anythings.org

This poster for The Women is not ok with me:

Not only is the movie poster in the shape of a woman’s torso, it has outlines of (perfectly even) breasts in bright red lipstick. Oh, wait! Don’t forget the belly button, and the perfect Barbie waist and hips! I suppose it wouldn’t be so awful if the poster didn’t make a massive generalization about women and shove them into a stereotyped box. I’ve taken the time to type out the text for those who are curious and do not feel like squinting:

The girlfriends. The joy. The boding. The betrayals. The breakups. The makeups. The sex. The fun. The jealousy. The gossip. The success. The struggles. The marriage. The divorce. The beauty. The warmth. The work. The family. The dreams. The career. The husbands. The kids. The laughter. The tears. The secrets. The support. The lovers. The fighters. The balance. The intuition. The thighs. The shoes. The diets. The trust. The loyalty. The lies. The intellect. The elegance. The confidence. The doubt. The mothers. The daughters. The compassion. The courage. The humor. The passion. The love. The friendship. The women.

So not only do you have to be an intellectual mother who cares about her thighs, her shoes, and diets, but you have to have a career, elegance, and confidence - and be successful. I think the designers of this poster took the phrase “having it all” a little too seriously: they’ve suggested that a woman must experience all of this (with the perfect figure and red lipstick) in order to be a true woman and belong to the “women” collective. A woman is not a woman if she does have breasts, a belly button, a husband, some doubt, a few tears, and success.

Image from Wild About Movies.

Rebecca Walker really just wants me to hate her, doesn’t she? I feel like she’s playing an immature game where she pisses off feminists across the globe in a desperate plea for attention and wealth. Here’s a tip: you’ll never be your mother, so just let it go. Alice Walker is a far better writer, and a much more likable person overall. On the bonus side, Alice Walker doesn’t hate feminism and blame it for everything she sees wrong with the world.

After her ridiculous article for the Daily Mail where she blamed feminism for women’s lack of babies, she found a way back into the media spotlight by publishing an article on CNN calling Clinton’s female supporters “reverse-sexists.”

But with a Democratic house divided, now is the time for healing, and this can only happen if Hillary’s staunch female supporters let go of the reverse-sexist ideology that women are inherently better, wiser, and more compassionate leaders.

They will have to acknowledge that sometimes the best woman for the job is actually a man — if it’s the right man. Obama’s vote against the war, marriage to his female mentor, outstanding record on reproductive choice and a host of other progressive issues, and his uncanny ability to inspire people all over the world suggest he’s just that.

It is time to turn the page on myopic gender-based Feminism and concede that while patriarchy is real, so is female greed, dishonesty and corruptibility.

I really thought we’d gotten over this whole thing about women voting for Clinton because she was a woman, and black men and women voting for Obama because he was African American, but apparently Rebecca Walker doesn’t agree with me. While I’m sure some women voted for Clinton because she was a woman and some African Americans voted for Obama because he was, I’m sure the majority of them were motivated by their political views, and not their similarity to their candidate of choice, whether it be race or gender. I really thought the feminist movement came to terms with this awhile ago: people are so shallow and stupid as to vote for the candidate that matches their personal identification, and accusing them of doing so is downright offensive and patronizing.

I didn’t even need to get to the need of the article where she admits to being an Obama supporter before I figured out that she was one. It’s almost like she’s trying to prove to the world just how bad-ass of a feminist she is by saying “see, look at me, I rose above the female greed and voted for the male candidate!”, as if that somehow makes her better than the feminist women who voted for Clinton.

I’m sorry, but where is her feminist solidarity? Does she really think she is so much more superior than the women who voted for Clinton because she didn’t engage in “reverse-sexism?” For a woman who is striving to encourage empowerment of individuals across the lines of race, gender, etc, she really doesn’t think highly of her fellow women.

She accuses women of voting for Clinton simply because of gender, but pens no response to the men who have voted for her, harking back to the stereotype that men are logical thinkers, and women are irrational and emotional. Why is it acceptable to call women out for voting for Clinton, but say nothing to the men who did? Were all women who voted for Clinton motivated by her gender, and the men motivated by her political views and campaign promises? If she’s going to continue playing such an immature game of blaming feminism for society’s problems, maybe she should make the jump and find a way to blame feminism for all the white men and women who voted for McCain, as well as all of the African Americans who were blinded by their race and voted for Obama.

