End of the ban on women in combat

Surprise! Pentagon to end ban on women in front-line combat. I knew about the lawsuit back in November and got the sense that things were kind of moving on this front, but I didn't expect this one. Happy inauguration present, I guess?

Having never served in the military, I can only really speak to how it's looked from the outside. Like it's seemed really ridiculous to continue to keep women out of combat assignments when female soldiers have gotten wounded fairly often in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, considering the way combat in those wars hasn't stayed nice and neat on a battlefield. And I've heard over and over that combat assignments are the better path to promotion (is this true?) which would make keeping women out of those assignments beyond shitty.

That, and I think it's an intense pile of bullshit to keep women out of a job so long as we're physically capable of doing it. And what I mean by that is that I totally understand why in, say, firefighting you want someone to be able to drag at least a 150 lb person to safety when you might be depending on them to save your ass one of these days. And if a woman can do said dragging? There's no excuse to keep her out. 

Thoughts from actual military type people? I'd like to hear.

If you'd like to laugh yourself sick or potentially cause brain trauma from too much headdesking, read some of the comments on the CNN article. Apparently this is a bad decision because women have periods (if this is even potentially a problem, there is birth control that actually prevents this by the way), it's a scientific fact that men use logic and women use emotion (my emotions say LOL), and women are meant only to create and nurture life and we are disrupting the order of the universe (if that's the order of the universe it could use some more disruption thanks). 

I cannot even make this shit up. 

If women aren't women any more, are we houseplants?

I normally don't curse my eyes with shit from Fox News, but I couldn't quite resist this piece about the "war on men" because there is something I find particularly annoying about assholes that think they get to decide if you are a woman or a man. For example:

And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren’t women anymore.

So wait, what are women then, if we aren't women? Houseplants? Evil robots? Corporate flying monkeys? A form of parasitic fungus? Cheap plastic toys? That little bit of popcorn that gets stuck in your teeth that you just know is going to give you an instant cavity?

Because goodness knows, we apparently aren't people. And neither are men, I guess. We're caricatures controlled by our biological natures, which I'd guess is that "poison from the gonads" stuff General Custer mentioned in Little Big Man.

As far as I can tell from this essay, women only get to be women if they want to get married and then let men do their manly man duty of manliness, which is to be the primary breadwinner and "protect their families." I am also going to take a wild guess and say that in order for a woman to be a woman, she must want to have kids too.

The entire basis of this argument seems to be that the author has talked to people. Woo, anecdotes! Well, I have a bunch of anecdotes, too. There are people who want to get married and people who don't. There are people who want to have kids and people who don't. There are men that want to be the breadwinner and others who would like to be stay-at-home dads and the same with women, and some that would even like to split things 50/50. This may come as a shock, but people are a diverse bunch. And incidentally, there are men that want to marry men (or don't) and women who want to marry women (or don't) and it'd be great if they had that choice too.

Oh yeah and:

All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

I just threw up a little in my mouth.

You know what would be awesome? If people were just allowed to be themselves. I've never bought the idea of their being an essential femininity that comes with possessing a uterus, just like I don't think there is something essentially masculine that people with penises get to have. (Okay, except maybe the part where you get to pee standing up because that's kind of awesome.) I don't feel like I've missed something important in my life because I don't like makeup and dresses and would rather die than be a housewife; but I also think the experiences of my friends who do like and want those things are just as valid because it makes them happy.

Ms. Venker, I'd hazard a guess that a great many people out there aren't angry because evil feminism has caused us to fight against our "natures." We're tired and cranky because we constantly have to fight with assholes like you who think there's only one way to conduct a life.

Also: Eric has some entertaining things to say about this from his naturally manly position of manliness as he tries to parse out just what he's so angry about.

[Worldcon] Feminism in Fantasy

Saturday (September 1) at 1800: Feminism in Fantasy
Panelists listed in program: Sandy Lindow, Joan D. Vinge, Valerie Estelle Frankel, Sarah Hans, Julia Rios [Note: Sandy Lindow did now show.]

Disclaimer: These are my notes from the panel and my own, later thoughts. I often was unable to attend the entire panel, and also chronically missed panelist introductions. When possible I try to note who said something, but often was unable to. Also, unless something is in double quotes it should be considered a summary and not a direct quotation.

Moderator for the panel did not show up so Julia Rios from Strange Horizons has stepped in.

Valerie Estelle Frankel: the heroine's journey. Not the same as feminism. The girl travels to fight against the evil queen/symbol of infertility. The young girl heroine doesn't get a sword; she gets an array of items to fight with most of which are not actually weapons. Talismans of information and perception, often magic apparel. Still descends into death and comes back stronger than before, metaphor for growing up. Normally in heroine's journey she's off to rescue a family member rather than great evil. Boys often set out to fight the great evil, for the girls it's incidental to rescuing the family member. May come from women traditionally being the protector of the family while the men are the warriors. Boys are the warriors and girls are the saviors - see Prince Caspian. They are going on different quests and fight differently. Lucy gets to be more of a hero than Peter… depending upon the definition of hero.
Examples: The Golden Compass, Cupid and Psyche, Seven Swans

Most writers in horror are not women. And generally when male writers have female characters, they are victims. Very traditional American horror trope. There are editors in horror that specifically want female writers writing female characters. So if you're up against a male writer with a similar story, you have a better chance of getting chosen just because you might be the only woman who has even submitted to that project.

Sarah Hans prefers reading female writers in general because there is more emotion and better rendered relationships between characters during the journey. Little girls will read stories about little boys, but supposedly little boys won't read stories about little girls. However, with teenaged boys and adult men, it's shifting so that men are starting to read stories by female writers and with female characters. It's not emasculating to read things with emotions!

Socialization of culture that boys aren't supposed to like girl things.

VEF: Women in trousers research. Lots of Victorian women used to dress up in suits and take photographs and do posed scenes. "If you don't want to be the wimpy girl sidekick you have to identify with the male hero." What happens when we try to identify with the non-standard. Feels that Katniss got really white-washed in the movie.

SH: part of the reason little boys don't like reading books about little girls is because books about little girls suck really bad. Which only perpetuates the vicious cycle. If there's an adventure character that's female in a story book, they're almost always either in a fantasy world OR an anthropomorphized animal. In a fantasy world girls get to have agency, but they can't seem to do it in the real world; not many stories about little girls just being little girls in the real world.

Do female heroes have less value because they use different methods than males?

Joan D Vinge: Depends on the definition. The higher ranked a warrior is in society, the lower the status of the women. In really strong warrior societies, women are almost considered animals that are just for procreation so homosexuality is societally promoted. And then institutionalized pedophilia often. Women's roles just completely disappear.

VEF: The Ruins of Isis. (Marion Zimmer Bradley)

Julia Rios: Pulp scifi that had women characters normally did the planet of the women hellishly dominating men.

Question as applied to horror-
SH: Heroine is normally super smart or charming or has magical power of awesome sexuality. Can do the same thing with a male character, but for a female character it almost seems like the weakness becomes your strength to write.

Audience Q&A

Audience: Is it true that there are truly enough strong female characters, or are there problems that we see and what are those problems? What would we like to see? (Because some people would say this kind of panel is no longer necessary.)

