Naomi Wolf: America's Reactionary Feminists. In which she argues that feminism "is philosophically as much in harmony with conservative, and especially libertarian, values—and in some ways even more so."
Sure.
For your full debunking, go see Jos, who makes all the salient points about individual privileged feminism vs. collective intersectional feminism.
Showing posts with label This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.. Show all posts
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for misogyny, racism, body policing, heterocentrism, gender essentialism, rape culture.]
Holy Shit: 10 Things Men Find Unattractive.
Don't let the genericism of the title fool you: This is no standard-issue entry in the Worst Thing series, which has featured a number of "Listen Up, Ladies"-type pieces. This piece is uniquely awful in its extraordinarily detailed criticism of women who fail to conform with the author's ("men's") expectations.
The author, nativenotes, a Black man ostensibly directing his "advice" primarily at Black women (but finding the most receptive audience, I imagine, among other men), polices women literally from our heads ("Can we talk about that funky smelling weave with the tracks showing because that's not a good look. Or my natural sisters—who think dry and flaky is the new it do. We ain't feeling you neither.") to our toes ("Chipped nail polish and ashy feet will not be flying either. Talk to the little Asian women and tip them well so you no longer scratch my legs in bed. Thanks.")
The little Asian woman?! Yiiiiiiiiiiikes.
Naturally, everything in between is policed, too, from clothing choices to directions on how to trim our pubic hair.
I was particularly fond of #4: Angry for No Damn Reason. "Some of y'all are taking this feminism thing too far—you're lashing out at men every chance you get and we're tired of it."
You know, I would suggest that if Mr. Nativenotes has found himself on the receiving end of a lot of female anger, he might consider that there may, in fact, be a reason—like, say, writing horseshit articles in which he proudly puts on full display his unrepentant misogyny.
Meanwhile, I imagine there are quite a few men who are none too pleased with his assertion to be speaking for all men, not merely for the heterocentrism and the implication that men are, by nature, misogynist bullies, but also for opening the piece with a disturbing sop to narratives of male sexual aggression and lack of self-control:
My favorite part by a country mile, however, is his friendly closing to all the ladies who have just been given the gift of his sage advice:
[H/T to Shaker Amy.]
Holy Shit: 10 Things Men Find Unattractive.
Don't let the genericism of the title fool you: This is no standard-issue entry in the Worst Thing series, which has featured a number of "Listen Up, Ladies"-type pieces. This piece is uniquely awful in its extraordinarily detailed criticism of women who fail to conform with the author's ("men's") expectations.
The author, nativenotes, a Black man ostensibly directing his "advice" primarily at Black women (but finding the most receptive audience, I imagine, among other men), polices women literally from our heads ("Can we talk about that funky smelling weave with the tracks showing because that's not a good look. Or my natural sisters—who think dry and flaky is the new it do. We ain't feeling you neither.") to our toes ("Chipped nail polish and ashy feet will not be flying either. Talk to the little Asian women and tip them well so you no longer scratch my legs in bed. Thanks.")
The little Asian woman?! Yiiiiiiiiiiikes.
Naturally, everything in between is policed, too, from clothing choices to directions on how to trim our pubic hair.
I was particularly fond of #4: Angry for No Damn Reason. "Some of y'all are taking this feminism thing too far—you're lashing out at men every chance you get and we're tired of it."
You know, I would suggest that if Mr. Nativenotes has found himself on the receiving end of a lot of female anger, he might consider that there may, in fact, be a reason—like, say, writing horseshit articles in which he proudly puts on full display his unrepentant misogyny.
Meanwhile, I imagine there are quite a few men who are none too pleased with his assertion to be speaking for all men, not merely for the heterocentrism and the implication that men are, by nature, misogynist bullies, but also for opening the piece with a disturbing sop to narratives of male sexual aggression and lack of self-control:
Let the record reflect that just because men find said issues unattractive that does not mean we will not attempt to sleep with you. The two are not mutually exclusive; this is a very real disclaimer.Whoa.
My favorite part by a country mile, however, is his friendly closing to all the ladies who have just been given the gift of his sage advice:
Peace and love ladies, I think you're beautiful. I hope you enjoy your weekend and in no way was I trying to offend but a dose of keeping it real is always healthy.Just LOL. I'm not offended; I'm contemptuous.
[H/T to Shaker Amy.]
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for disablism, misogyny.]
The Daily Caller: Stress-related condition 'incapacitates' Bachmann; heavy pill use alleged.
