Rob Delaney On the Necessity of Educating Women

Below is a brief article written by comedian Rob Delaney that made me giggle and strengthened what is left of my faith in humanity, so I thought I'd share it.

"Education is the most important thing for women to pursue aggressively as they continue their fight to be recognized for what they are: dynamic, vital, biologically heroic people. Men and women are the two wings of humanity's bird, or perhaps pterodactyl. (I offer the pterodactyl as a metaphor because humankind is often terrifying, as demonstrated by this discussion's necessity.) If the wings aren't equally strong, the pterodactyl flies in circles, gets angry, slams into a tree and explodes. (Look it up.) Education is what's most important, because it isn't an opinion that women should have equal rights to men in every possible way; it's a fact. Its acknowledgement is an indispensable ingredient in the recipe for the survival of our species. And facts are much easier to identify when you have an education, which is something that remains out of reach to this day for many millions of women around the world.
Women outnumber men on our planet. And women create life inside their bodies. Yet misogyny and sexism, whose twin engines are fear and ignorance, continue to exist. We must deprive them of their fuel and that begins by educating women and men. The good news is that women and men start out as girls and boys, who are more fun to be around. So take heart in how the most powerful political act you might ever commit is to read to a child. And kids love pterodactyls, so try to find a book about them."

Stay funky,
Squid

Covered in santorum? How about GOVERNED by Santorum?

I am continually disgusted to have grown up in the same state as Rick Santorum. If G-d-forbid he is elected to serve our country, he plans not only to make same-sex marriage illegal, but also to nullify all current same-sex marriages. I am both fortunate and sane enough to be completely unable to comprehend the hatred (and ignorance) this man (and many others) holds inside of him.

In this current political climate, I say with utter certainty that: as a woman, as an LGBTQ ally, and as a human being, I want to move to Canada.

Why is the GOP hating on women?

On February 10th, President Obama announced his compromise in the contraception coverage debate. Obama’s compromise means that, as a preventative health care measure, contraception services will be provided to all women under the new insurance plan. However, for women who work at institutions that for religious reasons object to providing contraception, their health care providers (not their workplace) will be required to cover the cost so that these institutions need not pay for something that they do not support (Contraception Mandate Statement). On the February 16th panel, not a single woman was represented. Why? When asked to include a woman’s testimony in the panel’s decision-making process, Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa refused, responding that,

“As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience…Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness (Gittleson 2012).”

Anti-choicers’ central argument has focused on religious freedom: It is Americans’ first amendment right to be able to practice religion freely, and being forced to participate in providing birth control when a person’s religion says it is wrong is unconstitutional. The Catholic Bishops argue that because pregnancy is not a disease, the new healthcare plan should not provide preventative measures against it.

I am shocked that religious groups, which supposedly have some moral fiber, and our lawmakers, who supposedly represent the needs and wants of their voters, are arguing about religious freedom when women’s health, lives, and basic human rights are at risk. Many women are on birth control for hormonal regulation, to alleviate painful cramps around their periods, to help them gain weight, and for a variety of other health reasons. And yes, there are some of us who take it because we want to have sex. Why do religious groups and political leaders insist on focusing on issues like controlling women’s bodies and sexuality under the guise of religious freedom when larger problems prevail? Human rights abuses happen all over the world (denying citizens basic medical care…human rights abuse, anyone?), yet giving women access to free birth control is so wrong that it cannot be provided free of charge even when religiously-affiliated institutions themselves are not paying for it? Since I went on the pill my first year of college, I have had to pay for it myself because my father works at a Catholic high school that does not cover birth control. It not only angers me, but hurts me as a woman that these institutions feel it their right to control my body. As a free human being, this should be my right and mine alone. Although they have never met me and do not know why I use the pill, they believe that it is appropriate to deny me access to free birth control. Maybe instead of working to control women’s sexuality, we should reflect more on where this need to control comes from: Is this truly an issue of religious freedom or a manifestation of our culture’s deep-seated misogyny that tells us that women’s sexuality and bodies should not be their own to control?

Bibliography

Gittleson, Wendy. "GOP Kicks Women out of Contraception Debate--Says It's About Religion Not Women." Addicting Info. Addicting Info, 16 Feb. 2012. Web. Feb. 2012.

President Obama Contraception Mandate Statement. Barack Obama. Youtube. PBS News Hour, 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.