VEF: Twilight. [Crowd groans.] Katniss is great and kicks butt, but she doesn't really want to be a girl. The warrior woman is a strong female character, but is cutting herself off from and often despising her femininity. Sends message that the only path to power is to be a tomboy. (Also saw this as the message in the Tim Burton Alice in Wonderland.) Hermione is awesome but is technically a sidekick and spends her entire time trying to help Harry succeed in his goal. Problematic as well, because it says no matter how awesome you are you'll spend your life picking up after Harry Potter.

SH: Would like to see more incidental LGBTQ people. (I'd like to see a dude who enjoys wearing a dresses and it's not a big deal.) Would like to see more about female friendship and the extremely close bond with a female friend that can eclipse your relationship with a man that's very passionate even if there is no sex to it. Would like to see a girl and her best friend having adventures together, rather than a woman and her male sidekick. Holmes and Watson relationship between two women.

JR: More female friendships where they aren't jealous each other about men! Because women don't really do that! How many of us in our real lives have had this happen with our best female friends?

JDV: [I'm having a really hard time following what Joan is saying. :-/]

SH: Anne McCaffrey's Pern books were huge for her with the female dragon riders. Jacqueline Carey's series now. None are really coming of age stories. Using sexuality to overcome obstacles. Shout-out to Laurel K Hamilton. Both series start out with badass and intelligent female heroines but then descend further and further into smut with huge harems of men. But at least most women have a lot of agency and get to make choices.

JDV: Andre Norton - (what is this book title? I missed it.) Ordeal in Otherwhere

What about Buffy?

VEF: Wrote a book about it. It rocks. Many feminist characters other than just Buffy.

JDV: Liked it. Way better than Angel series which had too many male characters.

SH: Loves it, recommends comics. Strong female friendship between Buffy and Willow. Incredible bond between the two.

Audience: With conservative revival in America and elsewhere, is that having an effect? Backlash in fantasy?

JR: YA dystopias abounding with fertility issues where women are being forced to breed. Probably related.

JDV: What is being written always reflects today.

Audience: How does sex factor into feminism in fantasy?

SH: There is a lot you can learn about a character in a sexual encounter - how generous/selfish or skilled/inexperienced.

VEF: Kushiel girls come out of sex winning. GRRM girls have sex and try to influence and lose. Sex as power.

JR: Women having choices and giving enthusiastic consent. Very tired of women getting raped as a plot device.

Audience: Says Buffy is emasculating and anti-man.

JR: Does Buffy emasculate men to begin with?

VEF: Maybe a little, but no story is perfect.

JDV: Men aren't the main characters so maybe that's why it seems emasculating. I liked all the guys.

SH: The whole series is supposed to be turning tropes on its head. Buffy doesn't need a male sidekick she has the most powerful female witch in the world.

Audience guy: But Xander is buffoonish!

JR: He's one guy. Not all the male characters are like that.

SH: Xander is the heart of the group. He's supposed to be a clown. And he's supposed to be someone that Buffy doesn't want to date.

Audience: What about Firefly. Feels like it's basically perfect.

SH: Mal is clearly the main character. It's not 50/50. Buffy has that same problem the other way. You do have to pick a main character at some point.

#

Bless Julia Rios for making the attempt at moderating. It was kind of a rough panel, viewed from the audience. But also a very interesting one.

And I admit it, when the guy in the audience asked his question about Buffy the Vampire Slayer being emasculating, all I could hear in my head was, "But what about the men?" For goodness sake, we get one series that's the most awesomesauce ever for the women compared to nearly every other one where the men get to be the hero.

I think the remark I really liked the most was the request for more stories about strong female friendships where the women don't fight over men. Goodness this, a thousand times yes. I can think of precisely one occasion in my life (in high school) when I had a thing for the same guy one of my friends did. The other girl and I worked it out just fine and remained good friends - because shockingly enough, genuine friendship is more important than boys. (Sorry boys, I know you may not want to hear this.)

I have no idea why that trope gets written so often. Is it because men are supposed to be that important? Romance and marriage is supposed to be a woman's be-all and end-all? Ugh. I'm not going to say it never happens, but the way it gets presented in books and media you'd think it was rampant.

One thing that did bother me was the remark about the warrior woman, cutting herself off from essential femininity and taking the tomboy path to power. I don't think that should be presented as the only path to power (I want to see my niece be the hero whether or not she wants to wear pink frilly dresses while doing it) but I also don't think there's anything wrong with it. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased as a life-long tomboy that's never really been impressed by the idea that there's something I'm missing out on as a woman because I'm simply not interested in "femininity," essential or otherwise.

Then again, I don't necessarily buy into the idea of the existence of "essential femininity" or "essential masculinity" to begin with; I don't think men and women are actually as different at the level of blood and bone as we like to pretend. We're all part of that glorious rainbow of humanity that bridges the horizon.

But hey, that's just me. I suppose you could accuse the warrior woman of trying too hard to be like a man, but I'd ask in return - what if she's just trying really hard to be herself?

Stop calling me a "real woman"

Because you know what that implies? Are there really femmebots out there, complete with boob guns that make up the category of "not real" women? Are there girls made out of plastic? Is there a test you have to take, or are there government regulations sort of like they have for beef that mean we get tagged as real women, right next to the stamp stating we're organic, because hey we're composed of carbon-containing molecules?

It's a bullshit term. It always struck me wrong when I went to Lane Bryant and was rewarded with "real woman dollars" for shopping. But the wrongness burst into ugly life when I re-watched the episode of Project Runway where one of the designers is a giant toolbag to a plus-size lady. The utter patronizing tone in which its delivered and that it's obvious he's using it in place of "fat" because he's trying to weasel out of being eviscerated for being an asshole is even more insulting.

You're not fooling anyone. We shouldn't need some kind of smirking consolation prize for wearing clothing that's bigger than a 16. We already know we're real. We exist. It's a sad disguise for the fact that often plus-size clothing feels like cultural punishment by setting set us in an adversarial position to women who wear "normal" sizes. Perhaps if we're too busy trying to look down our noses at each other, we'll miss the evil truth that we're being compelled to attack people who should be our allies in this struggle, divided falsely along superficial lines.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into it. Maybe it's just a pathetic attempt to make us feel better about ourselves. Hey, you're large and are apparently considered unworthy to wear anything other than black smocks (it's slimming, you know) but you're a real woman. As if realness is determined by mass rather than an authenticity of spirit. 

Being a woman isn't a contest that some of us have to lose. There is a full spectrum of women to which we all belong, an infinite continuum of what it means to "look like a woman," and no part of that spectrum should be defined as inherently superior. Doing that (and then gleefully jumping over a cliff with the invention of photoshop) is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I'm tired of the implication that my struggle to accept myself has to come at the detriment of other women.

Real women are fat. Real women are thin. Real women come in all colors and shapes and identities, and sometimes we have curves, and sometimes we don't but damnit we're all real women.

And we're all really beautiful.

Princess? Sigh.

I adore you, Tom Hiddleston. I do. And I totally grok what you are trying to say, here. But that word. Princess.

Sigh.

This is admittedly a bit of Rachael brain damage, but since this is a Rachael blog, I get to complain. I hate the Princess shit with burning passion. I hate it when people (normally guys) say women should be treated like princesses, unless the word princess is immediately preceded by the word warrior.