The headline alone is absurd. The article is about how Rep. Michele Bachmann suffers from migraines and takes an assortment of medications to prevent and/or negotiate them. Which is not unusual for people who regularly experience migraines.
The rest of the piece is no better. It's all speculation and second-hand reports and political gamespersonship disguised as concern:
This will be a story if and when Bachmann's "performance" as a politician and/or candidate shows signs of compromise. (Other than the usual being a garbage politician and garbage candidate for the usual reasons of having a garbage ideology and garbage ethics.) At this point, it's just a hit piece that plays on institutional disablism and misogynist narratives about women crumbling under stress and their bodies (and thus their health) being public property.
I am literally incapable of wanting Michele Bachmann as my president any less than I do at this moment—and yet I still believe that judging whether whether Michele Bachmann is physically up to the job of running for and potentially serving as president is exclusively the purview of Michele Bachmann.
I'm not going to audit her choices or claim to know better what's best for Michele Bachmann than she does, despite the fact that she would not return the favor.
That's not how feminism works, and I am a feminist.
[See also: Dana Goldstein.]
The Daily Caller: Stress-related condition 'incapacitates' Bachmann; heavy pill use alleged.
The headline alone is absurd. The article is about how Rep. Michele Bachmann suffers from migraines and takes an assortment of medications to prevent and/or negotiate them. Which is not unusual for people who regularly experience migraines.
The rest of the piece is no better. It's all speculation and second-hand reports and political gamespersonship disguised as concern:
Sources who spoke to The Daily Caller said they did so because they are terrified about the impact the condition could have on Bachmann's performance if she actually became president. They also worry that the issue could blow up in the general election campaign, giving President Obama an easy path to re-election."I'm very concerned, but you didn't hear it from me!"—An anonymous source who is for sure code-named Pim Tawlenty.
This will be a story if and when Bachmann's "performance" as a politician and/or candidate shows signs of compromise. (Other than the usual being a garbage politician and garbage candidate for the usual reasons of having a garbage ideology and garbage ethics.) At this point, it's just a hit piece that plays on institutional disablism and misogynist narratives about women crumbling under stress and their bodies (and thus their health) being public property.
I am literally incapable of wanting Michele Bachmann as my president any less than I do at this moment—and yet I still believe that judging whether whether Michele Bachmann is physically up to the job of running for and potentially serving as president is exclusively the purview of Michele Bachmann.
I'm not going to audit her choices or claim to know better what's best for Michele Bachmann than she does, despite the fact that she would not return the favor.
That's not how feminism works, and I am a feminist.
[See also: Dana Goldstein.]
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Actual Headline: Tim Pawlenty's secret weapon: his wife, Mary.
Actual Passage from the Article:
Fun Fact: Tim Pawlenty once said at a campaign event: "I'm very thankful for my red-hot smoking wife, the first lady of Minnesota."
I've heard that weaponizing a woman can make her red-hot and smoking.
Actual Passage from the Article:
Usually, Pawlenty explains away his wife's absence on the campaign trail with this quip about her parenting obligations back home in Eagan, Minn.: "I have two teenage daughters. One is 18 and one is 14. They both like boys and one of them drives."Barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrf.
The line always draws a laugh, and Pawlenty always follows up with a promise to bring Mary along next time.
Fun Fact: Tim Pawlenty once said at a campaign event: "I'm very thankful for my red-hot smoking wife, the first lady of Minnesota."
I've heard that weaponizing a woman can make her red-hot and smoking.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for rape culture.]
On Monday, I mentioned that Jamie Leigh Jones, the Halliburton/KBR employee who reported being gang-raped by her co-workers, only to then be held hostage by her employer, and who had to fight through an absurd stipulation in her employment contract that required sexual assault allegations be addressed by private arbitration in order to take the case to court, lost her civil rape case against Charles Boartz and KBR.
As you may recall, one of the good things to come out of this nightmare was the passage of Senator Al Franken's anti-rape amendment to last year's Defense Appropriation bill, which stipulates that the US Defense Department must withhold defense contracts from private contractors "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
When Franken first introduced the amendment, Jones said: "It means the world to me. It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it."
Cue Mother Jones with an extraordinarily absurd article headlined: "How the KBR Rape Verdict Undermines Al Franken's Contracting Law."
According to author Stephanie Mencimer, Jones having lost her case threatens the law because Franken's amendment must be renewed annually as an amendment to the defense budget. And now that Jones' case was lost, there's less incentive to support the law.
Huh? So because one woman lost her case, legislators should/will decide that no woman should have the right to have her day in court? Does not compute.
