In Which Susie Is Still Annoyed, and Zuppa di Linki
Paging Emergency Gnome Services! We have an irate superconcious on Level Three! Code Red! All available EGS Gnomes report to Level Three immediately!
So... A person I will call "Mom" wants to know what got into me in my last rant. It started out with my anger at what is euphemistically called mud-slinging in various election campaigns around the country. Specifically I was angry about attacks on female candidates, especially someone who presumably "sides" with the Democrats calling California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman a "whore", and one Republican woman running for office (I forget who and what; the paper where I read it is in the recycling, and I'm too lazy barefoot busy to go out to the garage and look for it) and criticizing her opponent, also a woman, on the basis of her hairstyle. What I'm saying is that this is misogyny and it is absolutely inexcusable from any source, and we should not tolerate it anywhere, and we must not tolerate it in politics. Candidates are presumed to be qualified individuals--Whitman was the head of a large American company--whose records on public leadership and ethical (or not) conduct are easy to find and compare, as is what they say. There is absolutely no reason for these hateful attacks which not only do no good politically, but are actively harmful to regular people throughout the country (and let's not kid ourselves, California's economy alone is bigger than most countries in the world; American politics and political and social climate influence every other nation and culture on earth). Women are regularly seen as not qualified for their jobs because they are women, and are shamed and derided and judged on wholly superficial and meaningless criteria such as appearance and alleged "sexual virtue." No American would ever call a male candidate for public office a "whore." Nor should they. But the fact of the double standard and the very real harm it does to anyone perceived as "feminine" means that ignoring such grotesque behavior just because it is usual is unacceptable. Period.
This, of course, got me thinking about other instances of faux-liberalism in the Democratic Party, which naturally reminded me of the (extremely disturbing) rhetoric on the right wing that has for decades shaped the political dialogue (and everyday dialogue! I am enraged and disgusted that I can't use nice terms like pro-life! and family values! and morality, and conservative, libertarian, and even liberal! without people getting the exact opposite impression of what those words actually mean. Even red and blue have connotations everybody is supposed to know.*), and so I ranted. Not today. But I do have a few links to share that relate that some of you may be interested in. Here's a 5 minute video about the sexualization of girls and women in popular media and the impact (psychological, emotional, and physical) it has on girls especially, but also boys and adults (Video has lots of (to me) disturbing imagery, and most of you know it all already, but it was done by this group for something called the SPARK Summit this October.). And here's an eloquent and brilliant essay by the inimitable Twisty Faster (who I don't think swears once in the whole piece!) on boys, girls, toys, and the movies, which I highly recommend. And while we're on the subject of the sexual perversion of the Kyriarchy...no, that came out wrong. Here's some more on Wing Nut transphobia, and DADT.
So, while the Gnome Center Operators Are Available To Take My Call, I have a few more peeves I want to pet mention.
1. I would be very, very, very happy if I never, ever, ever saw the word "wifebeater" used to describe an article of clothing, ever, ever again. Thank you very much. The Gnomes are taking it into consideration. I got this from an unexpected source, actually; it was used more than once in Ekaterina Sedia's novel The Secret History of Moscow, about which I have mixed feelings, which I'll share another time.
2. Speaking of terms I hate... This August, on the semi-failure Ferret Trip, I, to my shame and horror, actually uttered the phrase "PC", short for "Political Correctness" or "Politically Correct." I was immediately angry at myself, not just because I have realized that it's a term only logically (well, no, logical is perhaps not the best choice of word... We'll say unironically.) used by persons who believe that other persons are not deserving of compassion and respect, BUT because (also) it was my default, tittering, "oh excuse me for thinking whilst a girl" excuse. I always hated that, yet I always find myself doing that in certain situations I deem (by stereotype, of course) potentially volatile, such as when surrounded by burly Wyoming ranch hands. Ahem. Now, at last, I know why it always made me feel so bad, and have resolved not to do it anymore... though I still might need to recall "discretion is the better part of valor" at particular times. The Gnomes are setting to work making me a better replacement part in their Default Anger Diffusion Technique workshop. We'll see what they come up with and how it works out. ;)
3. And continuing this discussion... Another term I hate is consent in the context of bodily autonomy. I have a Real Life(R) Example(TM) featuring none other than sadly not recurring enough character on this blog, my brother Elmo! See, Elmo came to visit, oh, months ago. I've been so busy, I know I haven't written about that, or the Ferret Trip, or any number of other things I have since forgotten entirely, but yes, Elmo came to visit. Elmo's visits make me very happy. Now, I am a person who really loves games (the fun kind, not the kind of "games" mentioned in the footnote below), and rarely have anyone to play with (nor did I. Most of my childhood memories seem to involve trying and failing to get people to play with me). So I eagerly tried to recruit Elmo. And suddenly I understood Yes Means Yes. Like so:
Susie: Let's play backgammon!