There's a lot of baggage to Princess. Historically, what were they? Women of royalty who (normally) could not inherit or rule. They were there to basically belong to their father until they could be sold in the cause of a political alliance to another man. At which point the purpose switched over to providing (hopefully) male babies.

And then there's Disney. Disney hasn't exactly made the Princess into an empowering concept either. Princesses get rescued by the man and live happily ever after as someone's meek wife. And if you look at the recent Disney "princesses" that have had more guts, most of them aren't actually princesses.

Princess to me doesn't hold the ring of respecting women. It conjures up images of paternalistic protectionism, rescuing the damsel in distress.  So fine, I twitch a lot less when a dad calls his daughter his little princess, because he should be looking out for her. (And presumably not looking for a husband and political deals.)

But please don't treat grown women like princesses. Treat us like unique, powerful, and beautiful human beings who are worthy of respect.

Or if we must stick with the verbal paradigm of royalty, Queen is acceptable. But only if you mean Queen in a sort of Elizabeth I/Maleficent way. Because fuck yeah.

LOL your personhood amendment

I'd heard that we were going to get the Son of the Revenge of the Personhood Amendment from the Black Lagoon in Colorado this year. I rolled my eyes so damn hard that I think I might have pulled a muscle.

Oh, guess not. 

The attempt to get the Personhood Amendment (tl;dr version: fetuses have rights, women don't) on the ballot was shot down due to a lack of valid signatures. The campaign only turned in 106K signatures, and had 24K knocked off as invalid, which put it below the threshold for making it onto the ballot. Of course the campaign is now going to take legal action on this, but I have high hopes for that being a complete bullshit move.

They tried to have a Personhood Amendment in Mississippi last year. In Mississippi! It failed by something like a ten percent margin.

Maybe when Mississippi is telling you that your ridiculous anti-choice bullshit is too draconian, it's time to pack it in.

Because I don't know. Maybe even women who hate abortion like having access to birth control. (You know, birth control. The number one thing that helps prevent the potential need or desire for an abortion.) Or being able to have access to in-vitro fertilization. Or don't want their vagina treated like a crime scene if they have the poor taste to miscarry a baby that they wanted. Maybe women are getting tired of being characterized as wombs with legs who lose all agency when they get pregnant. (That's for sure one of the main reasons I have an absolute horror of being pregnant. Kat, I don't know how you do it, you're amazing.)

Personhood Colorado, please take the hint and fuck off.

No. No you did not misspeak.

In case you missed the news flash, Todd Akin, congressman and candidate for Senate in Missouri, is a despicable shitbag who lacks even basic understanding of human biology:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors, (pregnancy from rape) is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in a clip posted to YouTube by the Democratic super PAC American Bridge. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
(from WaPo)

Of course, having called down the fury of every human being on the planet with even a shred of decency on his head, he immediately backpedaled:

“In reviewing my off-the-cuff remarks, it’s clear that I misspoke in this interview and it does not reflect the deep empathy I hold for the thousands of women who are raped and abused every year..."
(same article)

No, Todd Akin. You did not misspeak. Unless by "misspoke" you mean "Whoops I told everyone what I actually think and now you're all mad so I guess I'd better lie my ass off." Misspeaking means you said pineapple instead of papaya when you were talking about what you had in your fruit salad. It means you had a brain fart and forgot the word ostracod in the middle of a presentation. You don't get to pretend it was just a little verbal flub (teehee!) when you flaunted not only your jaw-dropping ignorance but your complete lack of empathy as well.

Don't you dare, for shame, speak of empathy. If you had a single speck of empathy in your being, you wouldn't be attacking the suffering and trauma of countless women and men by implying there is even such an animal as a rape that doesn't count.

And no, this does not come out of the blue. Justine Larbalestier has a nice summary on her blog about just how pathetically ancient this "legitimate rape" line is. Guess it's nice to know he's getting his knowledge of reproductive mechanisms from the eighteenth century, along with presumably his understanding of biology in general as well. He's not alone in this backward clinging to long-debunked ideas. However, for bonus laugh-and-cry-simultaneously fuckery, I will note that Akin is on the House Science Committee. Awesome!

Even better, Akin has since clarified his position even more on Mike Huckabee's radio show:

Huckabee asked Akin whether he was talking about "forcible rape" when he used the term "legitimate rape."
"I was talking about forcible rape, and it was absolutely the wrong word," Akin said.

This isn't the first time we've heard this. Remember last year? Remember when the Republicans tried to pass a bill prevented Medicaid funding of abortions except in cases of "forcible rape," only backing off when it called down a veritable firestorm on their heads? Todd Akin was in on that too. A hell of a lot of Republicans in the House were, including Paul Ryan. Akin didn't misspeak now, and it was no mistake when he supported that "forcible rape" language either; he hasn't changed his mind, he's just taken another reminder that he shouldn't say those things out loud where people of conscience can hear.

I have seen a lot of conservatives attacking Akin and distancing themselves from him. Good for them, and I surely do appreciate it. But this "legitimate rape" thing is just the same as the despicable "forcible rape" language of last year - Akin himself has confirmed that. This is an attempt to redefine the very idea of rape to the detriment of victims and the benefit of predators. And now one of the supporters of that gem could be the next Vice President.

The eighteenth century called. They want their science and their values back.

You know what else is part of the beautiful spectrum of human experience?

Not having kids.

Articles like this one seem designed to piss me off and make me pound out ranty things on my keyboard.

Yet putting yourself last is one of the best things that can happen to a writer. I make no moral claims for motherhood ­— which can bring out the worst in a person, in the form of vicarious rivalry, bitchiness, envy and even mental illness — but going through the ring of fire does change you and bring about a deeper understanding of human nature.

Well, Mrs. Craig, I'd argue it hasn't given you a deeper understanding of the human nature of people who aren't particularly interested in having kids.

I arrived at the essay by way of one of Amanda Marcotte's tweets. She made the very excellent point that you don't see concern trolling of this sort going on about Gore Vidal or any other male author that dies. I would hope that children are a similarly transformational experience for the men who are invested in them, and that does seem to be the case from my own personal observations. A little unfair to the men, hey?

Really, it's unfair to everyone. From start to finish, once I got past the sound of blood rushing in my ears, the essay reads like a personal justification. Sure, Mrs. Craig has less time to write, but she's traded it for a deeper understanding of human nature and therefore that choice is superior! Or something! Everyone should do it! Have babies, it makes you more awesome and a better writer!

I am not here to make fun of the choice to have children. It's obviously been very meaningful for Mrs. Craig, as it is for many people who go that route in their lives. But I am going to challenge this implication of inherent superiority. Having children is one branch in the path a human life can take, a major direction. It leads to one set of unique experiences and feelings.

Not having children is just as major of a path, and diverges from itself even when you consider the question of if it was by choice or not. That leads to a whole different sort of life, a different array of feelings and experiences.

Neither is superior.

The whole point of art, whether it's painting or writing or interpretive dance or covering yourself with pudding and being an installment piece on the sidewalk for an afternoon is that you are trying to communicate and imagine through the lens of human experience. Frankly, if we all had the same experiences, I think it'd be pretty goddamn dull. It's about getting out there and living your life to the fullest extent you can and then sharing what you've learned and felt and loved and lost and hated with everyone else.

Because none of us are immortal. We can't feel every feeling and experience everything that there is in this constantly expanding world of ours. It's not possible. That's why there's art, because it's one way to share, to help people taste a life they will never otherwise know.

