Lessons for Girls

Here's a really cool meme I just discovered and now love. It's called Lessons for Girls and it's an ongoing series about life issues for women, with contributions by various bloggers. Click this link to read the whole thing, but just for instant gratification's sake, here's the basic list:

1. Anger
2. Opting Out
3. On Pity
4. Independence
5. Trust Your Instincts
6. No Apologies
7. It’s okay if not everyone likes you
8. You don’t have to be a mom
9. You can say no
10. Don’t peak early
11. Love your body
12. If you don’t ask, you don’t get
13. You are not what you wear
14. Don’t just ask, insist on help (even if it makes you feel weird)
15. Girl School
16. Romance is for your pleasure and enjoyment

My favorite, I think, is Girl School.

Try it. This stuff is gold. From the blog Historiann.

Victory Tastes Like Defeat

Health Care Reform passed last night, due in large part to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's determination and guidance (yay!). This morning, President Obama signed an executive order applying the Hyde Amendment (ongoing ban on public funding of abortion) to the new legislation (BOO). Initial reports from the feminist front indicate that this is not simply an affirmation of the status quo (which sucked to begin with), but an actual rollback of reproductive rights and expansion of Hyde's influence. And, oh yeah, it's extra disheartening coming from a supposedly pro-choice president, who has continuously denounced Hyde altogether.

Remember this cover of Ms. magazine? I'm not so keen on it now.

And this guy? This Democrat? He needs to fall. off. the face of the earth and take his abortion bargaining chip and all the Republicans who were obnoxious heels throughout this whole process with him.

Happy International Women’s Day!

CBS = Couldn't Be Shittier (To Women & Gays)

This week, CBS rocketed to the top of my network shitlist (And I really didn't expect NBC to get knocked off that quickly, but so far 2010 has been a banner year for networks pissing me off) when they stuck by a Focus on the Family anti-abortion ad set to air during the Super Bowl. If that wasn't bad enough, they also denied air space to a pro-gay dating ad.

Just lovely. Really, really lovely.

So, is this just about the money, or does CBS have a far-right agenda? Complain to the Couldn't-Be-Shittier network here. Or, even better, sign this petition.

On the Generational Divide and Being an Orphaned Conan Fan

As is fairly common knowledge, Conan O'Brien's last night on The Tonight Show was this past Friday. As so many other Conan fans of a certain age can probably attest, losing Conan after all these years makes me feel a bit like I've been orphaned. Since 1993, Conan has always been there -- even if I didn't watch him every night, he was there, goofing off in the subconscious of my adolescence, then my young adulthood, and now my adulthood. It's hard to articulate how baffling it is to have him ripped away in this manner. Bye, bye, he's gone?

Still, I don't mean to make the whole thing more dramatic than it already is -- obviously there are a million problems out there worse and more deserving of attention than whoever is currently hosting The Tonight Show. But on a more superficial level that pays homage to the pop culture of my generation, Conan is a huge part of that collective history, and I can't help but be pissed off at the way he was treated -- by Jay and by NBC.

Part of this feels like the generational divide at work (and by that I mean the lack of respect that exists between the generations) -- and really, at least in some small measure, how could it not be? We see this gulf all over the place, from mass media to the workplace to politics to feminism. In all of these arenas, it's hard not to notice that the older generations often fail to respect (or even attempt to understand) the cultural perspectives of Generation X & Y (i.e. the Millennials, if that's your cup of tea). I can't even count the number of times I have turned on Public Radio to hear some caller bitching about those vapid, technology-obsessed young people, who, according to many, are on a constant texting, sexting, hook-up binge... and by God, why aren't they more ashamed of it?

It's moments like those that I feel that even though we are a society obsessed with youth culture and youthful appearances -- and older people certainly do have a right to be critical of that -- as a whole we have very little respect for the younger generations or their points of view. Sometimes we fail to recognize that they even HAVE a point of view.

This was felt so much during the 2008 election. People could not get over the fact that young people actually cared about politics and wanted a say in who got elected. Yet their support for Obama and/or Hillary was usually undermined by commentary about their impulsiveness, lack of attention span, and/or vulnerability to (and perpetuation of) so-called Internet fads.