Of course, I don't think that logic is the point here. The concern trolling about the safety of Franken's law seems like a contrived justification for Mencimer's real objective, which is to deliver some thinly veiled contempt for Jones ostensibly on behalf of survivors: "[I]t's hard to see how bringing—and then losing—a dubious rape case in civil court is a win for victims of sexual assault. If anything, Jones' case, in which she asked the jury to award her $145 million, will make it even more difficult for sexual assault victims to have their claims taken seriously."
So Jones is just a gold-digging opportunist with a "dubious" rape case whose unmitigated temerity to lose her civil rape case has now made it "even more difficult" for survivors to be believed.
And this is about concern for Franken's law. Sure.
You know, I don't believe that a complainant losing a case in a culture so steeped in rape culture narratives that winning is nigh impossible makes things more difficult for survivors.
I do, however, believe that reporters sneering at survivors who lost and making thinly veiled accusations that they're lying, money-hungry whores is precisely the sort of thing that renders justice elusive for most survivors of sexual violence.
On Monday, I mentioned that Jamie Leigh Jones, the Halliburton/KBR employee who reported being gang-raped by her co-workers, only to then be held hostage by her employer, and who had to fight through an absurd stipulation in her employment contract that required sexual assault allegations be addressed by private arbitration in order to take the case to court, lost her civil rape case against Charles Boartz and KBR.
As you may recall, one of the good things to come out of this nightmare was the passage of Senator Al Franken's anti-rape amendment to last year's Defense Appropriation bill, which stipulates that the US Defense Department must withhold defense contracts from private contractors "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
When Franken first introduced the amendment, Jones said: "It means the world to me. It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it."
Cue Mother Jones with an extraordinarily absurd article headlined: "How the KBR Rape Verdict Undermines Al Franken's Contracting Law."
According to author Stephanie Mencimer, Jones having lost her case threatens the law because Franken's amendment must be renewed annually as an amendment to the defense budget. And now that Jones' case was lost, there's less incentive to support the law.
Huh? So because one woman lost her case, legislators should/will decide that no woman should have the right to have her day in court? Does not compute.
Of course, I don't think that logic is the point here. The concern trolling about the safety of Franken's law seems like a contrived justification for Mencimer's real objective, which is to deliver some thinly veiled contempt for Jones ostensibly on behalf of survivors: "[I]t's hard to see how bringing—and then losing—a dubious rape case in civil court is a win for victims of sexual assault. If anything, Jones' case, in which she asked the jury to award her $145 million, will make it even more difficult for sexual assault victims to have their claims taken seriously."
So Jones is just a gold-digging opportunist with a "dubious" rape case whose unmitigated temerity to lose her civil rape case has now made it "even more difficult" for survivors to be believed.
And this is about concern for Franken's law. Sure.
You know, I don't believe that a complainant losing a case in a culture so steeped in rape culture narratives that winning is nigh impossible makes things more difficult for survivors.
I do, however, believe that reporters sneering at survivors who lost and making thinly veiled accusations that they're lying, money-hungry whores is precisely the sort of thing that renders justice elusive for most survivors of sexual violence.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
[Trigger warning for fat hatred, body policing, disordered eating.]
Actual Headline: So much for the obesity epidemic.
Actual Lede: "Despite the obesity epidemic, North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin, and Academy Award-winning actress Geena Davis are pushing legislation to encourage the media to produce healthier images of women. They say women and girls feel overly pressured to be thin."
There is literally so much wrong with the way the "obesity epidemic" and a campaign to promote "more positive images of girls in the media" are juxtaposed here that I hardly know where to begin.
I'll let you tease out all the nuances in comments, and just quickly note my three biggest issues with this construction:
1. Within that headline and lede, there's an implicit suggestion that the cultural imperatives on girls and women to be thin and sexy is somehow a curative against obesity. Obviously, that's problematic for a dozen different reasons, not least of which is its inaccuracy. Our cultural obsession with thinness and the sexualization (and sexual abuse) of girls and women is associated with disordered eating, both compulsive self-denial of food and compulsive eating.
2. Treating a campaign to promote "more positive images of girls in the media" as a mutually exclusive concept from concern about the "obesity epidemic," or what I will redefine more appropriately as concern for fat people with disordered eating who need and want help, is dependent not only on treating "positive" and "obese" as opposite concepts, but also on ignoring that the campaign is not just talking about physical healthfulness. To have "more positive images of girls in the media" is to include images of fat female people who are happy and living full lives and serving a greater purpose than the butt of jokes, and to include images of girls and women who are whole beings and not one-dimensional cardboard cut-out sex objects. A lot goes in to creating a woman (or man) with disordered eating. This campaign is one small part of prevention.
