And This Is Why I Read Bitch

From "The Ambition Condition: Women, Writing, and the Problem of Success," by Anna Clark:

Perhaps you know about Emily Gould’s cover story, “Exposed,” in the New York Times Magazine last May. Even if you didn’t take in all 8,002 words on the former Gawker editor’s gains and losses from blogging about her personal life, it would be hard to miss the criticism of the piece elsewhere... Whatever the valid faults of Gould and her article, the attacking comments were unmistakably gendered. “Attention whore,” was one favorite catcall. “Get over yourself, sweetheart,” advised a commenter. Another scoffed, “You are just a stupid little girl”—a comment 67 others recommended. What’s more, the comments were full of parental advice offered as if to a 10-year-old and intended to steer the writer away from, well, writing: “Don’t you have important things to do?”; “Like your tattoos, I’m fairly sure you’ll regret all this by the time you get into your 40s”; and, “You really want to find some meaning?… Go to the local VA hospital and volunteer to spend a week changing bedpans and rewrapping dressings. Or try teaching English as a second language to a new immigrant...or read to the blind.”

And then there was this one: “I suspect that one day, when a stalker appears in this girl’s life (you can’t call her a woman), she will have no idea that she brought it upon herself.”

Yep, it’s all the fault of the “girl” writer who put herself out there. Add the Gould Incident to the uneasy history of ambitious women writers told that they have nothing of worth to say.

Oh, and also:

So goes the equation of female ambition with selfishness and unhappiness. But the translation of this old story into the world of writers takes a curious turn.

Anyone who’s stepped into a literary community—readings, performances, writing workshops, MFA programs—will testify to the disclaimers that issue regularly from the mouths of women writers in particular. “This is just something I thought I’d try,” and “I’m not really a poet, but…” are words regularly uttered even by those who made drastic life changes in order to carve out time to write. I prepared for months for a major fiction contest in college, for instance, which I entered five years in a row, claiming to others each time that I just “threw something together.” Later, I applied to a single MFA fiction program, and told no one until I got in. I just didn’t want anyone to know what I wanted most. Perhaps I was preparing for failure: If I said openly that I not only wanted to be a writer but that I worked hard at it, my ambitions could be judged against external rewards—and easily dismissed when I missed out on them.

Oh, and:

Furthermore, to even say that you want to write lasting novels, garner hundreds of thousands of blog hits, or handmake a chapbook is to expose yourself to the “who are you to think you have anything to say?” sort of pummeling that Gould received. It can be tempting, then, for women in particular to write quietly and hope that the work will speak for itself. But by not owning up to her ambitions—whether they are in the public or private realms—a writer feeds the machine that discounts the aspirations and talents of all women writers. The silence is implicit support for editors who claim that their byline disparity is because women don’t want it enough. It sets an example for other writers that ambition is something to be ashamed of. Though it might be the last thing in the world she means to do, by keeping her intentions for her work hidden, a female writer allows others to make assumptions about her work, and to decide where it will and will not go.

Seriously, I may never stop quoting this piece. Read the entire thing. It's brilliant.

Also, since we've fallen onto the subject, most of my opinions on personal writing, and on the Gould backlash (which, by the way, did I mention that JOSH FUCKING STEIN wrote a nasty Page Six article about Gould which was met with just about zero backlash, even though it had his name on it and pictures of him brooding in a sweater, as opposed to her anonymous blog which disguised his name, and she was supposed to do what? Let him control the public representation of a difficult period in her life? Fuck that) were summed up by Melissa McEwan in a blog post that has nary a mention of Gould, so yeah, read all of that post, too:

Making the personal public and political is serious business. Because women's stories aren't told, it's incumbent upon female feminists to tell their own stories, to fill that void, to be unrepentant and loquacious raconteurs every chance we get, to talk about our bodies, our struggles, our triumphs, our needs, our lives in every aspect. It's our obligation to create a cacophony with our personal narratives, until there is a constant din that translates into equality, into balance.

Telling our tales is not a weakness. It's a strength.

No matter who says otherwise.

Correct. Also: if a woman writes something you like, tell people about it. It's not going to get out there on its own.

[Via.]

Yes, We Suck: The Return of the "Generation X" Think Piece

It's such a simple word, "we." It echoes around the world - nous, nosotros, wir, wij, all basic and universal evocations of a common purpose and identity. And all, when deployed in the correct context, signify a writer's departure from the realm of the personal or critical essay, and the beginning of Generation-Defining Time.