Elmo: *sighs, clearly reluctant* Oooookaaaayyyy.
Susie: Funnily enough, your obvious lack of enthusiasm has totally killed my joy.
Elmo: No, I'll play with you Susie. Really. See? Look, I'm totally not getting up and going over the game table.
Susie: No, really, I don't want to play anymore. The mood is dead. Really. I mean, like, it's been decomposing for so long I forget what a playful mood even looks like anymore.
See? Elmo consented to play. He didn't say, "No! Never! How dare you insult my Stoic Virtue by suggesting I might play a game? You wanton game-playing hedonist, you!" Nor did he said, "Um, no, I really don't feel like playing with you right now." He didn't say the former because he's really not usually that histrionic, I mean, um... And he didn't say the latter because playing a game was not a great hardship to him, and he didn't want to hurt my feelings. And yet, his lack of enthusiasm made it perfectly clear that if he did not care for my precious, delicate feelings, if, in other words, he had a perfectly free choice, he would not choose to play a game. He, in fact, wanted to spend time with me. But he did not want to play. He wanted to discuss obscure Russian novels or something instead. Which I did not want to do. I wanted to play.
What happened? Well, like two sensible grown-up people who don't want to hurt each other, we neither played a game, nor discussed Russian novels. We did something else that was enjoyable to both of us.
Obviously, two siblings not playing a board game is not all that Important. And yet I understood exactly what's so obvious and important about fighting rape culture. You see, consent, to me, implies agreeing to something because it's not unpleasant. Yet, it's so obvious when someone agrees to something because, OK, it's better than going to the Mall. But if you are enthusiastic about an activity and the person you want to do that activity with you is not, a sensitive person (ahem) loses a lot of the sense of fun in that activity at that time. No, when you're excited about doing something, you want the other person(s) to be just as excited as you are. That's when it's most fun. And, being a hedonist (unlike Stoic Elmo), I always choose The Most Fun, where possible. And I think in the case of intimate activities (could be sex, but could also be anything that involves giving up some of your bodily autonomy, like medical procedures), especially, all involved parties should not consent, but be enthusiastic, or at least believe they are making a good choice for themselves, and not just choosing, say, discomfort over torture (e.g. playing board games with your little sister versus going to the Mall). For your further edification, here's a brilliant and funny summation of this idea by another author. YES! means YES! :)
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to call the Gnome Center's Help Line. Your Gnomes are standing by to assist you!