Jam Sesh

I will be traveling across the treacherous Atlantic seas come September, to our Statue of Liberty’s homeland (and will blog about it, worry you not). In honor and preparation of my bon voyage, I have been reading about French women and food, feasting my eyes on the country’s finest drawings, and listening to Carla Bruni. Though I have not yet familiarized myself with her full discography, I’ve recently downloaded the album Quelqu’un M’a Dit, which does not disappoint. If the beautiful language was not enough to make me swoon, Bruni sings her sweet and sad melodies with a voice that is intimate and soothing and evokes a slow curiosity. With her songs, I can celebrate the sun, cry quietly, look through old photos, or dance my pants off with small and happy steps. Perhaps the transformative quality I sense in her music is partly due to the fact that I understand nothing of what she’s saying. I should probably begin to use Google Translate. But, I think I’ll wait a bit longer to let the mystery linger…

Enjoy a nice tune off the aforementioned album!

To make up for Jam Sessions lost in the midst of springtime, I would like to present a second artist. Lulu and the Lampshades initially caught my attention with this video, which remains to be one of my favorite Youtube gems. They have released just a few songs (so catch 'em before they're hot), and I assure you they will make you want to sing and frolic in an open field of fresh strawberries. And aren’t lovely harmonies all we really need in the summer?

Peace, Love, and Jams,

Professeur

I REALLY hate this guy...

If you're not familiar with the story of Roman Polanski, he's a highly successful Polish-French director who's won Oscars and all kinds of other awards. He was also accused of raping a 13-year-old girl more than thirty years ago, and after pleading guilty to the charges of unlawful sex with a minor, he fled the country to avoid harsh sentencing. In 2009, the U.S. asked Switzerland for his extradition when Polanski arrived in an airport there, but the Swiss government refused, making Polanski a free man who's managed to avoid punishment for his crime. If you want more information, The New York Times has a concise version of the whole thing here.

I tried to upload a YouTube video where this REALLY COOL guy talks about the whole thing, but it wouldn't work so here's the URL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqSkZKKPfk8&feature=related

Just another sad example of the patriarchy hurting our ladies...

Ya Killin' Me, HuffPost.

The Huffington Post is on a role this week posting (in my opinion) not so great articles targeting women within their recently added headline subsection 'Women'.  Topics include: fashion, cooking/homemaking, diets, love, lust, marriage, etc. Because women aren't interested in anything else, right?  Oh, wait, there's an article about the gender wage gap, but they blame the issue on the inability of women to negotiate for what they want, and their answer is for women to be more like their male coworkers (but not too much or you'll seem pushy).  Classic double bind. But, my favorite is this one.  Watch out, ladies. If you have sex too early, you might never be able to hold onto a man, AND WHAT COULD BE WORSE THAN THAT?!

Happy reading,
Squid

They're all covered in mud!

The Real L Word?

Did anyone happen to catch Showtime's new season of The Real L Word on Sunday? The show’s first season followed the lives of high-profile LA lesbians: their relationships, their social interactions, their careers. While it was a bit racy at times, it didn’t compare with this season’s blatant and seemingly unnecessary sex scenes, full-on nude shots, and a general focus on sex that wasn’t present last season. After finishing an episode, you’re left with that icky feeling when you’ve seen something that should have been private.

I’m confused by the show, because I always thought it catered to women. Turns out this season seems to be more catered to men. Many of the women I know who watch porn like the story and the build-up; they don’t immediately want to see two women having sex, but would rather see what comes before the sex and then see the sex. The Real L Word’s sex scenes often occur suddenly and without warning. In one scene, two of the characters are in a car driving to one woman’s house, and all of a sudden they’re having sex, with nothing blurred out, and the audience sees everything. I mean everything. It’s uncomfortable to watch and not in the least sexually appealing, at least to me or the two other women with whom I watched the show. The sex scenes don’t show any kind of emotional interaction or affection, but rather hook-ups whose graphic nature disturbs the flow of the show.

In The Hollywood Reporter’s interview with the show’s co-creators, Ilene Chaiken and Jane Lipsitz, both claim that sex is used to demonstrate to the audience the depth of some of the relationships on the show so that the audience has a truer picture of these relationships. In response to a question about where the line is between using a sex scene to tell a story versus using it for shock value, Lipsitz comments:

“Without getting incredibly graphic, I feel like it’s the context of the sex scenes. In the first episode, Sara represented the forbidden fruit for Whitney and to make that point resonate we showed a sex scene.”[1]