This installment of Generation-Defining Time comes to you courtesy of talented Salon writer Heather Havrilesky! I believe it is her first entry in the genre. It is entitled "An open apology to boomers everywhere," and it comes straight from Generation X.

Now, I missed Generation X by a few years (I think I am technically a "Millenial," what with my Facebooking and my text messaging and my baggy pants) but I have been familiar with the X Generation since the early '90s, having known them primarily as the generation of people that would not stop fucking defining themselves, ever. Throughout my tender adolescence there came to prominence a barrage of Generation X spokespeople with Generation X thoughts who wanted us to know about how Generation X was perceiving the world in this totally new Generation X way, and it maybe involved having a crappy service job and being mad at your parents. I thought we were done! I thought the answer was "irony." Apparently, not, however, for the Generation X define-a-thon continues.

So, on the "being mad at your parents" tip, here is Heather Havrilesky, apologizing to them for the entirety of her Generation:

Dear boomers: We're sorry for rolling our eyes at you all these years. We apologize for scoffing at your earnestness, your lack of self-deprecation, your tendency to take yourselves a little too seriously... Chanting "What do we want? Peace! When do we want it? Now!" at that rally against the Iraq war made us feel self-conscious in spite of ourselves. We felt like clichés. We wondered why someone couldn't come up with a newer, catchier, pro-peace slogan over the course of 40 years of protests.

Ah, the true failure of the anti-war movement - insufficiently catchy slogans. Here, Havrilesky explains political involvement, X-style:

We really did stand for something, underneath all the eye-rolling. We're feminists, we care about the environment, we want to improve race relations, we volunteer. We're just low-key about it. We never wanted to do it the way you did it: So unselfconscious, so optimistic, guilelessly throwing yourself behind Team Liberal. We didn't get that. We aren't joiners. We don't like carrying signs. We tend to disagree, if only on principle.

So, completely ineffectual, then? I'm not sure I get it; I've only read 900,000 pieces on Generation X in my lifetime. Can you explain this in a way that involves the words "cynical," "ironic," or "slacker?"

We grew cynical. We doubted even the most heartfelt, genuine statements. We didn't want to be blind to our own faults, like you were, so we paraded our faults around, exalted in our shortcomings. The worst thing, to us, was to not see ourselves clearly. The worst thing was to not be in on the joke... everyone is a fake and the high capitalist world is bought and sold and even the purest form of art is a commodity, not to be taken seriously. No one can be trusted, nothing is pure -- these are the truths we held to be self-evident.

My goodness! Imagine the "capitalist world" being "bought and sold!" Clearly, this means that you can never believe in anything ever and that people are terrible. Remember, people: sad thoughts are always more valid and insightful than happy ones. This is the principle of all psychological health.

Anyway, Havrilesky explains, the real fault lies not with Generation X, but with the Baby Boomers, who were horrible, horrible parents:

You told us to tell you anything, to be honest, to come to you with our problems, but when we did, you were uncomfortable and dismissive. You didn't really want to know how we felt. When we were emotional, you flashed back to that time your drunk mother threw the jack-o'-lantern into the street. You loved us, but you were passive-aggressive and avoidant in spite of your best intentions.

Wow. An entire generation raised by my ex-boyfriends? That must have blown. From now on, I won't carry any bitterness about my past relationships. (Which all ended, by the way, exactly like Terminator 2: "I know now vhy you cry, but it is sommesing I can nevah dooo.") I'll simply understand that they were Baby Boomers. Gentlemen - congratulations. You all look very young for your age.

But wait: crappy parents? Cynicism regarding the political views held by the preceding generation? Disengagement, disillusion, dysphoria? Why this sounds precisely like the Generation X anthem from Generation X-defining Generation Xtacular Reality Bites, written and performed by Ethan "X-treme X-ing" Hawke!



Okay, to be fair, I only put that video in this post because it is the most horrible thing that has ever happened. Just like Generation X!

Still, Havrilesky notes, Obama's nomination can change all that. Now that we've elected a President we can believe in, we can drop all of the cynicism and disengagement and reach out to the world, with eyes and hearts wide open. We can be vulnerable, trusting, maybe even a little bit naive. We can be, in other words, this woman:



Oh, Generation X. You say we only hear what we want to. We don't listen hard; we don't pay attention to the distance that you're running to anyone, anywhere. We don't understand if you really care. We're only hearing negative - no, no, no, baaaaaaaad!

