Archive for the 'Revising reality' Category

What *I* don’t get

Published at March 19, 2008 in Race, Political theater and Revising reality. 10 Comments

Ann at Feministing reposts a question she asked over at TAPPED:

WHAT I DON’T GET.Why, after Geraldine Ferraro’s comments, didn’t Hillary Clinton stand up and deliver a speech on how she sees race in America?

Ok, ok, of course I understand why Obama was the one expected to offer a definitive statement on race. I just don’t like it very much.

People of color are not the only people who have a racial identity, and are not the only people who deal with issues of race in this country. Just like women are not the only ones who deal with issues of gender.

Just had to say that again.

Here’s what I don’t get: Why is it that every time Obama has to deal with criticism, or when he faces a potentially problematic issue, someone has to ask — demand, even — why Hillary isn’t doing something about it as well?

Ferraro’s comments are not the equivalent of Wright’s. For one thing, they hardly play equivalent roles with the respective campaigns; Ferraro is a Democratic party elder with no official campaign role who shot her mouth off to an obscure newspaper in California — surely, some comments on page D4 of a local shopper in Torrance, California are the perfect forum for dogwhistling to the racists in Pennsylvania! — and Wright has been Obama’s spiritual advisor for 20 years, supported by his presence in the church, his donations, his thanks (the title of The Audacity of Hope is from one of Wright’s sermons, and Wright was the only person Obama thanked by name during his 2004 keynote speech at the DNC) and his study (when Obama went off to Harvard Law, he took tapes of Wright’s sermons with him to study).

For another, Hillary publicly disagreed with Ferraro’s comments* soon after they were brought to light, and Ferraro stepped down. Obama has shifted positions on Wright, probably because he can’t afford to denounce the man himself, given his position and given how close the relationship has been. So he’s issued denials that he’s ever heard any such comments in 20 years, or issued denials about having heard the comments in the tapes that ABC has run. And then he’s walked back from those denials.

But more to the point of why Obama had to give a speech on race and Clinton didn’t: because Obama chose to make this speech about race. Which was an interesting choice, given the nature of some of the statements that Wright made that were controversial. The most politically problematic were, perhaps, the ones such as “God damn America.” But Wright also made specific attacks on Hillary Clinton and made it very clear that he didn’t think women had it so bad — white women at least — and yet other than a reference to the glass ceiling, Obama didn’t address these at all.

And Obama had to make this speech about race (and not about perceptions of anti-Americanism, or misogyny) because he’s chosen to run as a post-racial candidate, one who doesn’t make people have to think icky thoughts about race (even as his campaign and his supporters gleefully smeared the Clintons as racist, in many cases just making shit up out of whole cloth, persisting in doing so even after that shit had been debunked (why, hello, Kos, I’m looking at you)). And here, suddenly, was a reminder that he does have a racial identity.

In short, Obama had to make this speech because this is specifically Obama’s problem.

And what *I* don’t get is why Clinton has to fix Obama’s problems.

____________

*Comments that, incidentally, were not so very different from ones that Obama has made about himself.

Four harmless ways to make him jealous, but still reassure him that you won’t be doing anything silly like *really* developing your own interests

Published at August 14, 2007 in Female trouble, Revising reality, Anxious masculinity and Dipshittery. 10 Comments

Mysteries of the Sexes Explained! And, oddly enough, those explanations serve to reinforce traditional gender roles.

Ladies, if you want to keep your man, lie to him to make him jealous, but not too jealous.  You want to be sure to be firmly under his thumb, but not crushed by it.

Step one: Make him think you’re cheating.

Stay Up Later Than He Does

And make sure you’re logged in. When he says he’s going to bed, tell him you’ll be in later, that you just have a few things to look up on the computer. Not that he doesn’t trust you and not that you’re going to check up on an ex or two, but he doesn’t know that.

And his wandering mind may just think you’re up to something. And the thought that you might be means that you’ll soon be getting more attention than David Beckham in the Los Angeles airport.

Invite the papparazzi into your bedroom!

Remember, under no circumstances should you stay up later because you’re doing something you enjoy.

Step two: Pretend to have a social life that does not include him.

Have Drinks with Friends

He knows you talk. He knows you talk more when you’re with friends, especially when you add drinks to the mix. And he cares deeply about how he’s portrayed in your version of the media - that is, your social network - and how he stacks up against other men. Go out and compare notes with the girls, and selectively report back on the findings of the kangaroo court. He may be less likely to give you damning evidence to report.