I understand where she’s coming from with this comment; sex is an important part of life and the relationship she’s referring to in the show was based largely on the sex. However, what about the scene where one character is masturbating after the women she liked had sex with someone else? The scene had no relevance to the rest of the show; an interview beforehand expressing the character’s feelings would have sufficed. How about another scene where one character is about to get in the shower and the camera follows her walk to the bathroom so the audience sees her entirely naked? What’s the point of that shot? To show that lesbians have breasts and vaginas too? I was watching the show with my mom and sister and all three of us were confused and disgusted by these scenes. It feels voyeuristic and wrong to see something so personal on a show that follows the lives of real women, with real jobs, desires, and relationships. I realize that they signed up for the show, and I’m not opposed to porn, but porn for the sake of porn is one thing; real women being portrayed largely in terms of only their sexual relationships and desires feels wrong to me. This portrayal ignores many of the other things that make them individuals and their relationships interesting and unique.

What offends me so much about this season is that it overly-sexualizes lesbians in a society where women, and often lesbians, are already extremely sexualized. Every man’s fantasy is to see two girls doing it, and with The Real L Word, these dreams become a reality! While the show claims to illustrate the reality of being a lesbian in a big city, is this truly reality or simply the same stereotype about gay women that we still can’t seem to shake?

---

[1] (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/real-l-word-we-dont-196896)

Some Light Thinking for 2 a.m.

Why is it that women feel the need to be so many people’s caretakers? I’d like to think that it’s a just an unrealistic oppressive stereotype to justify our patriarchal society. However, it seems to be quite truthful. I’m often witness to it, and guilty of it. But I can’t help to sense a double standard in this. It seems so normal for women to want to please everyone around them; the famous, “I can’t say no.” But as sought-after this quality is to men (and to Hollywood), it also seems to be the root of nagging, which women are strongly criticized for. If women aren’t nurturing, their femininity is undermined, but being too nurturing considers them to be suffocating.

Please comment with some insight. I feel that I’m missing something big here, and I’d like to analyze this further. And you, beautiful readers, are just the people to help!

In the meantime, I’ll be enjoying the cool spring temperatures that have been gracing my side of Pennsylvania and thinking about how much more often I should be posting on here.

Lots of love and lots of jam,

Prof

An Antarctic Argument From Analogy

Rockin' Feminism: Ellen Willis

Lately, I've had numerous discussions about the daunting task of analyzing pop culture, more specifically pop music, from a feminist standpoint.  While I understand how inherently influential pop culture is in our society, attempting to analyze every bit of what we see on television or hear on the radio or read in a magazine seems to be such an exhausting and overwhelming undertaking.  And with songs out like Katy Perry's "E.T." (with lyrics such as 'Wanna be a victim/ Ready for abduction'), I often feel discouraged by the messages pop culture seems to be sending and wonder if its even worth our time.  But, perhaps my mentality is flawed.  Maybe such analyzes are necessary, and I'm just being unjustifiably pessimistic.  Many influential feminist writers, in particular, Ellen Willis, have devoted their lives to dissecting pop culture under a feminist microscope.  

I wish to center this post around Willis, as she seems to slap my idea, of the unworthiness of pop music of critical analysis in terms of its societal relevance, in the face. 

Ellen Willis is known as the first true pop music critic.  Her column in The New Yorker was the first of its kind as she dove deeply into the works Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin, The Rolling Stones, Cat Stevens, etc.  Her writings are the offspring resulting from the marriage of her greatest passions: her infatuation of popular music and her social and political activism, grounded largely in her engagement with feminism.  Willis respected pop culture as a tool for political and social movements; her criticisms were deeply rooted in genuine appreciation for the artists and their work.  Her critiques illuminated the cultural relevance of rock music and were accessible to both general music enthusiasts as well as sophisticated artistic scholars.  Willis catapulted music into the prestigious halls of artistic criticism.

She is quoted as saying, "Popular culture carries the burden of our emotions about race, feminism, sexual morality, youth culture, wealth, competition, exclusion, a physical and social environment that feels out of control."