For some of us, living life to the fullest is having children and watching them grow, feeling all that love and pain. For some of us, it's using the extra time and money to ride a bike along the Great Wall of China and dance until three in the morning and kiss a stranger and then have the worst hangover ever. What matters is that we're living and creating. Unless the person you're squaring off with does nothing but pick their belly button and watch Real Housewives, your life path isn't inherently superior. It's just different.

And different is good, right? Because I don't want to live your life, as fulfilling as you find it. I want to live mine.

But don't do *too* well.

One of the Chinese swimmers has been accused of doping because she swam too well, beating her personal best by seven seconds. Like a "superwoman." This is the bit out of the article that really bugs me:

Ye stunned world swimming on Saturday by winning gold in the 400m individual medley in a world-record time. It was her final 100m of freestyle, in which she recorded a split time of 58.68sec, that aroused Leonard's suspicion. Over the last 50m she was quicker than the American Ryan Lochte, who won the men's 400m individual medley in the second-fastest time in history.

I can't really say one way or the other what's going on. Maybe there's doping, maybe there's not. It'll come out eventually. But some of the way this is being framed reminds me a lot of Caster Semenya in 2008; she was accused of being a man and got treated shamefully because she ran too well. It was total bullshit and I'm incredibly glad she's back for 2012 so I can cheer for her some more. I suppose I should feel relieved that so far no one's accused Ye Shiwen of not being a woman. But when one of the major warning signs is that a woman out swam a man, yeah. Gives me that super uncomfortable feeling.

Of course, men get accused of doping just as much, and it is a major problem in sports. Though it seems to me that it's this insane game of pressure on athletes. Perform like a superhuman, but if you're too superhuman, prepare to be regarded with chilling suspicion. With added nasty implications from the opposing team, because making it to the Olympics doesn't mean one can take being skunked with sportsmanlike grace. It also feels like there's an extra side of shit for this deluxe combo shit meal for female athletes, since there seems to be an expectation that they will perform at peak while still being feminine enough, whatever the hell that even means.

I sincerely hope that Ye Shiwen is cleared of the allegations of doping, and that she is just such a giant badass she got a better time than a guy. That would be amazing. Almost as amazing as Caster Semenya.

I'd much rather read about the badminton scandal, since just combining those two words makes it automatically hilarious.

To Space and Back

When I was ten, this was one of my favorite books. To be honest, at that point it was a little below my reading level. But I didn't care. It was about Sally Ride. I'd just recently seen The Right Stuff and I remember being so disappointed that there were no girls among the astronauts in that movie. But what could you do, it was history. And as far as I could tell, where history was concerned women only rarely got to do cool things. 

Well, Sally Ride was also part of history. Much more recent history, but she was in there nonetheless. She'd been to space on the shuttle. She'd proven for America what Valentina Tershkova had shown in the USSR twenty years before. Women could go into space.

I didn't have any designs on being an astronaut. My big brother was the astronomy enthusiast of the family. He had a telescope and built models of the space shuttle and space station. For me, the importance of Sally Ride wasn't that I thought I could follow directly in her footsteps.

It was that she proved that not even the sky was the limit. Girls could do anything. We just had to keep fighting against anyone that tried to hold us back. 

I also really loved her hair. 

It was the 80s, okay?

Her obituary told the world something else new: she was a lesbian. I wish I had known that. I wish a lot of kids had known that. Not because we have some kind of puerile right to delve into her private life. But rather  because it would have been one more thing for younger me to hold close. Girls can go to space. Girls who like girls can go to space, and write books, and have amazing lives and love. And screw the haters, because Sally Ride got to look down on the Earth from orbit and see something so beautiful that some call it God. 

My heart goes out to her partner, and it makes me so angry to think that she'll be denied the benefits that should be hers. Maybe that will change, soon. Women went to space. In time, we can do anything.

Thank you, Sally Ride. Ten-year-old me thanks you, and says she loves you. We all come from the ashes of stars. Some just get closer to returning than the rest of us. 

Avon called and I didn't answer.

Someone leaves Avon catalogs in the ladies' restroom that's nearest my office. I have no idea who. Sometimes I look at them, because, you know. Anyone who claims they've never wanted a little reading material in the bathroom is lying, or possibly just made of plastic.

The Avon catalog is something I manifestly Do Not Get. Its contents are a complete mystery to me, with the possible exception of the nail polish. At the age of thirty-one, I still have no idea how to put on makeup as anything more than an abstract. I have two sets of makeup, both of which were bought for weddings with the help of friends (one for mine, one for my friend Marie's) and they sit in a little bag in the corner of the linen closet, exiled for all time. For both those sets of makeup, I had to have someone actually apply it to my face, because I'm utterly incompetent at it.

As far as I can remember, my mother never wore makeup when I was growing up. (And still doesn't now.) Perhaps that's why it was never a thing that was on my radar. A friend I had in grade school had one of those awful play makeup sets, and I recall spending one afternoon messing with it before the charm was completely lost. Maybe I had more overtly feminine [coded] moments when I was even younger, but if so I can't remember them any longer.

I have this weird, occasional pang where I wonder if I ought to make it my business to learn how to wear makeup properly, build up a little stock, actually do the thing occasionally. Considering it's not something I actually want, that fleeting thought never experiences any kind of follow-up. It could be that I'm just that lazy. It could also be that I don't like how makeup feels on my face, and I don't really like how it makes me look not myself - that can't be Rachael, she doesn't wear lipstick.

It's not just the makeup that I don't get. It's the jewelry. I have eight earrings which cannot be removed without using pliers, and I never get around to wearing anything in my earlobes, the only place earrings can be easily changed. The only other jewelry I ever wear is my wedding band and my Thor's Hammer necklace, because that's like an automatic tic where I roll out of bed, turn off the alarm and slip the leather string over my head. A catalog full of cheap but cute jewelry, little bits of shiny that are meant to be combined with specific outfits leaves me utterly mystified. I want my shiny utilitarian, daily wear, and by preference not all that shiny.

It's also the dresses, the obviously disposable shoes that are very pretty but would functionally be horrific to wear. I don't want to think about running stairs in those things. And don't the fake flowers glued on to the sandal straps make your feet itch? Every now and then when I'm at Lane Bryant, desperately trying to find a shirt I can wear for work that doesn't make me feel ridiculous because it has ruffles on it, I try on a dress and feel utterly silly.

All of these things, I just don't understand. My happy place is a tank top, jeans, and Pumas. Or bike shorts and an Arrogant Bastard jersey. So why is it that every now and then, I have this weird, almost guilty pang, as if something awful in the back of my brain is whispering, you're a girl, you should get this stuff.

It's total bullshit, of course. It's just fine if there are people who like shiny and makeup and brightly colored things. It should be just as fine for there to be people who don't. And it should be fine that I'm one of those people. So where does this thought even come from? Alien mind control slug? It doesn't even feel like something I'd think, and it never goes further than me trying on a dress, looking in the mirror, and going Oh hell no.

Sometimes I like to imagine that maybe there's a boy out there who got my societally mandated portion of shiny and makeup. I hope he looks utterly gorgeous. And I hope all of his friends are as understanding of him as mine are of me and my complete inability to even want to wear eye shadow.

