If it’s competitive, IT’S NOT YOGA.

Look it up.

This year a record five women were honored by the Nobel committees. In total, only 40 women have won the prestigious prizes, including Marie Curie who took the 1903 physics prize and the 1911 chemistry prize.

The Nobel Prizes have always seemed to me to be one of those self-defining, self-sustaining units, like the entertainment, fine art, and fashion worlds. The central figures  create their own definitions of what is exceptional and/or “groundbreaking” work, and then hand out “prestigious” awards for it.  The implication to the world is that these people’s achievements, in these specific subjects, are the most note-worthy — when in fact their selection is subject to the same biases of any highly insulated, elitist group.

Since they started awarding, 40 have gone to women, 765 to men. I’m sensing a pattern here.

But even the obvious (but not surprising) sexist bias of the League takes a back seat to their shameless politicking:  Obama takes home the Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

Subtle!

Obama’s done fine so far. Maybe a hiccup here and there but at least he hasn’t started any illegal wars. But come on now. How extraordinary can his efforts have been this early in the game?

There were more than 200 other nominees for the Peace prize. It’s a good bet that at least one of those peacenik’s efforts have been extraordinary for longer and at much greater risk and sacrifice. They just had the bad luck to get nominated so soon after the Evil One was kicked out of office and the League of Extraordinary Gentleman has to let the world know they approve.

Now they’re going to go get shitfaced and teach him the secret handshake.

Gawd, it’s hard to write that. And yet, here it is.

Woody recently sued American Apparel for using his image in a billboard ad without his permission, and apparently, the snarky idiots at American Apparel think that’s wrong.

“Woody Allen expects $10 million for use of his image on billboards that were up and down in less than one week. I think Woody Allen overestimates the value of his image,” Slotnick said.

What kind of asshats do not understand the concept of copy-fucking-right?

I will tell you what kind: arrogant LA fucktards with entitlement issues the size of their sleazy billboards.

“I mean, like, look at all the 13 year olds putting pictures of Twilight stars up on their Myspace account. Where’s that lawsuit, huh? Huh?!  It’s just fine to copy any image you want and put it any where you want, and if you don’t like it, you’re just a lozer, dude.”

Good Christ on a pogo stick.

[tags]American Apparel, Woody Allen, copyright[/tags]

Some people think Obama being on the cover of Ms. Magazine is elitist and exploitive and that it mocks those who supported Hillary.

Some people need a nap.

Feminism is about education and enlightenment, yes? Ideally, everyone regardless of race, gender, socioeconomic standing, yadda yadda, would understand and espouse this radical notion that women are people, because feminism is nothing if not far-reaching and egalitarian. And it would be super-great if those enlightened happened to be powerful, too, like heads of state, because they send a powerful message to the whole world — and they can get. shit. done. Right?

Right!…. Except, apparently, when it’s a man who happened to run against a woman and win. Then it is just an elitist, exploitive mockery.

Sometimes you just can’t win for losing. Oy.

[tags]Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, politics, feminism, asshats[/tags]

There are a whopping 8 women on this list.

Did you hear that? Eight out of 100 authors in 100 years.

15. (1927) To the Lighthouse – Virginia Woolf
17. (1940) The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter – Carson McCullers
58. (1920) The Age of Innocence – Edith Wharton
61. (1927) Death Comes for the Archbishop – Willa Cather
69. (1905) The House of Mirth – Edith Wharton
76. (1962) The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie – Muriel Spark
84. (1938) The Death of the Heart – Elizabeth Bowen
95. (1954) Under the Net – Iris Murdoch

Not only did Virginia Woolf have to wait for the #15 slot on the list, one of the most admired female authors ever, Harper Lee, didn’t make it at all.

That’s right, no To Kill A Mockingbird.  Even though it’s been called “the perfect novel” by many people, many times since its publication.

And that’s just the beginning.  Bad enough to be female, but God forbid you be anything but white!

The Modern Library currently has some pretty righteous ribs on their board.  I do not know if these esteemed authors were on it ten years ago when the list was compiled, but I sure to hell hope not. I mean, Maya Angelou!  Joyce Carol Fucking Oates!

The rival list from Radcliffe Publishing is marginally better. It has 20 female authors on it, 3 of them are in the top ten (Mockingbird‘s #4), and people of color are better represented.