One of Willis' ideas that I find most interesting is that an artist's persona is their fundamental creation.  Much of her writing focused on who the artist was and how the 'self' is reflected in one's music.   This concept is especially apparent in her critiques of Bob Dylan as she writes, "Dylan is... shaped by personal and political nonconformity, by blues and modern poetry. He has imposed his commitment to individual freedom (and its obverse, isolation) on the hip passivity of pop culture... His songs and public role are guides to survival in the world of the image, the cool, and the high. And in coming to terms with that world, he has forced it to come to terms with him." She captures the introspective nature of Dylan's music; an element often over looked by fans and even other critics.  Of Janis Joplin, Willis says, "Look, this (rock) is a boy’s genre, and here’s this woman who comes in and flaunts her subjectivity and makes her own personality. She’s not simply playing with the band, Connie Francis style… This is a feminist act."  Willis explains Joplin's empowering construction of her 'self'.  On the other hand, while Willis was able to love Patti Smith as a rock-and-roll heroine, she criticized her identity. She claimed Smith’s “androgynous, one-of-the guys image” was problematic. “Its rebelliousness is seductive, but it plays into a kind of misogyny that consents to distinguish a woman who acts like one of the guys (and is also sexy and conspicuously ‘liberated’) from the general run of stupid girls.”  It is analyzes like these that encouraged critical thinking about what our music was saying about the artists who created it and what it meant for us as individuals and as a society.

Okay, enough Ellen Willis praise.  Lucky for all of you, NPR has a way of consistently publishing stories that are strangely relevant to my life, so for a more comprehensive look of Willis' work, see the full article here.  She also wrote extensively on pro-sex feminism and reproductive rights and a whole bunch of other awesome stuff that I don't have to time get into.  Google her.

Anyway, I'm curious if such a concept (the significance of the artist's self) is still alive today?  I mean that was the 60s, what about current pop culture?  Is it worth taking seriously?  Does music have the same cultural relevance as it did then?  If so, what do 'artists' like Rihanna or Lady GaGa say about our society?  What kind of 'self' is reflected in their music?  Can 'S&M' be seen as empowering or strictly objectifying?  Is it all about perception? 

Clearly, I have many questions, and I want to hear your thoughts.

Do we need a Ellen Willis-esque critic today? Someone to delve deeply into pop culture and find deeper meaning (if there is one) in our music.  If so, who's up for the challenge?

Stay funky,

Squid

My New Favorite Website

As anyone who knows me at all is well aware of, my ultimate goal in life is to become a badass. I've tried various methods: leather jackets, blues piano, driving a standard, but the site that good old Ruth Steele posted on my facebook the other day provides a list of saints in the afterlife of badassitude that provide guidance for achieving that mysterious and compelling enigma that is being a badass. This post is about Marie Curie, which I thought was appropriate to begin with in light of the feminist content of the J.A.M. Bar. Enjoy!

http://badassoftheweek.com/curie.html

Read This, and You Might Feel Like Changing the World

An awesome woman, an amazing article: "My Uterus is Officially Closed for Business and I Have No Regrets"

Carol´s Return

After an unfortunate episode during which I forgot all my login information, I have returned to the JAM Bar from Quito, Ecuador. I love a lot of things about Quito; how easily I can connect with new people, how my host family immediately started calling me their daughter and told me they loved me, the Spanish language, the music, etc. However, one aspect of the culture that I struggle with daily is the negative male attention. I have experienced cat calls, whistling, hissing, random men trying to talk to me in the street, cars stopping in an attempt to pick me up, and long and uncomfortable stares on the bus. I keep trying to tell myself that it´s not me they´re really whistling at, it´s a stereotype of what gringas, white girls down here, act like. Apparently we´re easy. Accordingly we get lots of extra attention. I try to tell myself that I shouldn´t bother getting angry with the individuals because they´re as affected and controlled by their society as I am, but somehow nothing works. I realized the other day that the reason I feel so incredibly offended every time I walk in the street is because the way these men attempt to communicate with me is equivalent to the way in which I would interact with a dog. In the streets, I´m not a human being with thoughts, a life, and a personality; I´m an object, an animal.

It hurts me to think that because of how people see gringas down here I am looked at as easy, unable to speak Spanish, wealthy, and stupid. I don´t want to accuse Ecuadorians of having a lot of false stereotypes, because many Americans who come here do not in fact speak Spanish and, after a few too many drinks, have been known to partake in questionable behavior. Americans do generally have more money than Ecuadorians. Although I hate the attention, I´ve found value in the experience because I now understand the power of stereotypes. We talk about them all the time, we all love to claim that we don´t believe them, and, for me at least, as a white middle class person living in a predominately white area, I don´t have to deal with them at home on a regular basis, or at least ones that hurt me in some way. Stereotypes do have immense power and do hurt individual people who have very probably done nothing to deserve them.

So the next time you see a tatooed guy with twenty piercings walking down the street, give him a chance. He could be a really cool dude.

Similes to Make You Smile

"She walked into my office like a centipede with 98 missing legs."

You're welcome.

