Up Front: Can't We All Just Fucking Get Along?
272 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
If you look at Joss's cannon
I'm sure plenty of people want to look at Joss's cannon, but he's married. Bomp-bomp!
(I can't believe it took over four hours for someone to make a penis joke about that typo. Are we slipping?)
-
Most homoerotic films of recent memory:
Top Gun, by a country mile.
The beach volleyball! The towels! The simmering locker room tension! The misquoted dialogue ("You can ride my tail anytime, Iceman")!
Uh, sorry for the threadjack. I'm in a flat spin, heading out to sea.
-
You can do that with Wash and Zoe's entire relationship if you want. She's stronger than him in every way, and less emotional.
Totally. That's one thing I found so odd about the fateful blog post in question. It's pretty clear who, er, wears the pants in that relationship.
And now you're just baiting me. Inana is the character with the highest social standing by a mile. She has enormous social power and we see her wield it.
And that. If you were going to single out a TV series for being sexist, I can't see why you'd pick the one that offers the most interesting and powerful roles to women.
-
Most homoerotic films of recent memory:
Top Gun, by a country mile.
I only saw Top Gun a few years after release, on video. I was genuinely astonished at how homoerotic it was.
-
Perhaps living in a female body makes it easier to be feminist
I'd say living as a *woman* rather than just the biology most associated with that social gender role
-
Some thoughts, nicely numbered, for academic neatness.
@Deborah. Having decided to watch and learn for the remainder of this, your post has clarified many things for me, thanks.
Oh, and that last thing, My Own Private Idaho. River Phoenix? Yeah, well, you know.
He said of the part: "It strikes me as strange that anyone could have any moral objection to someone else's sexuality. It's like telling someone how to clean their house. Speaking for myself, I had no second thoughts about playing the part." -
Sacha - I think I disagree with you: I live as myself, an asexual who is physically female - but I dont live as a woman (socially defined gender.)
My feminstically-inclined male relations see the matter as one of politics. My awesome mother - who has been there & done it all - was brought up as a feminist/matriarch before the words carried some of the baggage they now carry (bra-burners, anyone? Hairy-legged feminists? All that shit...)And thanks, Deborah - I also found your post helpful-
-
I would include Emma in this list, except that she rejects the label, and applying a label to someone who has rejected that label is just rude.
To be clear, to Deborah and in general, I have little objection to having the label applied to me, and no objection at all to having something I have said or done being called feminist. Mostly, it's not one I choose because I don't want to find myself spending my time defending my right to the label rather than my position. That's the same reason Trinity and Renegade Evolution don't use it, actually, now that I think about it, and we're all kinky and all bisexual.
I'm sure plenty of people want to look at Joss's cannon, but he's married. Bomp-bomp!
(I can't believe it took over four hours for someone to make a penis joke about that typo. Are we slipping?)
I have repressed and deleted so many smutty comments on this thread. Just goes to show what repression does in the end.
-
Islander, my understanding is that the social role is how others see you, not just how you see yourself. From the outside, your gender is far more likely to be woman, not that I'm denying the interplay with biology or sexuality. I just believe that feminism relates more to social dynamics. Call me a non-essentialist.
-
Actually Sacha - despite the fact I do have large breasts, I dress and behave in a way that is not at all womanly (and always have done so.)
It confuses people - and I've had more than my share of confused people attacking me because of 'how others see' me...lesbian/neuter/tease/indeterminate/thing. -
@Deborah:
Again, I'm not interested in shutting down women's choices, even if I don't agree with them, whereas Palin does want to remove choice from women.
You'll be alarmed to hear then, that Australia's leading "anti-choice feminist" is headed for New Zealand Details tomorrow.
-
Sorry...
-
I only saw Top Gun a few years after release, on video. I was genuinely astonished at how homoerotic it was.
It's not homoerotic - it's manly.
Common mistake ;-)
-
I'm sure plenty of people want to look at Joss's cannon, but he's married. Bomp-bomp!
I read that, and was all 'ooo, I'd like to...but I bet someone has already made that joke'. And It was Danielle. Of course .
I have repressed and deleted so many smutty comments on this thread. Just goes to show what repression does in the end.
And so, why bother?
To get back slightly on topic, I was struck by this quote, from an interview with Jewish philosopher Helen Thomas.
Then I entered into a lesbian community in college, late college, graduate school, and the first thing they asked was, "Are you a feminist, are you not a feminist?" "Are you a lesbian, are you not a lesbian?" and I thought "Enough with the separatism!"
It felt like the same kind of policing of the community. You only trust those who are absolutely like yourself, those who have signed a pledge of allegiance to this particular identity. Is that person really Jewish, maybe they're not so Jewish. I don?t know if they're really Jewish. Maybe they're self-hating. Is that person lesbian? I think maybe they had a relationship with a man. What does that say about how true their identity was? I thought I can't live in a world in which identity is being policed in this way.