This same phenomenon of undervaluing younger opinions is also felt in feminism, usually when 2nd-wave feminists start complaining that young women just aren't that interested in feminism anymore. Um, what? It usually turns out that these older feminists are simply looking in the wrong places. Because yeah, we are HERE. And here. And quite often that means on the Internet. As Conan would say, Dear Internet... how come many older feminists often fail to notice we are here? (Some others, however, DO get it.)

So what does this have to do with Conan and Jay? It might just be another symptom of the same problem, but these last two weeks the whole overexposed drama really held my attention. Even though there were things about Conan's show that I wish were different -- does he have any women writers? -- it was hard not to see him as the underdog and Leno as the self-entitled bully (and also, Letterman as the gleeful I-told-you-so guy, more interested in bettering his own recently scarred image). Especially when Conan signed off in a way that was so classy and generous. But Jay? What could he be thinking? I mean, how much internalized privilege do you have to have in order to believe you have the right to take back The Tonight Show? Certainly part of his thought process, whether he would admit it or not, must be based on a sense of seniority, the feeling that his audience is the only audience that matters. Otherwise, why would he be so rigid, so unwilling to step aside?

But as with the Obama phenomenon and the determination of young feminists, when there's a sense of urgency about something, young people tend to STEP UP. The Conan fiasco was no exception. NBC studios were mobbed with Team CoCo supporters, and ratings were huge (7.0! for the final show!), so much so that by the second week Conan was killing Letterman in the 18-49 age bracket. Yet, the first article I came across today was one from CNN wondering if Conan fans have the attention span to stick around if he does indeed pop up on another network. The underlying assumption of the article is one I have seen so many times before, which is that young people lack the capacity to be genuine in their support of anyone. Which is, quite frankly, insulting. The comments beneath the article say as much.

However, in the face of all this cynicism about America's young people, what did perhaps shine a light on the attitudes of Generation X & Y was the authentic and look-on-the-bright side manner in which Conan himself exited the show. After everything, after all the shit that went down, he actually pled with his young audience NOT to be cynical. And really, I think that is the most telling thing of all. Somehow, despite all the crap and bad times the younger generations have grown up with and through, including the older generations' lack of faith in us, I still believe deep down we are a pretty hopeful, creative, and genuine group. And, maybe the best quality of all -- we love to LAUGH.

See you on the other side, CoCo.

Crossposted at Library Cat.

A Bunch of Dude Writers Congratulate Themselves on Their Inclusiveness

So, last night the National Book Awards were handed out, going to what appears to be a group of pretty white and pretty dudely dudes. Based on the NPR story I heard this morning, there was much back-slapping but also much hand-wringing over the state of publishing. Apparently, that thing called the Kindle freaks the crap out of the publishing folk.

Also interesting was the blatant self-congratulation on saving the voice of the other. Some quotes from Colum McCann, the Irish writer who won the Fiction prize:

"As fiction writers and people who believe in the word, we have to enter the anonymous corners of human experience to make that little corner right."

AND

"As someone who's come from Ireland, I am extraordinarily honored. It seems to me that American literature is able to embrace the other."

Okay, so if McCann actually believes that American literature is completely fair, equal, and unbiased, maybe these comments are not so bad. But put into the context of a sexist and racist society, where white men are the privileged class, which sadly continues to be the case in literature as well... um, yeah, they seem pretty bad. It's almost like he's saying, as long as us menfolk are here to interpret the world and tell the untold stories, the rest of you needn't worry about it!

Then there was this from Dave Eggers, who won the Literarian Award:

"I think this is the most exciting and democratic time," he said. "There is a pluralism in publishing that is unprecedented."

Okay, guys, really? These statements are quite the head-scratchers. Could you just look around maybe, be a little self-aware, and notice who happens to NOT be standing on the platform next to you? If you're such geniuses at pluralism and noticing who's anonymous and embracing the other, then why the fuck aren't you noticing those who are invisible at your own awards ceremony?

You'd think this would have been especially apparent when Claudette Colvin, an African American woman who as a teenager in 1955 refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus (which sounds like a pretty kick-ass story and preceded the better-known Rosa Parks incident), accompanied writer Phillip Hoose on stage. However, the main focus here was on Hoose, who was accepting the award for Young People's Literature... which he won telling her story.

