Stop making me want to defend Twilight.

See, apparently the movie of New Moon broke a box office record (biggest opening day) that was formerly held by The Dark Knight, and the fanboys of the world couldn't accept the dethroning of their One True Film. And of course they couldn't just content themselves with arguing that Dark Knight is objectively a better movie than New Moon, which I fully accept as likely. Oh no, it had to be all about how New Moon is icky because it's for girls. Never mind that terrible movies that guys like do well at the box office all the time (Transformers 2, anyone?). A girly movie breaks sales records and the world is ending, oh noez!

You know, I might hate Twilight and everything it stands for, but I can't deny that it's a franchise that's become hugely popular almost exclusively because women and girls like it, based on source material written by a woman, and the first film had a woman director. And, as Women and Hollywood points out, there's a chance that Hollywood might sit up and take notice:

According to Dergerabedian, this movie has the potential to beat the Transformers sequel opening weekend numbers. That movie made $108 million. [Note: New Moon blew Transformers 2 out of the water; it opened at $143 million.] That movie also opened when school was out of session in most places at the end of June, and on a Wednesday, and this movie is opening the weekend of the 20th of November when school is still in session and yet it still might beat it out. Degarabedian says the opening weekend will be “girls kicking the crap out of the boys.” He says that this is the “holy grail” and that this is to the female audience was “Star Wars was to the guys.”

Let’s just think about that. A franchise fueled by girls and women has the potential of beating the machines for the box office record. This movie could potentially be “guy proof” meaning they won’t need guys to see it for it to kick some box office butt. Whereas the other franchises NEED women to make their numbers.

At that point, it almost doesn't matter to me how problematic the source material might be. Like Kate Harding, anything that convinces the entertainment industry that women are an audience worth targeting in large numbers, without worrying if the films will also appeal to men, I am all for. (Also check out the follow-up from Women and Hollywood, which analyses the opening weekend numbers.)

On a related theme, but from a different angle, here's an interesting take from The Escapist's movie critic, who explains why the blatant objectification of men in the marketing materials for New Moon got him to thinking about how women are objectified in pretty much every other sci-fi/fantasy series ever. The whole thing is worth reading, but here's a choice quote:

It was dawning on me, then, that myself and every other male geek currently rolling our eyes at the laughably-obvious, pandering sexual-objectification of these "Playgirl werewolves" had at many times throughout our geek-existence been confronted (or, at least, needled) by our she-geek female compatriots about the laughably-obvious, pandering sexual-objectification of...well, damn near every depiction of the female form in geek culture.

And you know what? If we even tried to defend the point, we probably fell back on explanations and excuses every bit as shaky and transparent as "Twilight"'s nonsense about its wolf men's limited wardrobe budget: "In this future, spacesuit-polymers can be skin-tight and sufficiently-protective!" "Power Girl's costume has what amounts to a cleavage-window because she's still deciding on a logo!" "Female ninjas probably would use their sexuality as a weapon!" "Women in medieval-fantasy don't need to armor anything but their nipples and crotch, cause their fighting-styles rely on flexibility! Especially the Elven Wenches!"

In other words, BINGO.

He goes on to theorize that this table-turning is the reason that the series is so popular, and I suspect there is something to that. He also compares Twilight to selling tainted water to an audience that's dying of thirst in the desert, which I think is maybe taking it a little far, but only a little.

Also recommended: Sady Doyle on the objectification of Robert Pattinson. Some fantastic quotes in here from RPattz, who, like Sady, I'm beginning to like despite myself.

It makes me a little sad, in some ways, that it takes a series as problematic and difficult for me to respect as Twilight to bring all these conversations to the fore. On the other hand, the conversations are so important that I think it's probably worth it. Let's hope that lasting lessons are learned.

Why do I love Barbara Boxer?* Because she does things like back petitions to overturn the Stupak Amendment.

Earlier this month, the House passed the Stupak Amendment to their health care reform bill, which would be one of the biggest setbacks to women's health in recent decades — unless we stand together and stop it.

That's why we're launching this petition, because women must not be denied access to safe and legal medical procedures.