These lists illustrate exactly why nobody gives a shit about the so-called literary elite except themselves. They can’t see through the dust of their dead forefathers.

[tags]writing, literature, books, authors, sexism, racism[/tags]

It pays to make terrible cars and stupid decisions, and then blame it all on the unions. These companies’ fat-cat CEOs make more in one year than most of their employees will see in ten. Why don’t they just forfeit their salaries for a while and bail their own damn asses out?

If you’ve listened to This American Life lately, you’ll know that the recent Wall Street disaster is mostly due to greedy rich guys playing games, selling stuff for ridiculous amounts that they don’t actually own – and often, stuff that doesn’t even exist. This is illegal everywhere but Wall Street, and surprise! Now we know why. And now we get to pay for these rich guys’ experiments.¹

Meanwhile, in the USA in 2007, there were 37.3 million people living at the poverty level – plus 12% more living below that.  And there were 45.7 million people without health insurance coverage of any kind.² Where’s their bailout?  I’ll tell you: It’s being paid to the same people who bitch and moan about our taxes going to fund all those “welfare cheats.”

I know none of this is news to anyone. I’m just superfuckinpissed, as Kevin would say. ³

[tags]bailouts, auto industry, Wall Street, This American Life[/tags]

1. Yes, experiments. Listen to the TAL shows and prepare to weep.
2. Read the US Census Press Release.
3. Hat tip to Jo for the funny picture!

A typographical error on a New York county absentee ballot gives voters there the option of electing “Barack Osama” as president in the upcoming U.S. election, instead of Barack Obama.

I’m so totally disgusted, I can’t even rant right now.¹

[tags]Barack Obama, Republican asshats[/tags]

1. Hat tip to Lachlan for the link…I think

Our aversion to Palin as VP is not due to her lack of experience.  It’s not because she’s anti-choice and pro-gun.  Nothing to do with her evangelical creationism,  homophobia, enthusiasm for banning books, or terrible environmental record.

No, Belinda Luscombe says our “hatred” for Palin ain’t about nuthin’ intellektual like that. It’s because Palin is “too pretty,” “too confident,” and “might embarass us” if people think she got the job because she’s a woman. ¹

In other words, we’re just a bunch of jealous, catty bitches who never grew up.

There is nothing like a woman running for a high-profile public office to expose just how little credit people give women. And how lazy thinking is very much alive and well in this country.  And how such thinking masquerades as journalism and has no problem getting published, and thus legitimized, in major media.

In this article, Luscombe epitomizes the very stereotype she’s blathering about,² but she’s obviously too dumb to see her own hypocrisy.

To wit: What could be stupider than to go on a rant about how women are so unsupportive of other women (implying, of course, that you, the ranter, are a pillar unto them), and then make this kind of statement:

The fact of the matter is, once a female decides it’s over with another female, it’s like an end-stage marriage. No matter how seemingly benign, every attribute becomes an affront: the hair, the voice, the husband, the moose-shooting, the glasses, the big family, the making rape victims pay for their own rape test kits. [emphasis mine]

Drips with woman-love, doesn’t it?

Dumb as a post, I tell you.

[tags]Sarah Palin, asshats, faux journalism[/tags]

1. Kevin adds, “I’m surprised she didn’t add ‘and she has bigger tits than me’ to that list.” Word.
2. Just like all the women who say proudly that they “have more guy friends than women friends because they never identified with those mean and catty women,” which of course is itself an inherently mean and catty statement.

Dear poseur,

Your installation is not about art.

It’s about pretension, desperation, and narcissism.

And you’re not even creative enough to hide it, regurgitating the oldest cocktail bar pseudo-intellectual line in the book to the Washington Post:

“My mission as an artist is to raise dialogue and conversation about substantive things,” he says, staring through arty glasses that did not have any lenses.

Nice try. Your “mission” is to get attention in the highly competitive New York art world, and judging by the press you’re getting, everybody knows it.

I hope “pathetic laughing stock” is substantive enough for you.

Uppity

[tags]bullshit, Barack Obama, art[/tags]

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.

[tags]Hillary Clinton, Barbara Walters, misogyny[/tags]

1. Oh how the mighty have fallen.