And we say: stay.

Someday, I Will Be Brief Again. For Now, Here's Prop 8.

I don't know how to speak about Prop 8 yet. (Maybe I shouldn't try? Ha, what are the chances of that?) It is not an unfamiliar thing to me, this vote, nor is the thinking behind it. If you want a really ugly look at the place where I grew up, check this out:

A crucial electoral battleground state, Ohio hasn't done well during the Bush era. In the last four years, it's lost a quarter million jobs. A report from the U.S. Census Bureau recently rated Cleveland the poorest big city in the country. Young people are leaving the state in droves. In August, Brent Larkin, editorial page director of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, wrote about Ohio's "raging brain drain."

But even as the state's economy decays, its big evangelical churches are thriving, and, with the tacit support of the national Republican Party, they have mobilized behind Issue 1. Preachers are exhorting flocks of thousands to vote their values in an election said to pit light against darkness. Ohio's gay citizens, a minority courted by no one, have been blindsided by the campaign against them.

Yup, that's the Ohio I know: limited prospects, low expectations, a powerful, widespread, and openly hateful evangelical culture, and a corresponding exodus of young and/or smart people, which, while entirely understandable (who could stay, really?) kept the state vulnerable to said evangelical culture, and led it to vote against its own economic interests (in favor of Bush, twice - although the last was partly due to widespread disenfranchisement of voters of color, who trended Democratic, and have I mentioned yet that Ohio is pretty racist?) and in favor of what was at the time of its introduction the strictest anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment in the nation.

If passed, Issue 1 will force Ohio's cities and universities to stop offering domestic partner benefits, including health insurance. Right now, such benefits are offered by the city of Columbus, Ohio's Miami University, Ohio University and Ohio State University, the largest university in America. Cleveland Heights has a domestic partnership registry, and some Ohio public schools give gay employees family leave to care for ailing partners. Issue 1 would probably mean they could no longer do so.

It passed. These things happened.

The amendment's impact won't stop there. "Because the state can't create any legal status for unmarried couples, it's very possible that domestic-violence protection orders could no longer be used if there's a domestic violence situation with an unmarried couple," says Alan Melamed, an attorney and chairman of the anti-Issue 1 group Ohioans Protecting the Constitution. Private companies can continue to offer domestic partner benefits, he adds, but "if the employee feels that those benefits were being improperly denied, an employee won't be able to go to court and enforce those benefits."

It passed. These things happened. Twice, actually, abused straight women were denied justice in domestic violence cases - not because they hadn't been abused (they definitely had been) but because they weren't married to the partners who had abused them. The cases were eventually overturned (which I do not imagine would have happened had the couples in question not been straight), but imagine being those women - imagine being told that you'd have to marry your abuser in order to successfully press charges against him.

Without compromising the centrality of rights for GLBTIQ people, or reducing GLBTIQ rights to a subset of feminism, it is important to note that this actually demonstrates a key aspect of the anti-gay-marriage agenda - not simply the blatant denial of rights to queers (as if that weren't enough) but the delegitimization of any partnership that is not heterosexual marriage. Just as anti-abortion activists don't want to stop with outlawing late-term abortions or abortions in general, but set an agenda that restricts access to emergency contraception and birth control - thereby seeking to make sure that women can only have sex in relationships where giving birth to and raising a child would be a viable possibility - anti-gay-marriage activists seek not only to restrict the rights of queers, but to enforce traditional gender roles, making sure that women know their only real value to society lies in their capacity to marry straight men and bear their children. The term "traditional marriage" - which calls to mind, for many people, a pre-feminist past - is not lightly chosen.

Of course, most Ohio voters weren't briefed on the actual legal and civil consequences of Issue 1. Instead, they were subjected to an organized campaign of disinformation from the evangelical culture, and were told that God would hate them and Satan would triumph if they voted against it, in a campaign that was explicitly political, explicitly in violation of the separation of church and state, and entirely aware of that fact.

USA Today reports that Rod Parsley, pastor of Ohio's 12,000-member World Harvest Church, has "assembled a list of 100,000 Ohio acolytes, all of whom will be called by the World Harvest Church on the eve of the election, reminding them to vote." The newspaper pointed out that Parsley held a September meeting of 200 Ohio ministers to explain that they could advocate for the supposedly nonpartisan Issue 1 without losing their nonprofit tax status.