3. For fuck's sake, the campaign isn't just about bodies. And OH THE HILARITRAGIC IRONY of an article covering a campaign that seeks to encourage media not to reduce female people to their bodies by talking exclusively about female bodies.
If your takeaway from three powerful and passionate women launching a campaign to diversify the way female people are presented in the media is OH NOES THEY DON'T CARE IF WOMEN GET FAT, you have missed. the. point.
Actual Headline: So much for the obesity epidemic.
Actual Lede: "Despite the obesity epidemic, North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan, Wisconsin Democratic Rep. Tammy Baldwin, and Academy Award-winning actress Geena Davis are pushing legislation to encourage the media to produce healthier images of women. They say women and girls feel overly pressured to be thin."
There is literally so much wrong with the way the "obesity epidemic" and a campaign to promote "more positive images of girls in the media" are juxtaposed here that I hardly know where to begin.
I'll let you tease out all the nuances in comments, and just quickly note my three biggest issues with this construction:
1. Within that headline and lede, there's an implicit suggestion that the cultural imperatives on girls and women to be thin and sexy is somehow a curative against obesity. Obviously, that's problematic for a dozen different reasons, not least of which is its inaccuracy. Our cultural obsession with thinness and the sexualization (and sexual abuse) of girls and women is associated with disordered eating, both compulsive self-denial of food and compulsive eating.
2. Treating a campaign to promote "more positive images of girls in the media" as a mutually exclusive concept from concern about the "obesity epidemic," or what I will redefine more appropriately as concern for fat people with disordered eating who need and want help, is dependent not only on treating "positive" and "obese" as opposite concepts, but also on ignoring that the campaign is not just talking about physical healthfulness. To have "more positive images of girls in the media" is to include images of fat female people who are happy and living full lives and serving a greater purpose than the butt of jokes, and to include images of girls and women who are whole beings and not one-dimensional cardboard cut-out sex objects. A lot goes in to creating a woman (or man) with disordered eating. This campaign is one small part of prevention.
3. For fuck's sake, the campaign isn't just about bodies. And OH THE HILARITRAGIC IRONY of an article covering a campaign that seeks to encourage media not to reduce female people to their bodies by talking exclusively about female bodies.
If your takeaway from three powerful and passionate women launching a campaign to diversify the way female people are presented in the media is OH NOES THEY DON'T CARE IF WOMEN GET FAT, you have missed. the. point.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Actual Headline: Doctors dispute Megan Fox no-Botox photos.
Actual Opening Paragraphs:
In case it's not self-evident, let me be perfectly clear: The point of this post is not to invite speculation about whether Megan Fox uses Botox, nor to invite judgment on her appearance (or talent, or choices, or anything else).
The point of this post is to highlight what a ridiculously fucked-up culture we live in, where a woman is put under enormous pressure to alter ("improve") her appearance and simultaneously put under enormous pressure to pretend she puts absolutely no effort into her appearance at all.
And if a famous woman gets chemical or surgical procedures, she is a vain harpy. And if she does not, she is a grody wrinkled hag. And if she says she hasn't had such procedures, whether she has or hasn't, her image will be publicly scrutinized for "proof" that she is a liar by doctors whose livelihoods are predicated on women's insecurities about their looks.
This is a sick, sick game that women are asked to play, and if there is a better incentive for not playing it than even Megan Fox isn't beautiful enough, I can't conceive of it.
Actual Opening Paragraphs:
Cosmetic doctors dispute the claim by actress Megan Fox that photos she published last week are proof that she is not using Botox.Actual Title of Accompanying Slideshow: Megan Fox: Pretty, Then Sexy, Now 'Done.'
Some doctors said the photos show a face in which the effects of Botox injections are slowly wearing off. Many others said one photo (top left) displays such unnatural wrinkle patterns that the image apparently has been digitally altered.
"Looks like Megan is just as talented with Photoshop as she is in entertainment," said plastic surgeon and blogger Dr. Nicholas Vendemia of New York.
In case it's not self-evident, let me be perfectly clear: The point of this post is not to invite speculation about whether Megan Fox uses Botox, nor to invite judgment on her appearance (or talent, or choices, or anything else).
The point of this post is to highlight what a ridiculously fucked-up culture we live in, where a woman is put under enormous pressure to alter ("improve") her appearance and simultaneously put under enormous pressure to pretend she puts absolutely no effort into her appearance at all.
