Senator Hillary Butt

The title of this post is a nod to the only other “Hillary post” I’ve written: Senator Hillary Cleavage.

That post is my response to the bonehead at the Washington Post who wrote about the deep societal meaning behind Hillary’s tits. Today’s post is inspired by the no-longer-estimable Barbara Walters, who recently had to weigh in on the size and shape of Hillary’s ass.¹

It seems we just can’t resist reducing all women to T & A in this country, no matter what the circumstance.

When the gals at Jezebel called Baba Wabba on her snark, the boys at Comedy Central replied that their attitude just proves they are “vaginas.”

I think Jezebel’s response to that sums up what so many people still think about woman in general, if Hillary’s campaign is any indication:

What. The. Fuck. So, like, we’re just a bunch of talking, writing, typing, drinking, ass-kicking vaginas? We’re not even the sum of our parts, we just get to be one?

Pick one. Tits, ass, or vagina. No fair being all three.

And while I’m on the subject of rants and Hillary, I’d like to raise a toast to a post: For the Record, by Melissa McEwan at Shakesville. It expresses my sentiments exactly about the wholly depressing misogyny that characterized so much of the reaction to Hillary’s presidential bid.

[Aside: As usual, there are a fair amount of misogynist comments on McEwan’s post, but my fave is the guy who says he wants a female candidate who doesn’t “embarrass her sex.” Do people actually still think that way? People born after the Victorian era, I mean? Well, it’s a good thing male politicians are not held to that same standard - i.e., assumed to represent their entire “sex” every time they act or speak. If they were, George “Nu-cu-lar weapons” Bush would have brought a whole new level of humiliation to the men in this world.]

While I’m talking politics, here’s my for-the-record:

I like Hillary. I like Obama. I can’t decide between the two. I like some things about Hill and other things not so much. Ditto for Obama.

If I did ultimately choose Hillary, it would NOT be because she is a woman.

It is sexist to choose a man because he’s a man, and it’s sexist to choose a woman because she’s a woman. End. Of. Story. Duh.

Well, unless you’re talking about sexual partners, but then I really hope you have additional criteria for that as well.

Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barbara Walters, misogyny

1. Oh how the mighty have fallen. [↩]

This is what misogynists comment like

Some real winners have crawled out from under their rocks to comment on the video “This Is What A Feminist Looks Like” from the Feminist Majority Foundation.

This video is less than 3 minutes long, filled with celebrities, and is really…well, I won’t say milqetoast, but it’s clear the filmmakers tried hard to make it non-threatening.

So the comments on it prove just how little it takes to make today’s misogynists foam at the mouth.

The comments range from pseudo-intellectual diarrhea: “What rests at the core of the feminist movement is power. This is evident in their demands for economic equality, omitting of course differences in abilities and ambitions. Essentially they want to be paid more for doing less work. This has no economic value”

…to the blessedly succinct: “girls suck”

And then there’s the dazed and confused: “if thats not borderline gay or gay itself then the gay line is seriously being blurred by hollywood…. great job jews.”

Dude, the “This Is What A Closeted Gay Homophobic Racist Looks Like” video is over there.

Technorati Tags: feminism, Feminist Majority Foundation

i can haz cleen undees now?

A friend of mine sent me the link to Jezebel’s latest LOLVogue with a note saying, “May you pee your pants laughing before you are overcome with disgust at the Vogue fashion editors.”

LOL jezbel ur so funni ok bai

Technorati Tags: fashion, modeling, Vogue, anorexia, gynophobia

“Well-behaved women seldom make history.”

In honor of Women’s History Month, I thought I’d post a little reminder of sorts.¹

Can you say “backlash”?

Continue reading »

1. Quote by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich [↩]

Only in New York

This article in the NY Observer proclaims the rise of the “urbane tomboy:”

[Gals] who, while not lesbians, dress like guys (young guys), well into their 30’s; who leap into games of pickup basketball with male friends while the rest of us watch wanly from the sidelines; who affect a wry detachment from their sex’s conventional concerns of shoe-shopping, man-hunting and family.

Well, hello, New York: this new “trend” describes nearly all the women I know here in Seattle. And in California. And Oregon. And Nevada. And…

Before I go any further, please note that I’m choosing not to address the “while not lesbians” comment, which is insulting to both gay and straight women for reasons the under-educated, pillbox-hatted reporter would not understand. Nope, not even going to address it, not going to say a thing.

I’m also not going to point out how, far from seeming “wryly detached,” the interviewed “tomboys” instead just sound patronizing and full of false modesty. They say things like “I feel clownish when I dress up” and feel that “if you’re a pretty lady” you can just drop all that silly feminine shit.