But she won’t. And you know why? Rebecca Walker hates the feminist movement and she hates empowered women. She blames it for everything that was wrong with her childhood, and she blames it for her terrible relationship with her mother. Why not blame it for her ambivalence regarding motherhood, or the way women voted in 2008? One can only imagine what else she’ll find to blame feminism for. Higher clothing prices because we dare to demand non-sweatshop clothing? Global warming because feminism encouraged us to be the women we wanted to be, so we used aerosol hairspray and put a hole in the o-zone layer? Really, Rebecca, let it go.

Hating the feminist movement from the inside does nothing to increase its effectiveness, no matter how you try to mask your hatred of other women and the movement.

And BY THE WAY, there is no such thing as “reverse-sexism.” Sexism is discrimination based on gender, and while more women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis than men, it can cross gender boundaries and create problems for men as well.

Via Feministe.

I’m going to go with a huge resounding no, but some people seem to think that feminism has convinced women that their careers are more important than children, and that women are losing out on motherhood because of it. I’m more inclined to believe this is people blaming feminism for their poor decision making skills. Rebecca Walker, child of Alice Walker, wrote the most god awful article I’ve ever seen, where she effectively blames feminism for her bad relationship with her mother, and for all the problems women are having when they try to conceive later in life:

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They’ve missed the opportunity and they’re bereft.

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them - as I have learned to my cost. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

Now, see, this is what bothers me. Feminism has not told women to forgo having babies in favor of their careers. It has suggested that they take their careers into consideration when planning a family - and this is not a suggestion they have made only to women, they have made their suggestion to everyone. As with many other movements, the ideal is not necessarily executed properly when practiced by the masses.

In the end, it really does come down to make a choice: taking the time off to have a baby in the middle of your career and risking the loss of promotions, etc, or waiting until you’ve reached your goal and then taking the time off, risking that you won’t be able to have a baby. No matter how equal our society becomes, this will still be an issue for women that isn’t necessarily one for men. Feminism hasn’t forced women to wait until they are 40 to have children, it has simply made them realize that children do not have to come first. Their marriage, career, or other aspect of their life can come before children, as long as they have had the common sense to plan it out ahead of time.

Of course, that’s a totally different situation than deciding to have a child at 42 when you never wanted one before.

Via Feministe.

According to market researchers at Sony Ericsson, women spend more on electronics every year than they do on shoes. I’m glad some technology companies are finally getting the point that simply making something pink or slapping a flower on something crappy (like a Motorola Razr) does not automatically mean that women will buy it. I care more about the specs on my next laptop than I do about buying a year’s worth of shoes, but I’m a slightly skewed sample.

It is worth noting that they did compare electronics purchases to shoe purchases, which means we still have a long way to go until women can shake the Imelda Marcos stereotype.

Via Switched.

This is amazing. The women in Kuwait are taking some huge steps towards personal freedom. From Women’s eNews:

If Salwa Al-Jassar wins an election on May 17, she could become one of the first women to win a place in Kuwait’s 50-seat National Assembly.

But the 49-year-old Al-Jassar emphasizes that a woman’s right to run for office–legalized just three years ago–and her ability to do so are two different things.

A standard qualification for any politician in the heavily clannish process, she says, is membership in one of the country’s prominent families.

And for the 28 women running in this election–which will replace a government dissolved by the emir in March–that’s doubly true.

“My family’s support will take care of 70 percent of my campaign since I come from an elite but a traditional family of Kuwait that has the social power,” Al-Jassar said in a recent interview in her office in Hawally as she fixed her black headscarf on her Persian blue shalwar suit. “If a family does not support, then voters’ common argument is why should we support?”

You should definitely read the full story. One bit I found to be interesting was how they connected family support to our presidential election:

“I ask why Mr. Clinton stands beside Hillary Clinton during her speeches,” she says, referring to the presidential candidate. “It is because if you want to appear strong, you have to be strong from within; within your family.”

I think it’s interesting to see how family support plays a role in elections across the globe, and not just here in America where it’s about picture perfect political families.

I wish all 28 women the best of luck in the May 17th elections!

Courtesy of the Broadsheet, when being interview by a female reporter, Sen. Obama responded to her question by saying, “Hold on, one second, sweetie.”