The only reason you should have friends of your own, ladies, is to make him jealous of the time you spend with them. In no time at all, he’ll be chaining you to the radiator and monitoring your calls! You’ll have no end of his attentions then.

Step three: Feign an interest in something he likes.

Click on ESPN.com

Read up on the latest sports happenings, and bring them up later to your man. When he asks how the heck you knew Padraig Harrington won the British Open, tell him that a couple guys from work were talking about it.

The thought of you playing Erin Andrews (sports reporter for ESPN since 2004 … C’mon, stay with me here!) around the coffee machine will make him steam without totally burning. (Note: Anything you do with male colleagues that’s potentially frisky will infuriate him - and can potentially backfire on you.)

Because we all know that women only talk about sports when they want to flirt with other men! And it’s so charming when he won’t let you leave the house for work lest you have frisky sports-related conversations around the coffeepot. But you’ll know you have him wrapped around your finger then. If your finger isn’t too scalded from getting hot coffee thrown on it by a jealous boyfriend.

Step four: Make him think you might be better at something than he is, but let him win.

Whoop Him

Challenge him in something physical - whether it’s in an upcoming 5K or in your regular yoga class. It’s hard for even the least competitive men not to feel antsy when his woman is stronger, faster, or more flexible than he is.

He’ll say it doesn’t bother him when you cross the finish line first or scratch your ears with your toes. Plus, research shows that even a little healthy competition can ignite your sex life. Don’t push the Venus Williams act too hard, though, or he’ll wonder if his losing streak will send you in search of a man who’s faster, stronger, and better.

Or he’ll go after you with a tennis racket.

Running the numbers

Published at August 13, 2007 in Sex sex sex, Pantysniffing, Revising reality and Anxious masculinity. 11 Comments

numbers.jpg

Isn’t it interesting how nobody ever really questions statistics that bear out some version of reality that “everybody knows!”

EVERYONE knows men are promiscuous by nature. It’s part of the genetic strategy that evolved to help men spread their genes far and wide. The strategy is different for a woman, who has to go through so much just to have a baby and then nurture it. She is genetically programmed to want just one man who will stick with her and help raise their children.

Surveys bear this out. In study after study and in country after country, men report more, often many more, sexual partners than women.

One survey, recently reported by the federal government, concluded that men had a median of seven female sex partners. Women had a median of four male sex partners. Another study, by British researchers, stated that men had 12.7 heterosexual partners in their lifetimes and women had 6.5.

And of course, that statistic gibes with reality — or at least, what we tell ourselves is reality — the Way Things Are, Naturally. And because it does that, newspapers and other media outlets just keep repeating that statistic as if it’s God’s Honest Objective Truth. After all, someone else had it in their story, and they must have fact-checked it, and it was in a book somewhere, so that’s good enough for me!

Well, except for the part where it’s mathematically impossible. Continue reading ‘Running the numbers’

Empowerful

Published at July 18, 2007 in Fun Stuff, Delusion and Revising reality. 1 Comment

Oh, crap. I can’t seem to get the video player to embed here. So go see Jennifer and Bean for the video.

I don’t know which one I love more, the guy who says that feminists are hairy, ugly lesbians, or the woman who correctly identifies feminist achievements like getting the vote, but who decides that pole dancing is more feminist than that.

Fetch Forth The Fainting Couch!

Published at July 17, 2007 in Dreaded incivility, Revising reality, Anxious masculinity and Dipshittery. 22 Comments

Seems that Mr. Robert Novak has a case of the vapors!

22833746.jpg

Novak: Women’s ‘venom’ toward Bush is ’so vicious.’

Appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show yesterday, conservative pundit Robert Novak claimed that “women, particularly,” are making our current political discourse more “vicious”:

Hugh Hewitt: “The political dialogue, public and private, becomes more rancorous. The dissenters, particularly the Negro, poor and the war protesters turn to direct action, and most uncivil disobedience. What this adds up to is nothing less than a rejection of conventional forms of political action.” It goes on. Do you see the same thing playing out again now, Robert Novak?

Novak: I hate to say it, but I think the hatred toward George W. Bush is just mad. I listen to, sometimes in the car radio, on talk shows, and the venom that comes out of the mouths of some of these women, particularly, I’m not trying to be sexist, but they’re so vicious toward him. And I don’t think that really contributes. And also, the bloggers, I don’t read the bloggers very much, but it is really, it’s really vicious.

I swan! Indelicate ladies! Negroes who don’t know their place!

What is the world coming to?

Quickly! Bring ’round the smelling salts!