They remind me of women who say proudly that they “have more men friends than women” because they “don’t get along with women” - implying (if they don’t say it outright, which they often do) women are catty and superficial. I guess it doesn’t occur to these women that making such a generalization, they prove themselves to be that rule, not the exception.

But I’m not going to go into all of that because I don’t want to rant.

Now, what was I saying?

Today in What A Beeyatch

Proving that anti-feminist women are hypocritical in more ways than one, last week conservative TV talking head Laura Asshat Ingraham mocked Brett Favre for being “a woman” because he cried during is goodbye-to-the-NFL press conference.

Laura’s probably very proud to be both misogynist and misandrist at the same time. Don’t fence her in!

And before I forget - Today in Double Standards…

Most of the comments on the blogs I’ve read about Asshat Ingraham’s remarks are from people vehemently defending Favre’s right to cry all he wants.

Which is great, except why is it that in the court of public opinion, Brett should be allowed to cry all he wants about his career — but Hilary’s pilloried for (almost) crying about hers? Things that make you go hmmm…

Technorati Tags: Brett Favre, Hilary Clinton, Laura Ingraham, misogyny, misandry, double standards

Today in Wilco Tango Bloody Foxtrot?!

If signed into law, Arizona’s House Bill 2263¹ will make a pregnant minor “prove by clear and convincing evidence that she is mature enough to get an abortion without her parents’ consent.”

If they are so skeptical of the maturity of the girl, then why the hell do they THINK SHE CAN RAISE A CHILD?

The mind reels.

Technorati Tags: abortion rights, political asshattery

1. Thanks to Sassywho for the link. [↩]

Little cancers everywhere

One of the reasons I haven’t been blogging as much lately bout “feminist” issues is because they depress me more than usual right now. ¹

The news is chock-full every day of misogynist happenings the world over. But sometimes, it’s the small things — the little cancers that fester in the wrinkles of a culture - that catch you off guard and have you reaching for a woobie and your fucket bucket.

For me, it started last autumn with this gem…

…which was followed up a few days later with this even more telling item:

At least this one has a head, and it even talks:

Her “bad mood” sayings include “Ow,” “Help, Help!” You know, because rape is hilarious. ²

These misogyny-in-humor’s clothing items must be all the rage, because a scant week later, this one crawled out of the same slime pit:

So forgive me if, in my weakened state, this commercial bothers me more than usual.

Subway, every time I pass you on the street, I’ll remember your message: that women’s sense of self-worth should be in direct proportion to her proportions. And I will laugh.

You know, because self-loathing is hilarious.

Technorati Tags: feminism, self-esteem, misogyny, gynophobia

1. Me ‘n Hillary, we’re just a couple of females dominated by our emotions. [↩]
2. posted by Jessica on Feministing.com, November 28, 2007 [↩]

Who’s afraid of the big bad pussy? Part 2: Pussy Control

Last time on our program, we learned that it behooves a girl to wear her purity on her sleeve, for in this way she publicly proclaims her obedience to one of the most cherished of religious tenants: that the state of a woman’s twat is everybody else’s business.

There are few things more integral to most religions as female obedience. When half the population has a hundred percent of the pussy, it follows that finding ways to make them do what you want would become rather important.

Thus proving that obsession is the father of invention, the Bible was born, springing forth, Zeus-like, from the heads of six or seven guys who lived with their mothers. According to them, God’s plan really only has two talking points: there’s the pussy, and there’s The Boss of The Pussy. The rest is just details.

If everyone follows the plan, pussy management is as easy as the Whore of Babylon. But every once and a while, one of them is bound to get uppity, and that’s when a guy has to read her the fine print:

“And god said, let there be spanking!”

No really, that’s in the Bible. A footnote in Leviticus, I think, right after the part about not eating meat on Fridays or stoning Jews before noon.

Now heaven knows faith-based domestic violence can be a trial in this law-happy modern age. But if God had wanted the fearing to suffer alone, he wouldn’t have created online support groups.

“Get a cup of coffee and make yourself at home” over at Christian Domestic Discipline: Loving Wife-Spanking in a Christian Marriage.

Though we believe the Bible gives a husband the authority to use spanking as one tool in enforcing his authority in the home with or without his wife’s permission, in today’s world we recognize the legality that mandates that all CDD must be consensual. Therefore we will do not condone nonconsensual CDD as a rule.

This site has a plethora of “articles” and blog posts proclaiming pussy paddling as the path to peace, but they all boil down to the same ol’ thing:

• a man owes it to his wife to hurt her, lest she and her fledgling self-respect leave in the dust what God hath joined in matrimony;
• God gave women a role (doormat? punching-bag?) and it’s their sacred obligation to fulfill it;
• who let the feminists out?

