GIRLOSAURUS
THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT WORDS FOR "GIRL"
-
2010-07-27
-
2010-06-12
Maybe I will move to Sweden?
NYT article about paternal rights in Sweden.
-
2010-06-11
Sarah Palin’s re-branding of feminism
Jessica Valenti has a piece in the Washington Post today about Sarah Palin’s brand of feminism. I say brand because that is all Palin is, it’s everything she does. She is her own brand, selling herself for so many reasons I’m confused about what she’s trying to do. Is she running for office? Does she want a talk show? Is she simply selling her book? Honestly, I don’t know. I can only recognize the signs that she is pandering to anyone and everyone she can get support from- vocal and monetary support.
Palin seems to be selling her ideas about women this time, and lately. Her recent seeming thievery of the word “feminism” serves her purposes in many ways- by changing the definition and goals of feminism she is winning men over, because as Valenti says:
“If you believe women have made it, you’re not going to fight very hard on their behalf. But it’s difficult to rally women’s support behind a message of inaction, so Palin is doing her best to frame this nonmovement as proactive and, of course, “empowering.”
“More young women agree with these feminist foremothers [on abortion] than ever before,” Palin said in her Susan B. Anthony List speech. “And believe in that culture of life, empowering women by offering them a real choice.” (Exactly what said choice would be once abortion is illegal went unmentioned.)”
Conservative men are excited by this talk, by the prospect of a regressive feminism that will (in their wildest dreams) erase all the progress feminists have made, a point Valenti eloquently summarizes with the ironic fact that without the feminism of the 1960s, Palin wouldn’t exist as a public figure.
She’s also winning the vocal and monetary support of women who are excited to be cared about by a famous person. Women who think the way she does have been kind of left out for a while now, excluded by the feminism they deem too radical, excluded by the men they support by disagreeing with feminism. So Palin’s close attention will obviously win their support.
And finally, can Palin really be a feminist? How can someone decide what idealism another subscribes to? Is it fair to define someone for them? Valenti says yes, by comparing the goals and actions of the person to the ideal they claim.
“Now, there’s no grand arbiter of the label, and the tremendous range of thought in the movement means there isn’t a singular platform one can look to as a reference point. And the sad reality is that there are plenty of self-identified liberal feminists who exhibit not-so-egalitarian ideals, such as racism or homophobia. So is it possible to exclude women such as Palin from feminism if we don’t have a conclusive definition?
Absolutely. If anyone — even someone who actively fights against women’s rights — can call herself a feminist, the word and the movement lose all meaning. And while part of the power of feminism is its intellectual diversity, certain things are inarguable. Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It’s a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end.”
-
2010-06-10
-
2010-06-09
Source: feminismisforlovers
-
→
Books for adventurous, smart young girls
These all look really adorable. I especially liked the idea of the little girl who acts like she’s the president!
-
→
Simone de Beauvior
Now I want to read her novels.
-
2010-06-08
-
2010-05-20
Photo by ^Gonzale
Source: glorioussexism
-
2010-05-13
But If You’re Wearing A Veil, How Will I Know That You’re Smiling, Baby? (via The Sexist)
In Christopher Hitchens‘ impassioned defense of the French veil ban, he claims that veils are, in practice, “a ban on the right of all citizens to look one another in the face.” Where, oh where, have I heard this dubious “right” to the faces of others claimed before? Oh! Hitchens is channeling the Smile, Baby Guy!
Hitchens’ essay posits some feminist arguments against the veil: In short, it’s a cultural expectation made only of women, and it’s not always worn freely, as some “mothers, wives, and daughters have been threatened with acid in the face, or honor-killing, or vicious beating, if they do not adopt the humiliating outer clothing.” But Hitchens’ central argument isn’t that veils deny women equal rights. It’s that the veil denies Hitchens his right—the “right to see your face …
This is an interesting interpretation of this argument- one that I can totally understand. BUT I still think Hitchens doesn’t mean it in such a purely selfish way, it seems more that he wants to support the French Burqa ban because it just might enable some women to feel safer if they don’t want to wear a burqa.
Source: padaviya