Join us by signing the petition and help build pressure to remove the discriminatory, extreme, anti-choice Stupak Amendment from the final health care reform bill!

Link to the petition here, which you can bet I'm going to sign right now.

Rumor has it that Stupak has no chance of surviving the Senate, which is encouraging. As is this report on the 10 votes (not 20 or 40, as Rep. Stupak keeps claiming) that would likely need to be found if the amendment isn't in the final bill. Assuming one-man wrecking machine Joe Lieberman doesn't bring the whole thing crashing down regardless. But no matter what comes next, I'm still glad that Senator Boxer is willing to actively stand up for women's rights.

*I do have another senator. We won't talk about her right now.

If you read only one article about the Roman Polanski debacle, make it this one. Even if you're sick to death of hearing about Roman Polanski.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/

Every time I think Kate Harding cannot possibly be more awesome, she finds a way to prove me wrong.

Catching up on blogs after work, and I came across a post on Shapely Prose that links to this absolutely amazing piece by Harriet Jacobs of Fugitivus, a blog which I wasn't familiar with before but will most definitely be checking out now.

I tried pulling out representative quotes, but I was ending up just copying and pasting the whole thing, so I'm not even going to try. In summary, it's a rundown of all the ways in which women are taught to be passive, receptive to male advances and attention, never saying "No" or standing up for themselves. Unless she is raped or assaulted, at which point the expectations are flipped, and suddenly she's at fault because she wasn't active, didn't say "No", didn't fight him off. It sets up the ultimate no-win situation for women: we get the blame not only for being victims, but for behaving exactly the way we were taught to behave. She didn’t fight back because you told her not to. Jacobs lays it all out so clearly, so simply, that I found it breathtaking. Highly, highly recommended, especially as a sort of companion piece to cereta's post about rape culture and victim blaming that I wrote about back in June.

Also, the Shapely Prose post reminded me about Kate Harding's classic post about misogynistic bulling online, which covers some of the same ground (though from a somewhat different angle) and is also very worth reading if you've never seen it.

binsybaby suggests some names for kick-ass movies about girls, such as "Sisterhood of the Traveling MONSTER TRUCK ON FIRE" and "Bridget Jones's Diary OF COMPLEX TIME MACHINE BLUEPRINTS". I know I'd see that last one! There are many more, in the post and in the comments, so make sure to read the threads. Some of the commenters make suggestions in the other direction, too, like "Die Hard AND THEN GET A PEDICURE" and "Batman Returns FROM THE ORCHID EXHIBIT".

Thanks to Jed for the link; if you don't have time to read all of the comments, he's posted some of his favorites here.

One of the side effects of getting poison oak all over my hands is that it's been hard to write much. (Fortunately, the worst of it is now past, although I still get struck by itchy fits from time to time. But they're more "let me slough off this dead skin" and less "oh my god I don't remember what it feels like not to be one giant itchy spot", so it's a lot easier to deal with now. Anyway.) So I've been spending more time reading, and contemplating, and following conversations all over the Internet (and playing Bubble Spinner, but we won't talk about that part), and for various reasons the topics that've been consuming most of my reading and thinking time lately are related to feminist issues.

Partly that's because I've just finished reading Yes Means Yes (I have a full review on Goodreads, here), which is a collection of essays about rape, women's sexuality, and different models of consent. And it was in the context of having these ideas rattling around in my brain that I read this call to arms by cereta, in which she exhorts men to stand up and do their part to help end rape culture. I'm slowly working my way through the comment threads, although last I checked it was up to 16 pages, so there's no way I'll be able to read them all. But I definitely recommend going as far as you can; people are sharing some incredible stories, good and awful alike, and there are some fantastic (and sometimes frustrating) discussions about being an ally, and consent, and victim blaming.