Don't Use This Argument Because OMG Children Are Starving in Africa

Raise your hand if this is a familiar source of tooth-grinding frustration: "Shame on you for being concerned/upset/worried about thing X, because thing Y is way worse."



(This post started as a comment over at a post Jen wrote about comments Richard Dawkins made. But this annoys me enough, I want to just make it a post all its own. And also, I want to detach it from GettingHitOnInAnElevator-gate. Because really, it's a more general complaint and what Richard Dawkins said is just one example.)

Now, I've run across this faux-argument mostly when I bring up an issue as a feminist, but I'm sure that it happens on other topics¹. In one instance (among many), a couple of years ago I got in to the middle of a dogpile on the World of Warcraft forums because several of us female type humans had the audacity to say that we thought there was a particular thing in the game that was probably intended to be cute, but we found it sexist, creepy, and insulting. And immediately, that argument got pulled on us. We're not allowed to complain that something in the game sexist and insulting because women in less socially liberal countries are under the thumb of some really horrible misogynists.

There are a multitude of reasons that this "argument" is a steaming pile of bullshit:

1) We are capable of being concerned with more than one thing at a time. And we can be concerned about an array of both large and small issues and speak out about them. Feminist women and our feminist male allies are - and this comes as a shock, I know - capable of multitasking.

2) You (directed at the general "you" that uses this ridiculous argument) do not have any way of knowing what I have and have not done toward the cause of women in less privileged countries. And further, it does not matter because you have no right to dictate to me what I can and can't be concerned about.

3) You may think that thing X is less important than thing Y, but you must also acknowledge that I am directly affected by thing X, and that potentially gives me more power to do something about it. There is a limit to what one of us can do on our own about a giant issue in a far away place; we can donate money, we can volunteer, we can work to raise awareness. A "smaller" issue that affects you personally is something that you can act much more directly on. So you know what? I cannot personally end the practice of female genital mutilation. But I can personally try to change something that affects me directly - to use the WoW example, as a paying customer of the company that's doing something offensive, I can make a stink about "Hey, I think this is BS."

4) EVERYONE performs this sort of mutlitasking and issue triage. Everyone. Trying to tell someone they shouldn't is frankly hypocritical.

5) Also, if you are that concerned about thing Y, why the hell are you wasting your valuable time and energy arguing with silly wrong-headed feminazis on the internet instead of combating thing Y?

6) Every time I hear this argument, this is what I hear: "The issue you have chosen to speak about is one that I dislike or makes me uncomfortable, and I don't really have a good answer to it. Therefore I will try to shame you with my powers of sarcasm in to shutting up because OMG children are starving in Africa."

Ultimately, it comes across as almost less insulting if your "argument" is just a baldly stated "go make me a sandwich," because at least then it doesn't sound like you're pretending to be on our side.

Please, just let this argument go; it's not going to convince anyone, and is frankly going to fan the flames of anger because it sounds so damn condescending. There are a lot of other ways to deal with something you think is turning in to a tempest in a teapot. Ignoring it could be one course of action, since for some reason basically telling people to shut the hell up on the internet doesn't work unless you have the power to simultaneously kill everyone's broadband and melt their smart phones. Maybe just saying "I don't consider this an issue so I'm going to go do something else" would come out as more positive, and you can have a smug little thrill that you're totally the only adult in the room as you go flouncing away.

Or hey, maybe trying to understand why people are freaking the hell out about something you consider to be a non-issue could be worth a shot. You never know.




1 - Hm, maybe along the lines of "You shouldn't whine about 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance because there are countries where being an atheist will just get you executed!" And so on.

Of Fishnets and Fully Automatic Weapons

I saw Sucker Punch yesterday.

And I really liked it.

Which actually came as something of a surprise to me, since I generally tend to agree with the reviews over at io9 when it comes to saying mean things about movies, and Sucker Punch got a solid thumbs down there.

Now, part of it might be that I went into the movie with extremely low expectations. I'd already read a couple of reviews which, to summarize with nice words, characterized the movie as completely vacuous. And boring. I actually felt more than a little shocked that I found it neither boring, nor vacuous.

Now, to be clear, I am in no way claiming that Sucker Punch is a great movie. It's no Inception. But as Zack Snyder movies go, this one was - as expected - extremely pretty, and much, much better than, say, 300. If you like that sort of eye candy, I think it's worth spending the money to see it. If you don't like that kind of movie, don't waste your time.

Also, the soundtrack is excellent.

I've got a few thoughts about it, so there are going to be SPOILERS all over the place. You have been warned.

In General
I don't regret spending $8.50 or two hours of my afternoon to see this movie. In fact, I really enjoyed it, and found most of the action sequences quite exciting. A lot of the movie - and not just the action sequences - really did make me think of anime. While the action, especially the first sequence with the huge samurai robots, obviously owe a lot to the tropes of anime, a lot of the narrative logic put me in mind of anime as well. And since I have a record of really liking anime, I think I was a lot more willing to to just accept certain things about the story and the way it went. I also most definitely did not find the non-action sequences boring.

So, About That Whorehouse Thing
I've seen a lot of snippy commentary about Babydoll "escaping" into a bordello as her first layer of fantasy. I would agree that it doesn't make sense for that fantasy to be an escape. However, it also really didn't strike me as an actual mental escape for a character, but rather a fantasy in which she was attempting to make sense of the way she and the other women were being treated in the mental institution.

It's made very clear at the end of the movie that Blue Jones, the super creepy orderly that sports a sad little pornstache in Babydoll's bordello fantasy, has been sexually abusing Babydoll in the real world. Which I think also heavily implies that the other girls who are shown being abused or used by men in the bordello fantasy were also being abused by those same men in reality. I think that in light of the story, it's reasonable for Babydoll to make sense of that real-world sexual abuse by transforming the hospital into a bordello - because while the bordello is still a prison, it's at least a prison environment where it makes some kind of twisted sense for the men to be using the women in that way.

Blue Pornstache was incredibly creepy. Beyond his basic concept as an orderly that abuses powerless mental patients, he had some excellently evil dialog in his guise as the bordello's owner. In a scene near the end, he scares the hell out of the women (and then murders two of them) while going off on a classic abuser rant that left me squirming in my seat - not because it was badly done, but because the character was just such a horrific person. He verbally sets up a false situation where the women are somehow in a "partnership" with him (instead of being his victims) and not keeping up their end of the "bargain," which means they're forcing his hand and giving him no choice but to, you know, shoot them.

Ugh. The actor did a good job. It's a wonder he could stand to be in the same room as himself.

I also think it's interesting that we don't actually ever hear Babydoll speak outside of the fantasy bordello world. (At least not that I recall after a single viewing.) I think that's partially because in her own fantasy, she has more strength and control. While obviously she and the other girls are still very much abused prisoners within the pretend bordello, turning them from mental patients in to whores at least allows them to use their sexuality as a weapon. Because in most [patriarchy-owned] narratives, the only women who get to make use of their sexuality in any way are whores.

So with the bordello as the coping-fantasy, then the action sequences become the actual escape-fantasy. I suppose it's where Babydoll mentally runs off to when she's doing something so personally destructive that she can't even handle it in the context of bordello. And that's the place where the women are all a kick-ass, elite team that are accomplishing their goals in a way that they can perhaps feel some pride in.

