The day I declare all women beautiful AGAIN, or why I will not EVER back down.

An open letter to those who think sexism is dead and the darn feminists need to stop being so angry:

I haven't been blogging much lately, so when I noticed that I was getting a lot of page views, and a few really angry comments, I was curious. The majority were from a web site called Single Dude Travel, which seemed odd, since I'm not single, nor a dude, nor do I write about travel. Turns out, they had just linked to me because I'm a "retarded feminist." They said I was too much of a silly idiot woman to take on directly, but they linked to an article that did. I will not link to them here, because they don't deserve the attention. But basically their response to my argument against fat-shaming was that I'm a fat lesbian, so OF COURSE I feel that way. From there, I found a link to an article that argued that women are not fit to participate in the public sphere (seriously!!!), and they used my blog post as a prime example--apparently, I'm too emotional to tell people they're ugly or obese, so I make up pseudo-arguments to make myself feel better. I shouldn't quote this guy, because he does not deserve the attention, but I have to, because I cannot make this shit up (Grey is the guy who called me a fat lesbian, and when the author refers to Feministing, he's talking about my post, not the whole site):

Grey’s argument was perfectly sound, but in a sense his engagement with Feministing is pointless. The author of the original post is a woman. Of course she’s going to say absurd things in order to ensure that no one feels bad. We should accept that. Often we ought to praise women for their sensitivities while ignoring their so-called arguments.

It's the ovaries. They give me the crazies. (Also, I love that he tries to make that seem like a compliment...?) Oh, but the problem with this logic is that I AM cool with making some people feel bad...like people who think I'm too emotional to participate in the public sphere... However, if he STILL feels that I am "hysterical," he could always send me a vibrator--I hear they used to use those to cure the "womb crazies" and stuff--I would gladly accept such, uh, medication for my "problem."

But my point is, people say these things. Maybe not to your face, because you said nothing to provoke them. Or maybe because they're scared. Or maybe you thought what they said was a joke. But it's not. As much as I laughed at what these guys said about me, this is not a joke. This is serious. PEOPLE STILL THINK WOMEN SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE. THIS IS REAL. It's extreme, I know. Most of you will be like, "But I support women working!" But, just as problematically, PEOPLE STILL USE FAT LESBIAN AS AN INSULT. And that's a mainstream opinion.

On the one hand, I kind of feel like I earned a badge of honour. I mean, you hear of feminists being accused of being lesbians all the time--you know, the whole we're-too-ugly-to-actually-get-a-guy thing, the we're-bitter-angry-ugly-lesbians thing--but no one had ever said that to me! I was feeling kind of left out. Now I can join the club. Interestingly, I actually find it highly problematic that I've never been called a lesbian before. Because that says a lot more about what a lesbian can't be than it does about me. I don't get called a lesbian because most people that I've engaged with in arguments about feminism have seen what I look like. I'm thin. I have long dirty blonde hair. I wear a bra and girly tops and tight jeans or short shorts or skirts and I have a lot of pretty, impractical shoes. I put on mascara and lip gloss daily. I have long nails and I shave my legs. I'm young and white and conventionally attractive. By not calling me a lesbian, people are essentially saying that the only women who are lesbians are those who do not fit into heteronormative beauty standards. They are saying that if you're deemed "fuckable" by men, then there's no way you could refuse the penis! But all these guys online know is that I'm "getting all emotional" about the "fat chicks" and their "feelings" so I must be a lesbian. A fat one, too. Sorry, sweethearts, I'm actually not a lesbian--I don't refuse all penis, just yours, you misogynistic fuckwads. (Come on, call me a slut now--I dare you.)

But, on the other hand, telling me (or, no, sorry, telling men behind my back) that my voice does not belong in the public sphere? You better be prepared for what you've started. I have never been more motivated to put my voice out there. Oh, and I'm a PhD student, too, or I will be in a few months, so you better believe that I have the avenues to do so. I will stir shit up. I'm only just getting started. You think that one blog post was something? I wrote that rant in twenty minutes. I never expected it to go viral; I was writing it for the hundred-odd friends and family that usually read my blog. You just wait and see what I can do when I actually put my mind to it. You will not break me.

Sincerely,

The thin white straight girl who STILL believes that ALL WOMEN ARE BEAUTIFUL

This is what a feminist looks like.

The day I was behind the times in the blogosphere, or why you should only date guys that like your creepy clay figurines. Or guys that are Jared Padalecki.