Much love, Susie
*OK, OK, I know, connotations change over time, language is not static. Yes, yes, very post-modern and all that. BUT, this kind of thing reminds me of the "rules" people used to have in Middle School, you know, like, looking at your fingernails with your palm toward you is "masculine" and looking at the bottom of your shoe over your shoulder is "feminine" and girls who wear purple are "lesbians" (oh horrors!)... and yet, did I not carefully, in 6th Grade, look at my fingernails with my palm away from me? Of course I did! Because in Middle School (indeed, in all my schooling, from at least 1st Grade onward) I was just trying to survive until I was Old And Everything Was OK. But now I am Old, everything is not OK, and these rules are every bit as absurd now as they were then; the difference is, I'm sick and tired of games where everybody loses, and I have the luxury of vociferously refusing to play anymore. Very few people listen to me, of course, but those that do tend to be more interesting to me anyway. ;)
So... A person I will call "Mom" wants to know what got into me in my last rant. It started out with my anger at what is euphemistically called mud-slinging in various election campaigns around the country. Specifically I was angry about attacks on female candidates, especially someone who presumably "sides" with the Democrats calling California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman a "whore", and one Republican woman running for office (I forget who and what; the paper where I read it is in the recycling, and I'm too lazy barefoot busy to go out to the garage and look for it) and criticizing her opponent, also a woman, on the basis of her hairstyle. What I'm saying is that this is misogyny and it is absolutely inexcusable from any source, and we should not tolerate it anywhere, and we must not tolerate it in politics. Candidates are presumed to be qualified individuals--Whitman was the head of a large American company--whose records on public leadership and ethical (or not) conduct are easy to find and compare, as is what they say. There is absolutely no reason for these hateful attacks which not only do no good politically, but are actively harmful to regular people throughout the country (and let's not kid ourselves, California's economy alone is bigger than most countries in the world; American politics and political and social climate influence every other nation and culture on earth). Women are regularly seen as not qualified for their jobs because they are women, and are shamed and derided and judged on wholly superficial and meaningless criteria such as appearance and alleged "sexual virtue." No American would ever call a male candidate for public office a "whore." Nor should they. But the fact of the double standard and the very real harm it does to anyone perceived as "feminine" means that ignoring such grotesque behavior just because it is usual is unacceptable. Period.
This, of course, got me thinking about other instances of faux-liberalism in the Democratic Party, which naturally reminded me of the (extremely disturbing) rhetoric on the right wing that has for decades shaped the political dialogue (and everyday dialogue! I am enraged and disgusted that I can't use nice terms like pro-life! and family values! and morality, and conservative, libertarian, and even liberal! without people getting the exact opposite impression of what those words actually mean. Even red and blue have connotations everybody is supposed to know.*), and so I ranted. Not today. But I do have a few links to share that relate that some of you may be interested in. Here's a 5 minute video about the sexualization of girls and women in popular media and the impact (psychological, emotional, and physical) it has on girls especially, but also boys and adults (Video has lots of (to me) disturbing imagery, and most of you know it all already, but it was done by this group for something called the SPARK Summit this October.). And here's an eloquent and brilliant essay by the inimitable Twisty Faster (who I don't think swears once in the whole piece!) on boys, girls, toys, and the movies, which I highly recommend. And while we're on the subject of the sexual perversion of the Kyriarchy...no, that came out wrong. Here's some more on Wing Nut transphobia, and DADT.
So, while the Gnome Center Operators Are Available To Take My Call, I have a few more peeves I want to pet mention.
1. I would be very, very, very happy if I never, ever, ever saw the word "wifebeater" used to describe an article of clothing, ever, ever again. Thank you very much. The Gnomes are taking it into consideration. I got this from an unexpected source, actually; it was used more than once in Ekaterina Sedia's novel The Secret History of Moscow, about which I have mixed feelings, which I'll share another time.
2. Speaking of terms I hate... This August, on the semi-failure Ferret Trip, I, to my shame and horror, actually uttered the phrase "PC", short for "Political Correctness" or "Politically Correct." I was immediately angry at myself, not just because I have realized that it's a term only logically (well, no, logical is perhaps not the best choice of word... We'll say unironically.) used by persons who believe that other persons are not deserving of compassion and respect, BUT because (also) it was my default, tittering, "oh excuse me for thinking whilst a girl" excuse. I always hated that, yet I always find myself doing that in certain situations I deem (by stereotype, of course) potentially volatile, such as when surrounded by burly Wyoming ranch hands. Ahem. Now, at last, I know why it always made me feel so bad, and have resolved not to do it anymore... though I still might need to recall "discretion is the better part of valor" at particular times. The Gnomes are setting to work making me a better replacement part in their Default Anger Diffusion Technique workshop. We'll see what they come up with and how it works out. ;)
3. And continuing this discussion... Another term I hate is consent in the context of bodily autonomy. I have a Real Life(R) Example(TM) featuring none other than sadly not recurring enough character on this blog, my brother Elmo! See, Elmo came to visit, oh, months ago. I've been so busy, I know I haven't written about that, or the Ferret Trip, or any number of other things I have since forgotten entirely, but yes, Elmo came to visit. Elmo's visits make me very happy. Now, I am a person who really loves games (the fun kind, not the kind of "games" mentioned in the footnote below), and rarely have anyone to play with (nor did I. Most of my childhood memories seem to involve trying and failing to get people to play with me). So I eagerly tried to recruit Elmo. And suddenly I understood Yes Means Yes. Like so:
Susie: Let's play backgammon!