Though I Will Say One Thing About the Sexy Costumes
In the action sequences, there were sexy costumes. But what struck me was how... unsexy everything but the sexy costumes were. Which I actually really, really appreciated. The sexy costumes just sort of became the idea of a uniform for each of the girls. I found that very interesting... because it made the thing feel stylized rather than titillating.

Empowerment
All that said, I think that anyone who claims that this movie is somehow about female empowerment needs to have their head examined. Or possibly needs to get sent to a remedial women's studies class. Or maybe both.

The basic argument seems to be that there is female empowerment in the movie because:
a) Women with guns
b) Women take control of their own sexuality by the end (NOTE: they don't.)
c) In the end, the women win because Sweet Pea escapes and survives.

In Sucker Punch, we have Sweet Pea escaping, triumphing over abuse by surviving, and Babydoll also gets her own sort of revenge by being released from the bonds of the real world via lobotomy and sets off a series of events that get her abuser brought to justice. Neither of these things ultimately help out the other women, who all get murdered.

I think that there is something very valid to the narrative of triumph over one's abusers by surviving them. I think there's also a lot to be said for revenge fantasies - the desire to take vengeance on one's abuser is a powerful one, whether the victim is male or female, and no matter what sort of abuse is occurring. But I also think that it's very sloppy to equate those things with empowerment because it still presupposes a world where abuse is the norm and the victims defenseless.

So, what would the for reals female empowerment version of Sucker Punch look like? Honestly, I have not clue one. Considering the basic premise of the movie - women trapped in a mental institution where they are abused by their male caretakers - I don't know if it would be possible to write that into a narrative of true female empowerment. At the very least, I don't think you can call it empowerment if the woman who survives is the exception, rather than the rule.

But the thing is, I also think that's just fine... as long as it's actually understood that this isn't what empowerment looks like.

It's a pretty movie where women shoot and stab things. Occasionally at the same time. It's got an interesting concept and a great soundtrack. I specifically bought a small popcorn so I could munch along with the movie, because that's just the sort of film it is. There's really no need to make it out as more than that, is there?

What I've been doing lately...

It's been a busy week... couple of weeks... month... well, from about January on. But I've been doing things with my time, at least.

For example, today I went to Denver, CO's Rally for the American Dream. With 3000 of my fellow Coloradoans - including my husband and my parents - I was in good company indeed.

We did a lot of cheering, a lot of chanting. There were maybe ten or twenty "Tea Party" counter protesters. One of whom wandered around in the crowd and tried to start trouble with his bizarre "Can't get a taxi? Blame the Dems" and "Shame on Colorado Dems for Voting for an African" signs. He was completely ignored by the crowd, and then the cops chased him off.

The IAFF was out in force, as were a lot of other union people - and ordinary citizens. At the end of the rally, the Walk for Choice took off. A lot of us joined in, since it's another important thing to support. We walked from the capital to Writer Square and back, shouting chants like, "Not the church, not the state, women must decide their fate!"

At the end of the Walk for Choice, there were maybe ten crazy anti-choice people waiting at the capital, on the other side of the street. It was standard "OMG THE BABEEZ" bullshit. It was also the most surreal moment of the afternoon - there was a very odd old guy with the anti-choicers, holding a very standard sign in one hand. His other hand was raised in a fist and covered with - I swear I am not making this up - a sagging latex mask of Ronald Reagan. Overcome by just how bizarre it was, I shouted across the street, "Dude, you've got a severed head on your hand!"

So yeah. The disembodied zombie head of Ronald Reagan doesn't want you to have an abortion. Or something. Weird. Eerie.

I have also been putting a lot of time in at the core lab. If you want to see what's been eating up most of my spare time, here are some pictures from our current core, which is from a meandering river deposit. I've tried to add some description to the photos, and hopefully it's not too technical.

Busy busy!

A child should be a choice

Today I hung my No On 62 sign on my patio door. I don't actually have a yard, so yard signs aren't really possible. I also got my Blue Book today, which I tore in to immediately. Mostly because I was curious about what the Blue Book had to say about Amendment 62, since the proponents of the measure tried to sue over it a couple weeks ago.

"They have not included a single word — not a single word — of our arguments," Garcia-Jones said.

Likely because the arguments of the proponents are either filled with emotionally charged language, which has no place in the exceptionally dry and matter-of-fact style of the Blue Book, or because the arguments were patently untrue.

Garcia-Jones said that the Blue Book's arguments against Amendment 62 are false because it could never, as the booklet states, cause women to be denied medical treatment for a miscarriage. The amendment could not, he said, put doctors and other health professionals at risk of legal action for providing medical care to women of childbearing age.

I will Give Garcia-Jones the benefit of the doubt and not accuse him of lying in this case. I think he simply does not understand the unintended consequences of banning abortion absolutely. Take a look at what's happened in El Salvador; doctors become reluctant to give care for miscarriages, since they may be afraid that they will be accused of causing the miscarriage, or the miscarriage itself might be the result of an illegal abortion. And frankly, I think if abortion were made absolutely illegal, doctors might very well not want to treat women of childbearing age because they may become pregnant at any time and not necessarily realize it. If you want to define a fertilized egg as a person, well, last I checked even if you accidentally kill a person, you don't just get a pat on the head and a wave to go on your merry way.

Of course, I'm naughty for even using the phrase "fertilized egg." One of the proponents said:

“I think it's important to note with the term fertilized egg, that's the same thing as using the N word for an African American,” said Mason. “Because it's a dehumanizing term and it's not based in science. The term would be a zygote, or an embryo, speaking of a unique individual.”

A fertilized egg is a zygote is a fertilized egg. ACOG certainly uses the term "fertilized egg" without blushing. I think it's really an attempt by the 62 proponents to up the emotional charge on the language, because they know that they can't win with either logic or science. I'm actually quite surprised Mason isn't insisting on calling it a baby from the instant of conception onward, but that's probably a little too extreme.

I'd like to throw one more quote at you, where the proponents try to squirm out of the fact that the amendment would ban many extremely popular forms of birth control, including my favorite, the pill:

True contraception prevents fertilization and personhood for pre-born babies will legally protect every baby from the beginning of his or her biological development," said Hanks in an e-mail. "Only those forms of "birth control" that extinguish a life that has already begun will be impacted. Many of the oral "contraceptives" have an action that makes the womb inhospitable to a developing embryo and hence, the new living, growing baby is prevented from residing where his or her Creator intended until birth."

This quote characterizes everything that is wrong with the position of the Amendment 62 proponents - and delineates why I don't just think they're idiots, I actively hate them.

To begin with, Hanks brings up the "Creator" and the Creator's intentions as a means to justify banning birth control. For those of us that don't believe in gods, this is an argument that holds no water. It makes the point very clear that Amendment 62 is about making a personal religious belief into a law that would control the lives of all women that live in Colorado.

But even more to the point, everything in that quote is about the baby. The woman is reduced to a womb, to "where his or her Creator" intends the baby to reside. In their efforts to grant "personhood" to a fertilized egg, they simultaneously remove "personhood" from the woman involved.

That is what makes me angry, and filled with hate, and very afraid. Since I first became aware of the abortion debate, I honed in immediately on the fact that efforts to ban abortion reduce women to less than full citizens, chattel who do not truly own and control their own bodies and can be forced by the state to complete a pregnancy. I don't appreciate my rights, my life, my existence being reduced to the state of one organ within my body.