Then just as I was nodding off, my eye fell upon the link for the CDD Store. 100% cotton CDD-logo wife-beaters? I had to know. I clicked.

Crotchless pantaloons.

Though we recognize by its very nature this subject can be erotic, we will keep this website as clean and wholesome as possible. However, we will not seek to deny the erotic nature of some CDD marriages as we believe it is a natural consequence of following God’s plan.

Ohhhh, that kind of plan. What’s God’s Safe Word?

Technorati Tags: Christian Domestic Discipline, spanking, gynophobia

Who’s afraid of the big bad pussy? Part 1: Purity Police

Once upon a time, back when I was young and brave, I lived in Utah. Not on purpose - I had to move there for a job. As you would expect, I worked with many people of the Mormon persuasion, and I’m happy to say that for the most part it was like working with any other folks in any other state.

Normally for Mormons, consorting with heathens in their leisure time results in plagues of locusts and eternal damnation. Luckily a convenient Revelation makes the workplace the exception to the locust/damnation rule, and Mormons may share cube space with the rest of us without jeopardizing their claim on the planet they get to rule when they die.

Thus my office was completely locust-free and we all worked hard to keep it that way. Mormons and heathens alike respected the tidy separation of church and state; we had a superficially pleasant rapport that suited us just fine. No matter how different we may have been in our private lives about religion, politics, or fashion sense, the workplace was Switzerland.

A few times, though, I found myself straying across the border into distinctly non-neutral territory.

In one such instance, a coworker with whom I had become office-chummy brought in a photo, announcing proudly as she handed it to me that it was of her daughter.

The photo showed a young girl standing on a platform in a white wedding dress two sizes too big. She smiled a mouthful of braces into the camera.

I stared at the picture, nonplussed. When my coworker had said it was of her daughter, I expected to see a typical high school head shot or maybe an awkward but sweet nuclear family photo. So an amateur studio portrait of a little girl posing in a used wedding dress kinda caught me off guard.

“She’s how old?” I finally managed.

“Fourteen,” said my friend. Lest I start looking for the shotgun somewhere in the photo, she hurried to explain, “This was taken as part of a church exercise. It’s a retreat that teaches young girls that there is value in chastity. That purity can be fun and glamorous.”

After a few moments, the painful clanging noises in my brain subsided. I handed the photo back to her and said, “I assume you have a similar picture of your son?”

And then the locusts came.

The religious notion of “purity” being crucial to a woman’s worthiness yet insignificant to a man’s is old news, but it’s still weird to me when I encounter it on the fringes of my life.

It’s like being at a stranger’s house looking for the bathroom and stumbling instead upon a dark, stinky closet that hasn’t been opened for a hundred years. I’m glad it’s not in my house, but I still worry that there’s something contagious breeding in there that can sneak out and infect everyone.

Well, get out your HazMat suits, ladies and gents, because full coverage is always in style at Pure Fashion, a faith-based “program” (shudder) for nubile young devotees of the new modesty movement.

Our goal is to show the public that it is possible to be stylish, cute, and MODEST! All styles should flatter your figure, but not draw extreme attention to any certain area.

I’m not even going to get into the bewildering double-message here: I’m supposed to dress to flatter my figure — but not draw attention to it. My ass needs to look good — but not TOO good. Is there a whore-o-meter somewhere I can use? Don’t they have those at Wal-Mart?

As Pure Fashion models…we believe we can be pretty without being provocative.

Ah. So it’s really all about making sure you are pleasing to the male gaze yet not so much that you provoke the uncontrollable lust that turns Pious Pete into Lecherous Larry, thereby dragging him kicking and screaming away from his God.

But Pure Fashion says it’s not about protecting men from their Neanderthal selves, silly, it’s about preserving girls’ hymen “innocence.”

We understand that many young women today are losing their sense of innocence at a very young age, and Pure Fashion aims to reverse this trend…

Purity people, prepare to be hoist by your own petard. I’m pretty sure that teaching young girls that they’d better hide their bodies lest they inflame the gonads of the rapist next door does more damage to their innocence than any pair of stillettos.

In any case, I am going to write to the Pure Fashion people and express my heartfelt concern about the innocence of our young men, and charge them with creating a similar “program” to protect their virtue.

I’m thinking a sort of “Pure Eye for the Christian Guy,” where good boys could learn that hiding that bulbous package within the voluminous folds of a Burqa for Men by Dockers is fun, glamorous, and required if they want to get into heaven.

I’m sure they’ll get right on that.

Coming soon: Who’s afraid of the big bad pussy? Part 2: Spank me!

Technorati Tags: religion, gynophobia, fashion, modesty