Elmo: *sighs, clearly reluctant* Oooookaaaayyyy.
Susie: Funnily enough, your obvious lack of enthusiasm has totally killed my joy.
Elmo: No, I'll play with you Susie. Really. See? Look, I'm totally not getting up and going over the game table.
Susie: No, really, I don't want to play anymore. The mood is dead. Really. I mean, like, it's been decomposing for so long I forget what a playful mood even looks like anymore.
See? Elmo consented to play. He didn't say, "No! Never! How dare you insult my Stoic Virtue by suggesting I might play a game? You wanton game-playing hedonist, you!" Nor did he said, "Um, no, I really don't feel like playing with you right now." He didn't say the former because he's really not usually that histrionic, I mean, um... And he didn't say the latter because playing a game was not a great hardship to him, and he didn't want to hurt my feelings. And yet, his lack of enthusiasm made it perfectly clear that if he did not care for my precious, delicate feelings, if, in other words, he had a perfectly free choice, he would not choose to play a game. He, in fact, wanted to spend time with me. But he did not want to play. He wanted to discuss obscure Russian novels or something instead. Which I did not want to do. I wanted to play.
What happened? Well, like two sensible grown-up people who don't want to hurt each other, we neither played a game, nor discussed Russian novels. We did something else that was enjoyable to both of us.
Obviously, two siblings not playing a board game is not all that Important. And yet I understood exactly what's so obvious and important about fighting rape culture. You see, consent, to me, implies agreeing to something because it's not unpleasant. Yet, it's so obvious when someone agrees to something because, OK, it's better than going to the Mall. But if you are enthusiastic about an activity and the person you want to do that activity with you is not, a sensitive person (ahem) loses a lot of the sense of fun in that activity at that time. No, when you're excited about doing something, you want the other person(s) to be just as excited as you are. That's when it's most fun. And, being a hedonist (unlike Stoic Elmo), I always choose The Most Fun, where possible. And I think in the case of intimate activities (could be sex, but could also be anything that involves giving up some of your bodily autonomy, like medical procedures), especially, all involved parties should not consent, but be enthusiastic, or at least believe they are making a good choice for themselves, and not just choosing, say, discomfort over torture (e.g. playing board games with your little sister versus going to the Mall). For your further edification, here's a brilliant and funny summation of this idea by another author. YES! means YES! :)
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to call the Gnome Center's Help Line. Your Gnomes are standing by to assist you!
Much love, Susie
*OK, OK, I know, connotations change over time, language is not static. Yes, yes, very post-modern and all that. BUT, this kind of thing reminds me of the "rules" people used to have in Middle School, you know, like, looking at your fingernails with your palm toward you is "masculine" and looking at the bottom of your shoe over your shoulder is "feminine" and girls who wear purple are "lesbians" (oh horrors!)... and yet, did I not carefully, in 6th Grade, look at my fingernails with my palm away from me? Of course I did! Because in Middle School (indeed, in all my schooling, from at least 1st Grade onward) I was just trying to survive until I was Old And Everything Was OK. But now I am Old, everything is not OK, and these rules are every bit as absurd now as they were then; the difference is, I'm sick and tired of games where everybody loses, and I have the luxury of vociferously refusing to play anymore. Very few people listen to me, of course, but those that do tend to be more interesting to me anyway. ;)