The World Harvest Church is located in my home town of Columbus, by the way. Go. Fucking. Buckeyes.

So, if you went to church in my hometown of Columbus, in my home state of Ohio, this is what you heard from the evangelical culture which has been seeking (and attaining, in many cases) complete ideological control of that state's voters:

Nearly an hour and a half passes before Parsley starts preaching in earnest to a crowd that is by then happily worn out and receptive. Christianity is under siege, he tells his audience. Interlopers from out of state have come to Ohio, "going door to door, knocking on doors so we can continue to murder babies and further strip the church of its First Amendment rights through hate crimes legislation." Gay marriage, he says, heralds "the annihilation of a civilization."

"Everybody shout yes on Issue 1!" he yells. "Yes on Issue 1!"

Let's chew on that sentence for a while, shall we? Strip the church of its First Amendment rights through hate crimes legislation. Strip the church of its First Amendment rights through hate crimes legislation. Strip the church of its First Amendment rights. Through hate crimes legislation.

In the town where I grew up, in the state where I grew up, the people who actively seek to control the ideological and moral discourse ("reject the Christian ethic and you have no basis for making moral judgments," says another man quoted in the article, just before endorsing capital punishment for homosexuality) tell their parishioners that it is within their "rights" to commit hate crimes.

I tell you all of this - I tell you about Ohio - because, in the past week, I've heard people talk about Prop 8 as if it were the only anti-gay piece of legislation that had been passed in this country. It wasn't; in this election alone, gay marriage bans were passed in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas passed a law which prohibits "unmarried couples" from adopting. In each case, they were backed by substantial organization and campaigning by that evangelical culture. The evangelical culture speaks the language of "states' rights" when it suits them, but it is a movement which pursues its goals on a national level; plenty of out-of-state evangelical resources were poured into the Prop 8 campaign. If we speak entirely in terms of California without addressing the anti-gay legislation passed elsewhere, or if we leave California to the Californians, then we play directly into their hands. These people stick together. These people work on a national level. So should we.

Of course, it's harder to stick together when we can't stop attacking each other. I've heard, over and over, that Prop 8 passed due to the homophobia of black voters. Yes, black voters did vote for Prop 8 by the widest margin, but Disgrasian points out that their votes alone were not enough to guarantee Prop 8's passing, and it is utterly ridiculous to suggest that they were solely responsible for it.

[You could] say, since the margin between for and against came down to 500,000 votes out of 10 million, If only we had gotten 100% of the African-American vote against 8, we would have had this in the bag. How dare They. But what if we had gotten 100% of the Asian and "Other" vote against Prop 8, which would have been an increase of 450,000 votes, and, like, 1% percent more of the white vote? What if we had gotten 75% of the Latino vote, instead of 47%? Or what if we had gotten 59% of the white vote against Prop 8 instead of 51%, the most achievable statistical increase? What if we didn't put the outcome of gay marriage all on one group, and if we had gotten 6.5% more of the white vote (+409,500), 3% more of the Latino vote (+54,000), 2% more of the black vote (+20,000), and 2% more of the Asian and Other vote (+18,000)? Or any combination therein?

That kind of analysis has been sorely lacking in progressive discussion, however. Instead, what I've heard (from white, pro-queer voters) has mostly been along the lines of, how could They - and after we voted Obama in for Them and everything! First of all, a minority of white voters went for Obama. Most voted for the white guy. Second, it is disgusting to pull the patronizing white liberal shit - after all we've done for You People! - and to suggest that your vote for a man of color was some sort of favor done for the black community, as if you in no way stood to benefit from it. Third, shaming and raging against a racially marginalized group is not only racist but stupid, because the passing of Prop 8 can be directly traced to an organized group with a clear agenda who poured money and organizing time into it in massive amounts. I would bet my entire next paycheck that evangelical voters went for Prop 8 by a higher margin than black voters, Latino voters, Asian voters, white voters, female voters, male voters, or any other demographic assembled on the basis of race or gender.