And if a famous woman gets chemical or surgical procedures, she is a vain harpy. And if she does not, she is a grody wrinkled hag. And if she says she hasn't had such procedures, whether she has or hasn't, her image will be publicly scrutinized for "proof" that she is a liar by doctors whose livelihoods are predicated on women's insecurities about their looks.
This is a sick, sick game that women are asked to play, and if there is a better incentive for not playing it than even Megan Fox isn't beautiful enough, I can't conceive of it.
So Much Cute! SO MUCH! (This is sarcasm.)
[Trigger warning for coercion, rape culture.]
OMG you guys, have you heard the TOTALLY CUTE story about how a marine made a YouTube video inviting actress Mila Kunis to go to the Marine Corps Ball on November 18th with him, and she totes said yes?! SO CUTE!!!
Especially the part about how she was put on the spot by her Friends With Benefits co-star Justin Timberlake during a promotional appearance for their garbage film, and Timberlake acted like he was her fucking pimp! CUTE!!!!!1!!!!!eleventy!
And you know how much I just loooooooooooove public romantic gestures that put women on the spot to consent to some overture in front of perfect strangers by whom they'll be judged negatively if they don't say yes! Cute cubed!
But I think the CUTEST part about the whole thing is how coercing Kunis by telling her to "do it for her country" invokes the old chestnut about a solider going off to war and cajoling a girl to do it with him as a patriotic gesture, which itself was referenced in the iconic rape anthem from Grease 2, "Do It for Our Country," in which Louis tries to trick Sharon into doing it with him by luring her into a bomb shelter and pretending there's a war on.
The whole narrative of women putting out for (male) soldiers as a patriotic gesture is SO FUCKING ADORABLE I can barely stand it!
Whooooooooooooooooooooops I barfed all over this story.
OMG you guys, have you heard the TOTALLY CUTE story about how a marine made a YouTube video inviting actress Mila Kunis to go to the Marine Corps Ball on November 18th with him, and she totes said yes?! SO CUTE!!!
Especially the part about how she was put on the spot by her Friends With Benefits co-star Justin Timberlake during a promotional appearance for their garbage film, and Timberlake acted like he was her fucking pimp! CUTE!!!!!1!!!!!eleventy!
[W]hen FOX411 asked Kunis about the invitation over the weekend, her "Benefits" co-star, Justin Timberlake, assured Moore he was going to make it happen.THAT JUSTIN TIMBERLAKE IS SUCH A CUTIE PATOOTIE! It's totes adorbz how he just stepped right in to broker the deal as if Mila Kunis, Adult Woman, was his property to exchange with another man! Swoon!
"Have you seen this? Have you heard about this? You need to do it for your country," Timberlake asked Kunis excitedly, before sending out a direct message to Moore. "I'm going to work on this, man. This needs to go down."
After questioning her publicist if she knew about the invitation, the clearly flattered 27-year-old actress agreed.
"I'll go, I'll do it for you," she said, turning to Timberlake. "Are you going to come?"
"They don't want me! They want you," Timberlake responded. "You need to do it for your country."
Kunis nodded.
"I'll do it," she confirmed.
And you know how much I just loooooooooooove public romantic gestures that put women on the spot to consent to some overture in front of perfect strangers by whom they'll be judged negatively if they don't say yes! Cute cubed!
But I think the CUTEST part about the whole thing is how coercing Kunis by telling her to "do it for her country" invokes the old chestnut about a solider going off to war and cajoling a girl to do it with him as a patriotic gesture, which itself was referenced in the iconic rape anthem from Grease 2, "Do It for Our Country," in which Louis tries to trick Sharon into doing it with him by luring her into a bomb shelter and pretending there's a war on.
The whole narrative of women putting out for (male) soldiers as a patriotic gesture is SO FUCKING ADORABLE I can barely stand it!
Whooooooooooooooooooooops I barfed all over this story.
This is so the worst thing you're going to read all day.
This WaPo profile [trigger warning for virulent gay hatred and misogyny] of GOP presidential wannabe Michele Bachmann (R-Etchinducing) and her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann, Professional Gay-Hater, is one of the most depressing things I've ever read.
They are terrible people with miserable lives who make other people's lives a misery because of their intensely stupid and exhaustively compassionless belief system.
If they weren't such influential assholes, I'd feel sorry for them.
They are terrible people with miserable lives who make other people's lives a misery because of their intensely stupid and exhaustively compassionless belief system.
If they weren't such influential assholes, I'd feel sorry for them.