Sounds like a nice moment, and again, in a fair and balanced world, I would harbor no cynicism here. Absolutely none. Just wondering, though -- when women writers unearth these types of "unknown" stories, or write their own life stories, do they usually get this much attention? Just wondering...

Late author Flannery O'Connor did take honors for the Best of the National Book Awards prize (which for some reason the NYT article fails to even mention???), but according to GalleyCat's liveblogging of the event, nobody was that excited about it:

10:10
"The Complete Stories" by Flannery O'Connor wins Best of the National Book Awards award, nominated by 10,000 votes from the public. No one can come up to collect the award for the late, great author. Borowitz: "I have nothing to add."

Great. Thanks a million, National Book Awards!

This comes only a few weeks after Publisher Weekly's Best Books list completely SHUT OUT women writers from its top ten. Here's their confidence-building statement on that list, from PW director Louisa Ermelino:

"We ignored gender and genre and who had the buzz. We gave fair chance to the 'big' books of the year, but made them stand on their own two feet. It disturbed us when we were done that our list was all male."

Uh, yeah. You think? Could it be that your sexism and racism was subconscious? Because that's maybe a little bit how things like sexism and racism work?

I'm sorry, but if publishing (i.e. the world of the literary elite) is really a sinking ship, as comedian and NBA host Andy Borowitz put it, then I'm gonna hazard a wild guess here. Purely WILD on my part. That perhaps these problems might have something to do with publishing's inherent gender/race bias, perspective imbalance, and all-round exclusivity? Um, maybe?

And you know, maybe it's not so much about the Kindle. But hey, keep blaming it on the Kindle if that works for ya. :P

Finally, in the name of righteous indignation, commiseration, and learning more about awesome women writers, I would highly recommend checking out the online community She Writes, as well as the recently formed WILA (Women In Literary Arts).

Crossposted at Library Cat.

Stupak, Schmupak

To those 240 members of the House of Representatives that voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment last night, including 64 Democrats, you can all kiss. my. ASS.

NARAL agrees:

"The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services."

So. Is this what health care reform looks like now? Actually taking rights away from half the population? Limiting our options? Getting between us and our doctors? Wtf?

And by the way, isn't that everything most of these politicians (of both parties) claim not to want?

Right, sure, whatever. Instead, women get thrown under the bus... and it's hailed as triumphant bipartisan compromise? Yeah, you're all collaborative geniuses. We get it.

Grrrrrr. Starting to feel a lot like Maine and California all over this country. However, the Stupak provision can still be removed, and the Senate is yet to have at it.

Ecofeminism... Some Thoughts

The topic of ecofeminism -- the theory that the subjugation of women and exploitation of the environment are directly connected -- interests me and intrigues me, but for some reason I have trouble finding useful stuff online for it. However, today I came across a decent article from the University of Western Ontario titled Ecofeminism: our last great hope?

The article emphasizes a point I have read elsewhere in environmental and ecofeminist literature, from theorists like Thomas Berry and James Lovelock -- which is that ecofeminism needs to be, should be, and very well could be an integral and necessary belief system in a world coping with a damaged planet. Tied up in this idea is the hypothesis that we are heading towards a new era of environmental awareness that Berry called the Ecozoic.

The following quote really cuts to the heart of the matter, pointing out the current imbalance (both between humans themselves and also between humans and nature) that needs to be corrected:

"Since women were often associated and even conflated with earth/nature it was a simple logical step to both see women as objects and as passive, with men retaining a higher position in the symbolic order as active subjects. Aristotle did not mince words on this issue. He writes in De Generatione Animalium 'the female, as female, is passive and the male, as male, is active, and the principle of movement comes from him.'"

The male as active and the female as passive? Yep, seems like classic sexism to me... pun intended. Nature has also been traditionally painted as a passive body that receives the influence and admiration of men, rather than as a prime actor in its own right (which of course it is). Until a hurricane hits or a bear attacks, that is, and then nature becomes an evil/destructive presence that really must be conquered. And the cycle of domination proceeds as before.

Another valuable resource I recently discover is Vegetarianwomen.com's (a great site, by the way) Ecofeminism bibliography.

That's all for now, but I'll probably have more to say on this topic in the future.