This isn’t the first time Sen. Obama has made sexist remarks towards or about women that he’s had to go back and apologize for. Better yet, there’s a video clip of the sexist comment.

Sen. Obama, of course, apologized for the comment in order to avoid any additional negative press. He claimed “sweetie” was a term he used out of habit. Sorry, still not buying it.

Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I’m calling to apologize on two fronts. […]

Second apology is for using the word ’sweetie.’ That’s a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front.

So, where is the video of Sen. Obama calling a man “sweetie?” Right, that’s what I thought, there isn’t one.

I was more than a little shocked to see this article on the front page of CNN:

As the weather warms each spring, women — especially in cities with active sidewalk traffic — once again face catcalls from men. It’s a situation some find unnerving and an invasion of their space, while others ignore it or are even flattered by it.

“I call it street abuse,” said New York filmmaker Maggie Hadleigh-West, 49. “It’s unwanted attention and invasion of space.”

In her 1998 documentary “War Zone,” Hadleigh-West confronted catcallers and filmed their responses. Many of the men literally ran away to avoid talking to her about why they whistled or made a provocative comment. […]

“Being in a public space with a strange man who is being sexually aggressive is potentially dangerous,” Hadleigh-West added.

On the other hand, some women appreciate the attention in certain cases, like Jessica, a 31-year-old health-care educator in Los Angeles who declined to use her last name to protect her privacy.

“Yeah, it’s objectifying and all, but you know, if I walked down the street and didn’t have men looking me up and down and catcalling, I’d think, ‘Boy, I must really be getting old and dumpy,’ ” she said.

This is absolutely disgusting. Is that how you feel better about yourself? BY being verbally assaulted by men? I think it’s a little sad that the state of the world makes women feel flattered when they are being yelled at by strange men simply for existing. Where is your self esteem? Do you really need that much attention to feel good about yourself? I know I’m being a little more than harsh here, but I absolutely hate women like this. Especially when cat calling isn’t as innocent as a man being a jerk and asserting himself on a woman:

“There seems to be some evidence that it increases self-objectification,” said Fairchild, who surveyed 550 women both online and at Rutgers University in 2006 and 2007. The women — who ranged in age from 15 to 64 in the international online component and from 18 to 24 in the Rutgers survey of women from central New Jersey — were asked about their experiences with street harassment.

Catcalling “encourages women to look at themselves as body parts instead of as full, whole, intelligent human beings” and can cause women to fear for their safety, Fairchild says.

“When a man catcalls you, you don’t know if it will end at that point or if it could escalate to assault,” she added.

I’m glad that there is research being done on this - but I’m sad that it’s getting attention only after the article’s author finds some random woman who just lives for the attention cat calling provides her with.

You know, I was totally fine with this article, even the bits including the attention-seeking woman, until I reached the end:

“A lot of men have no idea that women don’t like being talked to in this way,” she said. “It never crosses their mind, and yelling doesn’t educate them. If you yell, they often don’t understand why you are upset and so they take it personally.”

Often, Kearl says, an assertive, clear response can illicit a kinder reaction than one expects.

“A lot of the time, I find guys will just say, ‘Oh, OK, I didn’t realize it made you feel that way. Thanks.’ “

Ok, now, really, as a woman who experiences cat calling because she has to dress up for work, I can honestly say that no matter how you respond to a man making sexual comments about you, they will still take it personally and be even bigger of an asshole about it. I have asked cat callers more than once if they think whistling and making sexual remarks at women is really the way to get their attention, and I’ve either been called a bitch, stupid, or a lesbian because of my return comment.

What is a man’s expectation when he says these things to a woman he doesn’t even know? Does he expect her to fawn over him in appreciation? Does he expect his comments to be appreciated, or does he know they are offensive?

I’m doing my part as a woman to make it clear that we don’t appreciate these comments, but I’m only one woman living in one small city - I can only do so much.

I’m a big believer in following The Rule: I usually don’t see a movie unless it meets three basic requirements:

1. It has to have at least 2 women in it…
2. who talk to each other…
3. about something other than a man.

Which, considering the crap that Hollywood has been churning out these past few years, has been a difficult task indeed. I like movies with real 3D characters that face difficult life challenges and do it on their own - regardless of whether they succeed or not. I don’t like movies that skirt around important issues to improve their comedic value. While it is difficult to find movies to watch that have two women in it talking to each other about something other than men, it is a good starting point to begin any movie search.