And perhaps that's the cruelest joke of this horrible debate. These people have made me resent the very idea of being pregnant, have made me resent babies. Because I can't help but resent anything and anyone that would reduce my life from a glorious adventure that I (mostly) direct to an existence that is wholly outside of my own control.

I often see bumper stickers around here, that say: "It's a child, not a choice." I could not disagree more. It is a choice. It should be a choice. It must be a choice.

I have several friends that have children, who they love very much. Each and every one of these amazing women, whether the pregnancy was intentional or not, ultimately chose to change the course of her life and become a mother. That choice made the baby a cherished and loved member of the family, rather than a burden forced on the mother by the state.

I don't want to be a mother right now. I may never want to be. But I want that chance, to decide for myself. I want that choice. I want all women to have that choice. In the future, I want my niece to have that choice.

No on 62.

PZ wants opinions from us womens

At Pharyngula: the Woman Problem

It's actually very refreshing to see someone from the male half of the species asking this question and requesting opinions. From a feminist standpoint, I've long considered PZ to be an ally to the cause (and a feminist himself) so he hasn't disappointed me here.

I already voiced my opinion in the comments, but since this is my blog and I can say whatever the hell I want, I'm going to repeat myself here and expand it a bit.

So, how can we get more women involved in atheism and/or skepticism? I'm looking at this from more the viewpoint of skepticism, mostly because I don't even have a passing handshake with organized atheism.

Make events more kid-friendly/provide some sort of childcare - In his post, PZ links to a post by Skeptifem that is well worth the read. One of her major points is that women are often very busy, and that how busy we are often goes unacknowledged. I think one of the really pertinent things here is child care. Now, a lot of skeptical households might be all manner of progressive and enlightened, but women still tend to bear the burden of housework. (One example here.) That likely makes it a lot more difficult for a woman to make it to an all-weekend event, for example, because she would have to either put off that work (the vacuuming can wait) or arrange for someone else to take over (the kids probably need someone to feed them). Making major events/conferences child friendly to the extent that there's either activities for the kids to engage in while mom's listening to lectures or providing on-site babysitting (I'd daresay even for an extra, reasonable fee) would probably enable a lot more attendance from women. And I'm saying this as a woman who doesn't have kids and isn't planning to in the near future - I just don't think that people in my situation make up the bulk of women that might want to be involved in organized skepticism.

Make an effort to include more women from the top down
Oh noes, not affirmative action! What the fuck ever. I don't think all women are shrinking violets that would shy away from attending a giant sausage fest of events. I've gone to a great many events (for various organizations) where women were very much in the minority. But I also know that I was not entirely comfortable in doing so - and would often seek out other women if my discomfort level got out of control - and this even though I don't have a problem being confrontational and I'm reasonably intimidating when I want to be. The more women you have at your event, the more welcome other women will generally feel there. And the way you advertise your event as a safe and interesting place for (feminist) women is by having having female speakers - or in a pinch, outspoken male allies. So go out of your way to find more woman.

I think the dearth of female speakers/presenters at events may be produced by a sort of negative feedback loop. Women are sometimes treated as if we don't have anything interesting to say, therefore we are not given opportunities to speak, therefore anything interesting we might have to say is not heard by a broader audience. There aren't many women who are "big names" within the skeptical movement, compared to men. A lot of that fame within the movement feeds on itself. If you've got a little fame as a skeptic, you get asked to speak at an event, and thus you are more famous and get asked to more events. Unless you're given a platform to pontificate upon, it doesn't matter how interesting and erudite you are. You won't be heard.

Continue working to make skepticism mainstream for women
Someone in PZ's comments pointed out that there's plenty of female attendance at woo events. I'd lay good money that those sort of events are strongly aimed at women, because it's very socially acceptable for women to be into all sorts of unscientific shit. Encourage women to shy away from the hard rationalism of science and then give them somewhere that their socially acceptable "intuition" can have free reign and be praised, you're damn right they're going to feel comfortable and happy going to those kind of events. So what can we do about that? Prominently advertise the women who are involved in skepticism and do our part to making rationality and intellect laudable female traits. Continue the general work of science cheerleading and promotion of skepticism, but make certain that women are involved in that as well. Promoting skepticism with an all (or almost all) male face unfortunately just contributes to the image that skepticism is male territory and women have no place there.

Make the environment safer/more welcoming
We have varying degrees of comfort about sexist jokes. Personally, I know I am completely unbothered at times, and at other times I'm as offended as hell. Not all women are like me. Some are more sensitive or less sensitive. But if you foster an environment where it's okay to make sexist comments or jokes, and the only male reaction to it is either laughter or a dismissal of female complaints, you can't really blame some of the women for just checking out entirely. This even comes down to individual responsibility of attendees. If you want to see more women at conferences, then when one of your fellow men gets creepy at some poor woman whose only mistake was being in his presence while in possession of breasts, you'd damnwell better tell him to knock it the hell off. If you really want more women at these events, then you'd better want us there for our contributions, and not just because you want someone that you can hit on.

Don't insult our intelligence
Enough with mansplaining. Seriously. And the next person to claim that my pitiful ladybrain just can't handle math is getting punched in the face. I mean it.


There are probably other barriers to female attendance. If you look for the comments on PZ's post from someone with the nick Cerberus, she makes some really good points as well - like how often libertarianism is given a free ride, and how that may really put some people off. (I tend to tune out the libertarian stuff, since I am so, so very done with it.) The big thing is that there are barriers, and acknowledging them is the first step to taking them down.

And is this a problem that actually does need to be addressed? If we're just in this for show and to pat ourselves on the back, well, in that case it's fine to dismiss the potential contributions of a great many people because getting them involved is too much effort. If we're just in this so we can feel superior to all those poor schmucks who just aren't rational enough, then it's a nice ego boost to shake our heads and cluck our tongues about all those sad women, who just can't do skepticism because they're wired to be "intuitive" and "feeling," whatever the fuck that means.

If we're serious about our cause and our mission, however, then we've already waited too long. It's a problem and a sad waste that we're missing out on so many people that could otherwise be contributing. It's a problem and a base hypocrisy that some are not casting a skeptical eye at our own social institutions. And it's long past time things changed.

In which I am bewildered by Boobquake

Not the actual Boobquake concept. I follow Jen's blog and Twitter and was pretty much up on the thing as it developed. I find it quite amusing, really. I'm not planning to participate myself; if nothing else, the few articles of clothing I own that show off my cleavage are most definitely Not Work Appropriate. But I'd also daresay the fact that I wear pants and polo shirts and am flaunting my uncovered red hair and even flash the occasional (gasp) ankle would count as fairly immodest in some parts of the world anyway.

What I'm really puzzled about is some of the feminist negativity. Like this, for example. Or over at Salon.

I'm basically picking up two main points from those posts, and others I've seen that I haven't bothered to find again:
1) Encouragement of body image issues/women feeling pressured
2) Men like it when we show off cleavage so this is just more objectification

Encouragement of body image issues? Is there some kind of "hotties only" sign that's been subliminally attached to the facebook page or the blog post, one that I missed? I think this is something where women will participate if they want. If there's a whiff of body image issues here, it's not caused by the whole Boobquake thing; rather, the response is a symptom.