Again: these people are sticking together. No matter how racist certain white evangelicals are (and a lot of them really, really are) they have no problem with reaching out to communities of color if it will help them to achieve something they want. It says something if pro-queer white liberals are more willing to spout divisive rhetoric against the black community than racist white evangelicals who think that birth control pills and gay weddings will bring about the End of Days. Dividing ourselves and engaging in racial blaming now, after we've finally gained a mandate to govern from the left, is so self-destructive that it is unthinkable.

Yes, Prop 8 - and Issue 1, and all of the anti-gay legislation passed throughout this country - is wrong, and we need to overturn it. It is going to be very hard to do that, and it is going to take a very long time. Also, for the first time in eight years, we have the institutional power necessary to make some actual progress, if we can make sure that our elected officials are held accountable to their progressive base. So: everybody. Stop yelling. Get to work.

POSTMANIA '08 Continues With: Who Is More Unbearable?

Williamsburg hipsters? Or aging Williamsburg hipsters? I just don't know any more:



Hahaha, "START A POLITICAL THEATER GROUP! MARX, BRECHT APPALLED, LAUGH FROM THE HEAVENS." Come to our house, young hipsters! We will explain why all your newfangled music and activism is so much less hip than our music and activism, which took place in the '90s, and therefore mattered! Also, we've prepared a terrific seitan burrito that you can eat before you come to our yoga class! You don't have to "BLOW SHIT COCAINE + BS UP YOUR ASS" any more. Why, in our day, we snorted it!

Oh, and I love the fact that the "THE WORKING LEFT" takes time to note that it is "IVY LEAGUE TRAINED." Wouldn't want any second-rate liberal arts schooling in your pro-working-class radical circles, now would you?

If this isn't a joke, it may well be the funniest thing I have ever seen.

Busted, Part 2: The Real Goal of Political Change

Is shopping! At least, that's what Bust tells me today, in their think piece on the Great Obama Dress Scandal of '08:

The modified version of the Narcisco Rodriguez’s dress was showing off her confidence in not being pigeonholed into wearing those lame-ass, boring suit-dresses. We still have ways to go, but I think it’s awesome that powerful women are getting closer to be being on the same playing field as men, but why do they have to dress like them too? We all know that Michelle is incredibly intelligent, successful and naturally gorgeous. She was also the breadwinner of her family! So, peeps needs to chill out on that one outfit and think more about what a bonus she is going to be to the White House. Does every first lady have to be compared to Jackie O’s immaculate style? Don’t forget that Jackie’s era was one of the best decades in fashion.

Oh, Bust: this is so totally not the same type of coverage that I could get from any commercial women's rag on the market. No: pretty dresses are subversive! And so is speaking about a female political figure in a way that is almost entirely focused on her wardrobe, apparently! Wave your feminist flag high, sisters - and put a Louis Vuitton logo on there too, while you're at it.

Seriously, though, why do we have to dress like men, whose clothing is usually well-made, comfortable, durable, and apt to stay in fashion for more than a few months at a time? Why can't we just wear custom-made designer dresses all the time to signify our total fabulousness? Remember when Simone de Beauvoir analyzed women's subjugation in terms of its economic cost, pointing out that a relatively enormous portion of the average female secretary's salary went to clothes, makeup, accessories, and various cosmetic treatments such as hair styling, manicures, and pedicures, without which she would not be considered "fit" to be seen in an office, thereby diminishing her already tiny income and demonstrating that gender roles and capitalism were both involved in keeping women in a socially vulnerable and marginalized position? That was so totally lame. Simone de Beauvoir wasn't even hot, so how could you take her seriously? To the ladies of Bust - I, with my dirty jeans, button-up shirt, and messy hair, salute you, for showing us how real gender equality can be achieved.

You know, for an actual analysis of why Dressgate was regressive, fucktarded, and lame, you could go to Womanist Musings. Of course, Womanist Musings has neither the market share nor the revenue of Bust, but you shouldn't take that to mean that feminism and capitalism are at odds or anything. They are totally not, as Bust demonstrates every day. Now go buy yourself something pretty, cupcake.

For the Last Time, Ladies: He Just Wants to Study Your Proteins!

Ah, mandatory sexual harassment prevention training: is there anything more disastrous for one's career? Probably not, says tenured professor of molecular biology Alexander MacPherson! In fact, it would be so disastrous for his career that he would rather lose his job than attend it:

A molecular biologist at the University of California at Irvine faces the possibility of being put on unpaid leave because he won’t attend training sessions on preventing sexual harassment, the Orange County Register reported.