I’m not the only one who has noticed movies have taken a pathetic downturn, especially in the female leads department. Almost none of the major movies slated for release this summer meet all of requirements of The Rule, let alone one or two:

The girls of summer are few in number, and real women are close to extinct. The teenage Emma Roberts plays a Malibu brat shipped off to boarding school in “Wild Child,” and little Abigail Breslin has gone blond for “Kit Kittredge,” the first big-screen spinoff from American Girl dolls. Meryl Streep stars in the adaptation of the jukebox musical “Mamma Mia!,” and the cast from “Sex and the City” hits the big screen, though as that HBO show’s fans know, its four bosomy buddies are really gay men in drag. Angelina Jolie flaunts big guns in “Wanted” amid a so-called fraternity of assassins. Cameron Diaz stars opposite Ashton Kutcher in the comedy “What Happens in Vegas,” in a role that shrieks Brittany Murphy five years ago.

And in August, Anna Faris stars in a comedy called “The House Bunny,” in which she plays a Playboy Bunny who is ejected from the Mansion because she’s too old. In a trailer for the movie Ms. Faris’s pretty-in-pink character responds to her firing with surprise. “I’m 27!” she yelps. “But that’s like 59 in Bunny years,” a male friend explains. In Hollywood years too, he might as well have added.

But the most gut wrenchingly true part of Dargis’s article is the following:

Last year only 3 of the 20 highest-grossing releases in America were female-driven, and involve a princess (“Enchanted”) or pregnancy (“Knocked Up” and “Juno”). Actresses had starring roles in about a quarter of the next 80 highest-grossing titles, mostly in dopey romantic comedies and dopier thrillers. A number of these were among the worst-reviewed movies of the year, including “Premonition” (Sandra Bullock) and “The Reaping” (Hilary Swank), the last of which was released by — ta-da! — Warner Brothers. The days of “Million Dollar Baby,” for which Ms. Swank won an Oscar, and “Speed,” which rocketed Ms. Bullock to stardom in the summer of 1994, feel long gone.

The last movie I saw in theaters was “Juno,” and before that, “Horton Hears A Who!” Prior to those two films, it had been over a year since I shelled out the $9.75 for a movie ticket, and I haven’t once been upset about my decision to abstain from theater going. If there were a movie worth seeing (that was available to me), I would have gone to see it. Granted, there were several films I wanted to see, but didn’t get a chance to, particularly 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days and Miss Pettigrew Lives for A Day (which doesn’t appear to hold up to The Rule, but it just might upon closer examination).

Regardless, it looks like it is going to be a slow movie summer for me.

No, in case you were wondering, this is not ok. In fact, it’s downright embarrassing that a human being would find it acceptable to create and publish this.

There are no words!

I mean, even if you aren’t a Hillary supporter, you have to be able to get behind how ridiculous this is. An article - and a cover, no less - devoted entirely to “Hillaryland’s Fatal Psychodrama”? You’re joking, right? Are we 12?

Larger image here.

Via.

I read this on DollyMix last week, and I thought I posted it already, but apparently not. The incident which state-side feminist blogs have only now just gotten wind of actually occurred early last week, but we’ll let them pretend they were the first to blog it even though they’re presenting the facts inaccurately.

As I’m sure many of you have already heard, a London mayoral candidate, Richard Barnbrook (via mouthpiece Nick Eriksen), likened the idea of a woman being raped to a woman being force-fed chocolate cake. While I’m not surprised this quote came from the same man that described career women as “unnatural and vile”, I’m sincerely shocked he actually thought putting it into bring on his blog would be a good idea. A direct quote from his blog said:

“I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime… Rape is simply sex (I am talking about ‘husband-rape’ here)… Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal…To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.

The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors.”

Now, while he was talking about spousal rape, he is still completely off his rocker. So, following his logic: if men enjoy sex, and they are raped (anally, by another man) it can’t possibly be that traumatizing or that terrible of a crime, now can it? You can’t use the excuse that it’s a different type of sexual act: sex is sex, rape is rape, regardless of where you happened to be penetrated and what with.

I thought misogyny of this obscenely blatant nature by politicians was going out of style? Apparently, I was wrong.