I knew this was going to happen when I started blogging. I would get excited about it for a few months, and then I'd get distracted and go weeks and weeks without writing anything, and then people would lose interest and no one would read it anymore and I'd get sad and panic about what exciting topic I'd need to write about to get people's attention again and then I'd never be able to think of anything cool enough because there would be too much pressure and oh dear god what should I write about?!?! I feel like I'm always a week or so behind on online trends and pop culture news or political news so I can't write about anything contemporary because everyone's already weighed in on those issues. The most recent movies I've seen that are worth commenting on are The Hunger Games, which everyone and their mother has blogged about, and What's Your Number?, which I watched last night but every other feminist blogger worth her salt has already talked about because it deals so explicitly with the politics of female promiscuity and includes the douche-bag-man-whore-misogynist-is-actually-a-nice-guy-once-you-get-past-his-emotional-baggage trope which I am very tired of because pretty much all of the douche-bag-man-whore-misogynists I've ever met are actually douche-bag-man-whore-misogynists and there is no way in hell I would put in the time and effort to teach them Feminism 101 every single fucking time they said something douche-y or misogynistic because I AM NOT YOUR FUCKING TEACHER (unless I am, in which case I will teach you Feminism 101 over and over again because they pay me to). That being said, What's Your Number? is actually a hilarious movie and is nice in a find-a-man-that-accepts-you-and-your-promiscuity-and-your-creepy-clay-figurines-as-you/they-are kind of way. Which, I think, is a very important message. Particularly the creepy clay figurines part. Because, lord knows, you should never date a guy that doesn't love your creepy clay figurines. That should be a rule in whatever the straight-girl opposite of the Bro Code is.

Anyway, aside from that, I've been watching Gilmore Girls and Buffy, and I feel like pretty much everything that needs to be said about both of those has already been said, especially Buffy. I went to the Popular Culture Association of Canada conference in Niagara Falls this past weekend and THERE WERE NO PANELS ON BUFFY. It's like all the scholars in Canada were just like FUCK IT, WE'VE SAID IT ALL. I don't know if that's true. But I certainly have nothing new to contribute to that discussion. Although I read an article on After Elton this morning about the five gayest episodes of Buffy and they seemed kind of arbitrary to me. Like...Willow is openly gay for the last few seasons. So pretty much all of the episodes about her in the last few seasons are gay, aren't they? Or I am misunderstanding what makes an episode gay? Their reasoning seemed all over the place... "lots of naked boys!" and "gay actor as central character!" and "Willow's gayness is hinted at vaguely long before she comes out!" seemed to all be valid reasons. Anyway, my point is, I feel like that list could have been a lot longer than five. Or it should have had more specific criteria. Do they mean the episode features queer characters? Do they mean there's a lot of eye candy for queer men? I DON'T KNOW. So I guess I had something to contribute to the discussion about the discussion of Buffy. We're into meta-discussions now. My head hurts. I also watch Weeds and Supernatural, but I'm not up-to-date on either of those, so my comments would be behind the times. But watching the first and second seasons of Gilmore Girls at the same time as watching Supernatural is WEIRD. (Not at EXACTLY the same time--I can't multitask like that...obviously...) Jared Padalecki goes from being tall, skinny cute boy to SUPER MEGA HOTTIE MAN. Also, the wrong person is named Dean in Supernatural. Very confusing. I refer to the two main characters in Supernatural as Dean and Sam-Dean. It's weird because I've had friends who have changed their names and I adjusted to that very easily but I can't adjust to a character on a TV show changing his name when he's on another TV show. And neither of those names are actually his name. His name is Jared. Which is a stupid name, if you ask me. It does not fully describe his hotness. Jared is not a hot name.

Well, for someone who has nothing to say, I've certainly managed to say a lot. I think that's why I decided to start blogging in the first place. It's style over substance. It doesn't matter what I say, as long as it's somewhat entertaining. It's an nice shift from academic writing, where I'm trying to write something substantial about the Backstreet Boys which is like an oxymoron or something. Also, I'm finding it super weird to write about how they were marketed. I mean, it's one thing to analyze their songs or their music videos, because that was the "art" that they put out there to be consumed and talked about. But when I'm talking about how their personalities and relationships were marketed, it feels weird. I forget I'm talking about real people. Like Nick Carter exists, in the real world, as a person, and I have no idea how much of what was written about him in the 1990s was actually him, and how much was manipulated and fabricated to create a certain image. I'm having an ethical and existential crisis here.