Such training, Alexander McPherson told the newspaper, is a “sham,” and he has consistently refused to take it because, among other things, it “violated my rights as a tenured professor” and “cast a shadow of suspicion on my reputation and career.”

Oh, tenured professor of molecular biology Alexander MacPherson. You are no doubt a smart man - you've got the big fancy degree, all about the molecules and the biology and such. They gave you tenure. Yet you seem to be not entirely clear on what "[casting] a shadow of suspicion" actually entails. Because, you see, attending mandatory sexual harassment prevention training is not all that suspicious. Giving up your job because you don't want to attend it? That, right there, might raise some questions.

In fact, Alex, I would like to take this opportunity to offer you some non-mandatory Casting of Suspicion Upon Oneself Prevention Training. It is available online, just like the sexual harassment thing! Here we go:

• Voluntarily going through the metal detector at an airport does not cast a shadow of suspicion upon oneself. Running away from it in a panic shouting, "my various illegal drugs - oh god, please, don't let them take my various illegal drugs," on the other hand, may do so.
  
• Calmly paying for goods at the counter one's local bodega or deli does not cast a shadow of suspicion upon oneself. It is inadvisable however, to approach the counter and shriek, "for the last time, I have not been shoplifting!" This may result in some suspicion.
  
• If one is driving, and is signaled by a police car to pull over, one may do so without casting a shadow of suspicion upon oneself. Once one has done so, however, it is generally wise not to greet the officer with, "I bet you think I have a dead body in my trunk, don't you? WELL, I DON'T." Nor is it advisable to disobey the police officer's signal and to engage the police in a high-speed chase of the sort which would be broadcast on all local news channels. In each case, suspicion will result.
  
• When going to the bank to make a withdrawal, be sure to wear appropriate clothing - business casual is always a good fit. In no circumstances should you approach said bank wearing a black and white horizontally striped shirt and an eye mask, nor should you accessorize with a large burlap sack printed with the "$" symbol. This is regarded as highly suspicious.
  

Finally, tenured professor of molecular biology Alexander MacPherson, if you are required to take sexual harassment prevention training, and would like to get through this situation without casting a shadow of suspicion upon your reputation and career, it is generally a good idea not to paint yourself into a corner, thusly:

According to the paper, Mr. McPherson, who studies proteins, offered a compromise: He asked the university to sign a disclaimer that says that he must take the training to remain employed and that he has never sexually harassed anyone that he has supervised.

The university wouldn’t sign such a document.

[Via.]

Let's Hold Hands on the Internet - No, Not You, Aaron P. Taylor

So, one reason for my continuing frustration with Blogger (okay, Wordpress is better - there, I said it!) is that Google Analytics does not reliably keep track of the sites that link to one's blog. I would like to be able to thank (and link back to) the people who link to me. That is because linking is a nice thing to do, and it is also how blogs say hello to each other and make friends. Linking is like holding hands on the Internet.

(Oh, and speaking of linking: children are apparently performing brief, highly symbolic one-act plays about Obama. Children, when will you cease to amaze us all? Probably when you become adults. Angry, disappointed, cynical adults.)

Anyway! After an embarrassingly long amount of time, I have been able to sort through the "referrals" and have found out who the kindly linkers in question are.

• Row My Boat agrees that revisiting the leftist sexism of yore is lame, and deplores the resurrection of stirrup pants. For this reason, Row My Boat is awesome.
  
• Gender Goggles agrees that the main purpose of feminism is to provide detailed and lengthy movie reviews. (And to, you know, change stuff.) For this reason, Gender Goggles is awesome.
  
• There might have been a Stumbleupon.com link to me a while ago? I can't find it. For this reason, Stumbleupon.com is not awesome. Screw you, Stumbleupon.
  
• Amanda Hess of The Sexist agrees that Amanda Hess of The Sexist and I are possibly soulmates. For this reason, Amanda Hess of The Sexist is the most awesome of all.
  

And, finally, a link to frequent traffic-driver and rape-justifier Aaron P. Taylor and his... seduction manual.

Yes, Aaron P. Taylor apparently wrote a seduction manual. This is why I do it, people: because the "Aaron P. Taylor doing embarrassing shit on the Internet" beat is vastly underreported. The seduction manual is pointed to in the "Links" section of his blog (all of those links, I should point out, go to sites run by Aaron P. Taylor), it is available to download for the low, low price of $39.99, and it is entitled From "P.I.M.P." to "W.I.M.P." The NON-JUAN's Guide... TO LOSING THE GIRL OF YOUR DREAMS!!!!

