mixed gathering.
Amanda, this has really been fun. Please come back again sometime. Thanks Sara for a great Book Salon. Your Louboutins are in the mail.
Thank you for being here, Amanda. Very interesting discussion.
Namaste
Works every time…! ;-)
Ian’s upstairs…
Not on my machine.
Hey, I have one: I have a daughter. And I want her to grow up every bit as confident in herself as any boy. I want a world where she can have that, because that’s a world where she can flourish. Getting laid looks like small potatoes compared to that.
Southern Dragon, we almost had a fight at my mother’s last family reunion over this.
My cousin’s husband — ex-AF officer, hardass, and all of 5′3″ and possessed of a severe case of short man’s syndrome, took note of the fact that my husband (6′+, 250, darkens doors) preferred hanging out in the kitchen with the women to watching the game with the guys.
“What’s the matter? You gay?”
“What’s the matter? You stupid?”
The grudge has been lasting.
Now he is.
Dave, I know being his mother’s son and my father were two radicalizing events in my dad’s life. There’s nothing that make a feminist out of a man like having an accomplished daughter he’s proud of.
That’s funny.
LOL. That’s funny. I know a guy just like that, right down to the height.
I’m heading out. Thanks again to Amanda and everyone. Dave, it was great to hang with you — been too long.
Carry on the discussion as long as you please, before it all vanishes into the Evil Parallel Universe….
Good evening!
you guys have raised a lot of things, so, i’ll stay general–
we all want to get what we want, from small things to large things, it’s all in how you go about getting it. and male or female, you should have a wide open road to pursue whatever that is……i did…..
we give to get, we work to get, we manipulate to get, we help others to get, there are a miriad of names for how we each go about getting it. each different according to what sector of society you’re in and what you’re using to get it.
========
how many women are still the main responders when it comes to the things that are necessary in a household? meals, grocery, laundry, cleaning, the every single day things.
and the men the fringe, fill-in chores.
kinda makes me wonder. it should come down to who wants to be responsible for something, if both are, then both share the work if able…….that’s what it is to me.
i’ve read some pretty sexist and ineffective ways to go about doing things that reinforce that role in these comments from ’feminists’…….and you don’t even know you’re saying them………
we’ve got a long way to go till it’s just people using their talents to their highest level, and whomever is best at cooking or cleaning or shopping or repairs or yardwork or bills or a job is the one who does it in the household or the workplace, cuz it’s more efficient, not cuz one person is supposed to do it or can’t.
until that is the norm, well, i’ll just keep on reading and thinking, ummmmm, you ’missed that part in the middle’.
my step-sister years ago and her girlfriend were slamming tv commercials as sexist when i visited there, i was taken aback, i didn’t see it at all–what’s so wrong with ’girl’ toys and ’boy’ toys…….years later, ever since then, i hear it, and i heard it here, too………
i had a non-traditional job for years, and i wasn’t shrill, i wasn’t a ’boy’, i was just me……and because i did my job, i was treated well……i didn’t flirt, i didn’t tell jokes, i did my job and cared about the people-men-i worked with and for…….
i guess what i’m trying to say that out of the one side of people’s mouths come these proclomations about feminists and outta the other side they’re using sexist terms to describe themselves or their daughters……so, noone’s clean here, to me, this is no worse than what some men shovel out…….just sayin’ if it is to progress we need to pay attention to what we are projecting ourselves. that’s all.
Ding!
Hi, Amanda and Sara, from an old feminist — old enough to have bought the floppy ties, but never to have worn one – it just felt too silly.
I must say, for my best “professional” job, I was hired by my boss because of all the people he interviewed, I was the only one not too uptight to laugh at his teasing AND to tease him back.
Luckily. the wrong interviewer, and I wouldn’t even have gotten a “no, thanks” letter. He was young–mis030’s in 1994.
So, some of these old dinosaurs are dying out and being replaced with men who can deal with funny women.
My older sister is the antithesis of a femist. She took on all the trappings of neoconservatism. In spite of having a annulment after a baby whom she grew to dispise. She was date raped and never charged him. She loves the conservative candidates and requires I pronounce faith or be ostracised out of the family. I lelt for good when I was almost seventeen.
I have tried to mend the relationship but that conservative tripe and sexism is too much.
Believe I know plenty of women who are full on sexists. So I do not call write or e-mail. To her credit she lobbied for older people to work without penalty under Social Security.
One problem with the feminist movement is the safety net you have to give up is not relaced safety net.
My nieghbor has a 6 year old boy that she has to support by enduring crap at her job. The options need to be expanded so women are not penalized for being who they are.
My sis I believe is a lifelong victim of sexism. And I believe that the men as well in conforming allowed themselves become victims of this viscious cycle.
It is about male unwillingness to treat their sex objects as equals. Once a women is no longer a sex object or competing for a partner that equality is brought back to the relationship. In business it is a power struggle.
Men need to think of women as sisters and daughters, in that light they will treat women better but not necessarily less sexist.
We are all persons and that is a good way of relating. Some can banter and let it go. Women have to be stronger than men to do all the roles they have to play.
Thank you for such an open and honest and insightful share, BB. Wow.
So sad about your sister being victimized and seemingly “enthralled” to a perpetrator mentality in other people and systems.
There is female misogyny for sure that is turned on others, male and female, who are not safely traditional status quo and I think subconsciously they turn it onto themselves. I remember that moment of betrayal when Whoopie Goldberg’s character in the Color Purple tells her stepson who seeks advice about his uppity wife, Oprah. And Whoopie looks him in the eye and says “Beat her.” I gasped. But oppressed people oppress others since they aren’t free. They are treated as objects and they objectify those weaker. Like how the Nazi’s recruited Jewish prisoners to guard other Jewish prisoners.
The “partnership” system instead of a poisonous patriarchal one is what is needed. Subject to subject, not subject (male) to object (female).