Maybe staring at a picture of Jared Padalecki will solve my crisis...

You'll always be Dean in my heart.

The day I finally wrote about blogging and resistance, or why (despite how bleak things seem) all hope is not lost.

So I promised in my last post that I would talk about blogging and resistance. And I will. Right now. This is a terrible introduction and I'm not sure how to transition to my point now. I'm just going to do it.

This term, the mandatory cultural studies and critical theory course is focused on the theme of resistance. And, consequently, I've been thinking a lot about the practicalities of resistance--how can we productively resist? Are there forms of productive resistance that do not involve putting my life and body in danger? If I'm not putting my life as I know it in danger, then am I using my privilege as a crutch? Am I not resisting my own privilege...and if not, how can I productively resist anything? And then, of course, there's the other side of that--if I am in a place where I do not have the privilege to put my life on the line (and by life I mean literal life, as in beating heart and breathing and all that, but also my lifestyle and the realities of my day-to-day life), am I denied the privilege to resist? And should I then be focusing on resisting a system that does not allow equal access to resistance? But what does "resistance" even mean? Is all resistance created equal? Is resistance to gay marriage equal to the resistance to capitalism and neoliberalism demonstrated by the Occupy Wall Street protesters? And how useful is it for me to be sitting here contemplating resistance and the different forms of resistance when I could be out there (wherever there is...I have a feeling it's in that pesky "real world" that I keep having trouble locating...) resisting something? But why should I resist something just for the sake of resisting something?

"Resist" doesn't look like a word anymore.

There's this idea that the Internet represents this open, democratic space--perfect for resistance of all kinds! (No, I'm not going to cite my sources on that one. This is a blog, not an academic paper, and I'm going to milk that for all it's worth. So no citations! HA! You're just going to have to trust me that this idea exists.) And while to some extent I agree with this, because, as this blog proves, anyone can pretty much publish anything they want for free on the Internet, there's still a problem of access. And I don't just mean that there are people who don't have computers or wi-fi or whatever (while that is true). I mean that not all web pages can be found. I mean that powerful companies can purchase "space" on the Internet--not literal space, but highly visible spots on Google's search results and things like that. You can buy visibility online--with money and/or time. I say time because I know there are a lot of really popular blogs and personal sites out there that barely cost any money, but they require a ton of dedication, and most people (myself included) do not have that kind of time.

Sure, with my little blog I have a bit of influence--the 100 or so people who read it are subjected to my opinions and maybe take something from them. But that's an incredibly small portion of the population, and I won't really be able to raise that number unless I dedicate my time to increasing my online visibility. And even then, only certain people, people who are "predisposed" to my kind of thinking, will be the ones that read it. Last week in class, a fellow student showed the following video as part of a presentation. It's a TED talk by Eli Pariser about how Google and Facebook and others are tailoring what you see online--and while they're giving you what you supposedly want, they're also filtering out the other side of the story.

Thanks for this, Shaun!

So things are looking pretty bleak. Maybe blogging is not the be-all end-all of resistance it was once thought to be. (Again, I'm not citing that. I've just decided that's what it was once thought to be. Deal with it.) But then I start thinking about three of the blogs I read for fun, which are incredibly popular and widely read. These are blogs that aren't political by any means--they're funny and entertaining, focused mostly on the ridiculousness of everyday life. And yet, there is a resistant element to all of these blogs. At one time or another, the women who write these three blogs that I'm talking about have spoken out about, and resisted the stigma against, mental illness.

via Hyperbole and a Half

On Hyperbole and a Half, Allie openly discusses her adventures with depression. On The Bloggess, Jenny writes about her personal battle with depression and self-harm. (And Jenny started the silver ribbon campaign to raise awareness about self-harm that took over Twitter a few weeks ago!) On Nicole is Better, Nicole Antoinette talks about depression and her time "in the hole" eating candy canes in the dark--and her support system that pulled her back out. And I think this is incredibly powerful. The visibility that these women have in the blogosphere is incredible, and, I would argue, widespread--they're not stuck with a particular political audience, because these are personal blogs. They're resisting the idea that real, personal lives aren't affected by mental illness and ableism. And the fact that they are willing to speak out, to resist, is mindblowing. Kudos, ladies! You help me keep believing :)