This, as you can imagine, is something that Aaron P. Taylor knows a little bit about! Here are some of the topics he covers:

>> You find girls constantly telling you, "You're a Nice Guy," yet they won't date you!

Because you wrote a blog post about raping them!

>> You have lots of girl "friends," but no "girlfriend"!

Because you wrote a blog post about raping them!

>> You've left a message on a girl's answering machine, and she never calls you back!

Because she read your blog post about raping!

>> You had a girl tell you she wants a guy who's honest with her... but as soon as you tell her how you honestly feel about her, she no longer wants to be around you!

Because you told her you honestly felt that some women "deserve" a raping!

>> You can't understand why girls make dates with you, but cancel at the last minute!

Again: maybe the raping blog didn't help?

>> You've never kissed, touched, or been intimate with a girl... EVER!

Ha ha ha, I WOULD IMAGINE SO, A.P.T.

Anyway, after plunking down your $39.99, you will learn Aaron P. Taylor's top secret dating techniques, including this:

The TOP 5 EXCUSES girls give for not dating you - and how to act like they were never spoken

Ah, consent: so inessential to the dating process! Buyers, act now to take advantage of these hot dating tips. They're woman-tested and... well, not woman-approved, really, but who cares? Just follow them anyway!

This is an invaluable document. In fact, I'm thinking of sending a copy to Ian Sloane.

Oh. Oh, wait, no. That would be a terrible idea.

Demographics, WOO

I know! I am crazy with the numbers lately! This is because I have no idea how statistics are compiled, and therefore see in numbers a certain reassuring purity that rhetoric cannot provide. I mean, I'm sure they are just as skewed as everything else, but I would prefer it if you did not tell me about that. (Also, given the fact that I mistook Indiana for Illinois at one point on election night - I know, and I really do know where they are, I just saw a longish pointy contextless state from afar and I went for it - I am kind of thinking that "shapes" might not be my thing.) So, anyway, this article is very useful when you are thinking about the intersectionality of oppressions, and ladies in general, and the power of your vote.

Because it turns out that women's votes are totally important in choosing who the president will be! This is true all the time, but this year everybody seems to be like "wow, women, I guess they vote - maybe we should actively strive to represent their interests?" Speaking as someone who actually wrote a letter to Obama's campaign - yeah, I know, I'm so sure he read it - telling him that the Democratic party was historically the party which most honored the values of feminism, and that I felt more open and earnest statements about his commitment to women's issues could only help him to win, let me just say this: great, thanks for showing up, dudes. You're late.

So, men were split 49 to 49 percent between Obama and McCain, whereas women favored Obama over McCain by 53 to 47 percent, meaning that we were crucial to establishing his lead and facilitating his victory. (To the one or two of my lady friends who did not vote: I have another number for you. EIGHTY-EIGHT. It is the number of years that women have had a constitutional right to vote in this country. Also, SEVENTY. That is the number of years that women organized and protested - and were arrested, beaten, tortured and jailed - in order to secure that right. We've been full citizens of this country for less than a century. You cannot tell me you are tired of it already.) In a spectacularly duh-making statement, MSNBC points out that "women make up not only more of the general population, but also more of adult voters."

Here's the bummer: only forty-six percent of white women voted for Obama. My fellow white ladies, that is gross. What was it that did the rest of you in? Was it the fact that you might get to pay for your own rape kits? The promise that, if your pregnancy threatened your life, you would get to die rather than be forced to have a safe and legal abortion? Was it the thrilling prospect of having a misogynist wife-abuser - who does not think you deserve equal pay or insurance coverage for birth control - as your President? Or was it, you know, THE RACISM? Anyway, various reports seem to show that in communities of color, Obama was the leading candidate, and that women of color voted for Obama in even higher percentages than men of color did. So, thanks; the rest of us apparently need to get our shit together for 2012.

All of this is merely prologue, though, for now I must introduce to you the single most annoying voter demographic of all time: the Unmarried Woman.

Analysts expected Tuesday’s crowds to include record numbers of single women voters, who could help fuel a “marriage gap” that could be more significant than a gender gap, or the difference between how men and women support the same candidate. The Women’s Voices. Women Vote Action Fund registered 900,000 new unmarried female voters, according to Page Gardner, the advocacy agency’s president.