-
And if choice-feminism is just about saying, "Don't criticise my choices" then it's not about much. That would mean that we could never criticise anyone's choices. And that seems implausible.
Not so much 'don't criticise my choices' (though of course, don't. And if you do, don't be annoying) but respect my right to make them. And allow me to defend them. And respect that while you may not agree with what I do, it actually isn't any of your business.
Which I suspect means we're actually saying the same thing.
-
There's an essay about Lady Gaga feminism in the New York Times.
It's long and complex, and uses Sartre and de Beauvoir to makes its points, but it's worth reading.
When it comes to her incredibly detailed descriptions of women’s lives, Beauvoir repeatedly stresses that our chances for happiness often turn on our capacity for canny self-objectification. Women are — still — heavily rewarded for pleasing men. When we make ourselves into what men want, we are more likely to get what we want, or at least thought we wanted. Unlike Sartre, Beauvoir believed in the possibility of human beings’ encountering each other simultaneously as subjects and as objects. In fact, she thought that truly successful erotic encounters positively demand that we be “in-itself-for-itself” with one another, mutually recognizing ourselves and our partners as both subjects and objects. The problem is that we are inclined to deal with the discomfort of our metaphysical ambiguity by splitting the difference: men, we imagine, will relentlessly play the role of subjects; women, of objects. Thus our age-old investment in norms of femininity and masculinity.
...
The goal of “The Second Sex” is to get women, and men, to crave freedom — social, political and psychological — more than the precarious kind of happiness that an unjust world intermittently begrudges to the people who play by its rules. Beauvoir warned that you can’t just will yourself to be free, that is, to abjure relentlessly the temptations to want only what the world wants you to want. For her the job of the philosopher, at least as much as the fiction writer, is to re-describe how things are in a way that competes with the status quo story and leaves us craving social justice and the truly wide berth for self-expression that only it can provide.
-
I think we're talking about much the same thing too, Megan.
-
Found the Keanu link at girlwithaonetrackmind. Scroll down to the second entry dated Saturday, August 25, 2007.
Probably not safe for work.
-
Off to see Wanda Jackson. Not sure why I'm posting this here, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. Which is now...
-
Deborah, that _is_ a great article.
I would give you this from the Guardian, in response to that Ross Douthat column I linked to the other day.
That being said, it's maddening that a party that has resisted every advance of feminism and undermined women's economic strength at every turn now claims to embody "the overall triumph of the women's movement"....But what does it mean to be "comfortable" with the spectacle of a working mother, as Douthat claims Republicans now are, when you oppose the very supports that would make the lives of working mothers comfortable?
And this, from Jezebel.
Putting on short shorts in the summertime certainly isn't the be-all and end-all of empowerment, and it certainly can play into restrictive mainstream notions of sexuality and sexiness (the line between owning your sexuality and simply performing for society what it wants to see is a subject for a whole other post). But in a culture where merely having a female body invites constant judgment and criticism, saying "look at me" can also be feminist.
-
But in a culture where merely having a female body invites constant judgment and criticism, saying "look at me" can also be feminist.
It's also a feminist statement that we live in a country where slut-shaming is alive and well, but it doesn't take the form of a punch in the mouth from a state-sanctioned clerical goon squad.
-
It's also a feminist statement that we live in a country where slut-shaming is alive and well, but it doesn't take the form of a punch in the mouth from a state-sanctioned clerical goon squad.
You know, I was thinking about this yesterday, as I went home on the bus. The 'gentleman' behind me probably couldn't tell I could see his reflection in the window. If he had been able to, he might not have spent 20 minutes looking down the front of my dress, quite so enthusiastically.
Cos there's appreciative glances, and there is ogling. And the latter is still gross. But for me, as someone whose body most definitely doesn't fit into "restrictive mainstream notions of sexuality and sexiness", highlighting parts of it does sometimes feel like a decisive feminist action.
Yes, I am pleased to live in a country where the most I am going to get for my trouble is a scathing look, and to be made uncomfortable by skeevy bus dude. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
-
But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
Certainly not -- you can also turn around and impolitely but firmly tell him to wipe his chin and look out the window or he's on the clock. And no disrespect intended to Frau. von Spangle-Bling's treasure chest, but nothing could distract me from a good book during a long bus ride.
-
Off to see Wanda Jackson.
Who was adorable! (I was reminded a little of the Ray Davies Storytellers-type show I saw some years ago.)
-
but nothing could distract me from a good book during a long bus ride.
That sounds like a challenge, my dear.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.