Love,
Prof & Squid

From the Ironing Board

As the semester gets into full-swing, my ironing board stands collecting dust, laundry, philosophy texts, and whatever other crap I throw on it. But it's Friday, so I'm clearing it off and sharing my drink special with you.

Appletini
2 oz. Vodka
1/2 oz. Apple Pucker Schnapps

     or  1/2 oz. Apple Juice or Cider

Combine liquid ingredients in a cocktail shaker with ice. Shake well and strain into a cocktail glass. Garnish with apple slices if desired.

Drink and be well.
-Squid

BUSTin' Ass

In the latest issue of Bust Magazine (an appropriate and awesome name for the feminist in all of us), Brendan Tapley wrote an important article entitled, "Man Up." I was immediately drawn to it for its unconventionality: relationship improvement advice for men. Who would have thunk - maybe the guys could use some self-reflection! It is obvious that Tapley is extremely knowledgeable in gender, especially masculine, studies, and that he could say a great deal more than he did in the short two-page article. Regardless, he made some damn good points that I'd love to share.

He begins the article with a discussion objecting to "the guy alibi," an excuse for a man to act insensitively because, "he's just a guy." The Guy Alibi excuses men from responsibility, putting the weight of a relationship almost entirely on the woman. He says, "The 'just a guy' defense invariably shifts the burden of thoughtfulness, introspection, and conscience - the very acts of love - to the woman." But when both the man and woman lose the alibi, despite the initial discomfort of nonconformity, it becomes easier to create a more authentic and intimate relationship.

Tapley goes on to advise about the importance of the bromance. He explains how the modern idea of masculinity affects our mindset: "the more capable we are living without love, the tougher and more male we seem." Bromances allow men to convey the open expression of love that societal norms deprive them of. And when it comes to relationships with women, men have been so programmed to suppress loving gestures that they are not always sure how to connect with their partners. Part of them yearns to show love, while another fears a gay, and thus embarrassing, display. Bromances, therefore, help to alleviate that pent-up desire for intimacy and improve the balance in relationships with women.

Lastly, the author writes that men should be more chivalrous in order to show women that they can be supportive, committed partners. He says, "As women have [. . .] grown to expect their best connections to come from other women, modern masculinity has responded by narrowing itself." And this is shown in television sitcoms and commercials that portray men as clueless, burdensome buffoons, only further damaging our perspective of men. To change this, men can use chivalrous actions (not to assist women, but to acknowledge them) to improve their relationships.

I found Tapley's article to be quite refreshing, and unfortunately only something to be found in such a woman-empowering, alternative magazine such as Bust. But, I'd say better there than nowhere.

On that note, I wish you all a sweet night and happy winter days.

Smiles and Jams,

Prof

From the Ironing Board

Perhaps I've been watching too much Mad Men, but I'm hooked on gimlets lately, so I figured I'd share a recipe.

1.5 oz. Gin (or vodka, but I prefer gin)
1 oz. Lime juice

I add a touch of sugar to kill the bite. Enjoy this classic shaken over ice.

Eat, drink and be well.

-Squid

Jam Sesh

As I sit amongst pillows and strewn clothing, snuggly in a sweater dress, thinking of all the books I want to read in the little time I have, my crackling heater seems to tell me that it is time for a Jam Sesh.

Although the holidaze have arrived, the majority of this session will not in fact be devoted to Christmas (/Chanukah/Kwanzaa) carols. Instead, I would like to celebrate the music of one of my favorites - The Decemberists. At first I was hesitant to choose them due to their out-of-date status. But in light of their upcoming new album, I think they deserve some additional recognition; and where better than the JAM Bar?

And I must say, straight off, that if you have not pleasured your ears and souls with the tunes of the Decemberists, do it as soon as possible. There are among the few artists whose every single song I like (that sentence was strangely put, but say in a British accent, and it will seem smarter).

On the eighteenth of January in the new year, The King is Dead will be released. Lead singer/songwriter and brilliant beautiful man Colin Meloy has really done it this time. The sound of the album is more on the light folksy side, seeming to have come out of left field after the dark electric guitar in their last release, a rock opera called The Hazards of Love. But as with each of their albums, I know it will be a gem in itself. I anxiously await its release (but I may have to snag an early slightly-not-so-legal copy off my friend out of pure impatience).

Have a listen (and a tease) of their newest shtuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR9DjdMrpHg

I did not paint this gorgy portrait of Colin, but I do plan on whipping up a sketch of him in the future. When I do, the Bar will surely be the first to see it.

Squid loves HRC.

Click, read and be proud.