“There’s something about being on your own as a woman in this country that is politically significant,” Gardner said. "Unmarried women are at the razor's edge of the economic crisis."

Can we please, for the love of God, stop defining women as either "married" or "single"? I'm not single right now, nor am I married. "Single" and "married" are two ends of a spectrum, and there are about nine million kinds of relationships in between those two points, none of which is any more or less legitimate than any other. This concept works to make lesbian voters invisible, and it also delegitimizes domestic partnerships between men and women - not to mention the fact that I have never in my life heard people talk about the political differences between married and unmarried men. I think marriage is sweet and lovely and nice, and I think everybody should be able to have one, if that's what they want. However, I also think that we give unwarranted legitimacy to marriages as opposed to other partnerships, and that according women different values depending on whether or not they are married is heterosexist, sexist, and just plain obnoxious.

--- AMAZING TRUE STORY TIME ---

I once worked at a very small tea shop with two other waitresses. We worked our shifts alone. At that time, I had been living with a partner for about four years. On Mother's Day, the woman who was supposed to to work the five-hour morning shift called in "sick." She was married, with kids. I volunteered to cover her shift, even though it was my day off. An hour before that shift ended, I received a call from the tea shop's owner. The woman who was supposed to work the five-hour evening shift could not come in; her husband, whom she had known for a grand total of two years, had purchased theater tickets. I would need to work the evening shift, too.

"Is there any way you can require her to come in?" I asked. "I don't mind covering for [Married Lady #1] if she's sick, but this was my day off, and [my partner] and I had plans. I don't see why [Married Lady #2's] plans should be more important than mine, especially if she's announcing them at the last minute."

"You don't understand," my boss said. "They have to spend time with their husbands."

And that is the story of how I ended up working a ten-hour shift on my day off because I was not married.

--- THE END ---

So, yes: I think the "married/alone, SO ALONE" distinction, and the baggage that comes with it, has got to go away. However, I would also like to point something out:

At least 70 percent of unmarried women with and without children supported Obama, a margin of more than 2-to-1.

That's right, all you Democratic married ladies and men whose marital status is apparently irrelevant to your politics. PRAISE ME. For my people have brought you victory!

The Last Time I Will Ever Have This Argument

If there is one thing we, as a people, have learned from the election, it is this: women be shopping. Oh, and that conventionally attractive women are stupid sluts.



Oh, and also that competent, intelligent women who do not apologize for speaking in an authoritative manner are ugly bitches who should shut the fuck up already and get to cleaning.



So, yeah, it was totally Sarah Palin's fault that McCain lost. Remember how she was solely responsible for choosing all of the mendacious and negative ads that caused McCain to lose the respect of a huge portion of the voting public? And how she had those three debates with Obama, and performed incredibly poorly at all of them? And how she "suspended" her campaign in a gimmick that all but the most gullible people recognized as a shallow attention-grabbing move unbefitting a serious and credible candidate? Oh, yeah, and there was that time that she said "the fundamentals of the economy were strong" right before the economy blew the fuck up in all of our faces. That really hurt the campaign.

To be fair, though, it's also completely Hillary's fault that Obama lost. Her refusal to leave the race after she won on Super Tuesday and had been projected to win it all for quite some time was so totally divisive. The fact that she endorsed him when he won and gave a speech on his behalf at the DNC was just super nasty and bitchy and totally showed her bitterness and unwillingness to recognize the legitimacy of his campaign. Let's be honest here: Hillary Clinton campaigning for something she had been projected to win as if she actually wanted to win it, and only dropping out after it became clear that she could not win it, was completely the reason that the Democratic party was divided against itself and Obama did not win by a huge margin.

So, clearly, we don't have a President now, which totally sucks. You know who ruined it for the two men in question? Fucking women. When men are elected, it is completely due to their own merits, and the reason that no woman has ever been elected to the Presidency or the Vice-Presidency of the United States is that no woman has ever been good enough. But, even though women aren't smart or powerful enough to serve in those offices, they do have the magical power of completely derailing campaigns run by otherwise blameless men. We've come a long damn way.

Upon Learning that Michael Crichton Died...

... reasonable people everywhere were faced with one important question: will it be possible to clone him and turn him into a theme park exhibit?


What? Too soon?