Me saying "I don't feel comfortable showing off what I've got" is not Boobquake forcing some sudden unpleasant realization on me that I'm a fatty and don't like wearing tight clothing. I've been a fatty my entire goddamn life. It's not making me feel worse about it. It's just revealing once again that I've internalized the ridiculous beauty standards of society rather more than I care to admit. That's something I deal with every day. Frankly, I found most of the Boobquake posts Jen's made quite refreshing in that she hasn't set out any kind of standard. There's no cleavage requirement. There's no hotness requirement. The only requirement (beyond being female) that I see is the implied requirement that one must have the confidence to wear something "revealing," however you define that.

Right now, it's easier for women who meet societal beauty standards to have that required confidence. But you know what? There's a lot of women who don't match that ridiculous beauty ideal who still have that amazing confidence, and good on them. And those of us that don't? It's not the fault of a silly event like Boobquake, and no one is getting on our case about it anyway.

Then on to the fact that there are some creepy dudes that are all happy because women are going to show off their cleavage. Or that this puts women on parade. You know what? No matter what we do, we're on parade as long as society remains patriarchal. If we want to wear something that shows off our cleavage, the patriarchy wins because the patriarchy likes boobies. If we wear turtlenecks because the patriarchy likes boobies, then we are just as surely being controlled. From where I'm standing, worrying about what the patriarchy (oh faceless devil that it is) thinks about our fashion choices is the ultimate no-win situation. The fact that we're worried about it to begin with means that we have ceded them just a little more control over our choices and our lives.

In the Salon article, Beth Mann mentions the feminists of yore burning their bras as a political statement. It was bold, and it was shocking. But you know what? I bet there were some dudes standing around that were more than happy to ogle the angry feminists with their braless breasts. So has it ever been. I think it's just as much of a political statement that those proud, angry women didn't let that stop them.

A guy's take on gender performance

Jock Homo: How Gay is the Super Bowl? is an article that made me giggle. A lot. But it's also an interesting look at the culture of masculinity and - the reference hit me like a sucker punch, since I hadn't been expecting in an opinion piece about football, of all things - the "performative" nature of gender as proposed by Judith Butler.

Now, to this day I still have screaming flashbacks of trying to slog through the selected pages of Butler's Gender Trouble, but I also think the woman's got an interesting take on things if you can just get past the wall of unnecessarily complex academic language. There's a lot to her work, but the bit that matters to this article is that she views gender as not something inherent, but rather a culturally enforced performance. Seeing that idea applied to masculine rather than feminine performance was really, really interesting.

If nothing else, I like seeing that feminist theory isn't just for us women-folk.

Diamonds are interesting, but I have no desire to take them to the movies.

Interesting post here about "The facts about diamonds." The author of the post mostly focuses on the cultural/social aspects of diamonds, and for the most part I agree with him. I've always found jewelry commercials in general irritating, and even more so the ones that dig up the rotting corpse of "diamonds are a girl's best friend" and display it on national television. I don't like the message that women are shallow beings that can be bought off with a shiny bauble; it's demeaning for women (we're coin-operated sex bots) and men as well (since apparently men have nothing going for them except their ability to give us shiny things.) It's not any better if you approach it from the angle of "jewelry as a means for men to show off their wealth" since that places women squarely in to the category of an ornament for men, the vehicle by which they do their social posturing.

Bah. Bah, I say.

I actually do own two pieces of jewelry that involve diamonds. One of them is a small pair of earrings that a good friend of the family gave me for my birthday several years ago. I bring them out for special occasions. The other is actually my engagement ring. It wasn't something I asked for; I always told Mike that if he wanted to get married, I'd be just as happy with a plastic ring out of a vending machine, or no ring at all. But Mike is an earnest, wonderful guy, who likes to feel as if he's doing things properly when he's moved to do them. In this case, that meant finding a really cool looking ring (no standard gold band with a rock on it for him) and giving it to me at the most bizarre moment imaginable. I think that's what makes me feel okay about the outward appearance of tradition, there; I didn't demand anything, I didn't expect¹ anything, and Mike did what he did because he had the financial means and wanted to. As anti-diamond and anti-jewelry as I tend to be, I also respect that in the great game of give and take that is a relationship, I've got to do my share of giving.

I like the shiny diamond ring and wear it every day because I love Mike to bits and know how important it is to him. Not the other way around.

I'm always left wondering, between the slime of advertising campaigns and these little events that make up my own life, where I sit relative to other women. Are there actually women whose affection can be bought by jewelry? I hope not, and I've never personally known any, but I also don't think I'd be friends with someone like that to begin with. I've already learned far more about the seedy underbelly of human relationships than I ever wanted to know, just while trying to plan a wedding.

Social stuff aside, diamonds themselves are, I think, pretty interesting rocks. If nothing else, they intersect nicely with my favorite non-sedimentary rock, kimberlite. As far as anyone has ever seen, you don't get diamonds unless there's an Archean-age craton for the kimberlitic eruption to punch through; what we get from those kimberlites are the little bits and bobs that the magma carried up with it. This is why you get diamonds in Canada (and even in Wyoming), but not in Colorado. We're just a bit too far south of the remaining, long-buried Archean age rocks.

So, there was something about geological conditions back in the Archean (about 2.5-3.7 Ga) that allowed diamonds to form then and not since. So any "natural" diamond is quite old. There was much higher heat flow and there was full mantle melting back then, as opposed to the partial melting we get today. This different melting/depletion of the mantle probably is what allowed diamonds to grow.

Cratons are actually part of the lithosphere, the basement that the crust sits on top of. They're also remarkably stable; it's actually a matter of great interest how the Archean cratons have managed to hang in there so long. So the majority of diamonds - which haven't been dragged to the surface by a kimberlitic freight train - "live" more than 100 km below the surface.

Which is why Steven Shirey says:

"Diamonds aren’t just for spectacular jewelry," commented Shirey. "They are scientific gems too."

Jewelry? Meh. Science? WOOHOO!



1- Literally. He caught me completely by surprise, the brat.

A handful of links

Abortion and breast cancer: The manufacturversy that won't die - Orac takes a look at this steaming pile of BS. I remember the last time the awful people with the giant mutilated fetus posters were making life miserable on campus, they were pushing this claim. And seemed very puzzled that I was angry they were actively lying to people.

Cruise ships still find Haitian berth - this is certainly one messy issue to think about. On the one hand, there's the utterly squeamish thought of people being on vacation (and eating their bbq) that close to a disaster site. On the other hand, there's the aide, the promised proceeds, and at least some money being put in to the Haitian economy. My brain's chasing itself in circles just thinking about this.

Science project prompts SD school evacuation - from the department of *facepalm*.

The student will not be prosecuted, but authorities were recommending that he and his parents get counseling, the spokesman said. The student violated school policies, but there was no criminal intent, Luque said.

I know, right? Kid wants to play with science and engineering outside of school. There MUST be something wrong with him. Ugh.

Is Refusing Bed Rest a Crime? - This story made me so very, very angry. I understand that there is something of a public interest in babies being born healthy. That said, it's not your goddamn body, and being pregnant doesn't mean you give up your fundamental rights as an adult human being. Seeing women treated like public incubators with no rights really scares the crap out of me.

Haiti, HAARP, and conspiracy theorists - an excellent roundup from BoingBoing about the new nutty conspiracy theories about how HAARP somehow caused the earthquake in Haiti, since it's a death ray. Or something. Mmm, I love the smell of crazy in the morning.