It's that last one that really gets me thinking. Just how steeped our culture is in blaming the victim for cases of rape and sexual assault is something that I've only really understood within the last couple of years. I knew, of course, that our society will automatically try to get any woman who is sexually assaulted to take the blame upon herself -- what was she wearing, did she flirt with him, did she say yes and then change her mind, etc. etc. etc. It's a story we've all heard a thousand times. But it happens on the other side of the equation, too, because whenever we talk about rape prevention, our entire focus is on how women should protect themselves. Don't go out alone, don't drink too much, don't be alone with a strange man (never mind that most women are assaulted by someone they know), don't be "too wild", carry mace/a whistle/keys, learn self-defense. Every one of these suggestions places the burden of not "getting raped" on women, and many of them force women into tiny boxes of "appropriate" sexual expression. Want to wear that skimpy outfit, or go out drinking with your friends, or hook up with a guy you barely know? Well, go ahead, but don't say we didn't warn you.

(Not that I'm trying to claim that these are necessarily smart things to do. But does our society tell a man not to go out drinking because he might be an easier target for a mugger? Does society warn him against one-night-stands because he might get assaulted? And do we then turn around and blame him if anything happens to him? There are exceptions, of course, but as a rule I would say no. We don't. This is part of what equality means: women should have the same opportunity as men to do crazy things, stupid things. Fun things -- one of the essays in Yes Means Yes, by Jaclyn Friedman, is a manifesto on the joys of cutting loose and being wild, and on our right to experience them, and I found it one of the most compelling in the book.)

But this method of rape prevention leaves out one factor completely: the rapist. Oh yeah, that guy. (And yes, I do know that not all rapists are male and not all rape victims are female. But looking at the odds, those are good ones to play. Also, my point is really more about rape culture than about individual victims and perpetrators, and in our society, rapists are gendered male/aggressive and victims are gendered female/passive, regardless of the details of any particular case.) What does he have to do with anything?

Plenty, I'd say. Because if there were no rapists, no one would ever be raped. And it wouldn't matter what they were wearing, where they went, what they drank, what they said. Complete prevention, full stop. Put it that way, and it sounds almost ridiculously simple. So why don't we have books and courses and all of that to teach men how not to be rapists, how not to commit sexual assault, how to recognize consent and take "no" for an answer, how to stand up to other men who are about to cross the line?

I could come up with all sorts of reasons why we as a society haven't gone this route, mostly relating to male privilege. But right now, I'd rather just leave the question open and out there, in all its simplicity. Seriously. Why not?

Association Meme, via wildejoy: Comment to this post and I will give you 5 subjects/things I associate you with. Then post this in your LJ and elaborate on the subjects given.

My responses to wildejoy's associations with me:

( Nooj/Paine )

( Politics )

( Libraries )

( Writing )

( Feminism )

I still remember discovering Bitch Magazine. I was wandering the streets of Berkeley, probably while I was doing an internship at the library there, and wound up in Cody's. At the time, I was casting about for progressive news sources -- I had attempted subscriptions to Mother Jones and The Nation, but I found the former was too radical and the second too much reading to come up with as a busy grad student -- and so I went to the alternative section of the magazine rack and bought a couple of titles. One of them was Bust; I liked it, but I found it focused a little more on girly stuff like crafts and fashion than I really wanted. I'll still pick up an issue from time to time, but it has never really spoken to me.

Bitch was, of course, the other. It was this issue (I can still recognize it by the cover!) and I was immediately taken with it. I liked that it took pop culture seriously, I liked that it came explicitly from a feminist perspective and wasn't afraid to own that. So I bought the next issue, and the next, and about a year later I got around to subscribing. I've read every issue ever since (several years as a subscriber, then let it lapse out of pure laziness and went back to buying single issues off the newsstand). I don't agree with everything in every issue; far from it. But the articles always make me think and look critically at the how women are portrayed in pop culture and treated in the world, and it brings books and music to my attention that I would never notice on my own. It's been my favorite magazine for years...

And now it's in danger of going away.

The print publishing industry as a whole is staring into a void. Across the board, newsstand magazine sales are in a slump, subscriber numbers are down, and paper and postal costs continue to rise. But it's not magazines like US Weekly or Vogue that you'll see disappearing from the newsstands—they have the parent companies and the resources to weather industry ill winds. It's the small, independent magazines like Bitch that will disappear, because the odds are already stacked high against us. And simply put: We need to raise $40,000 by October 15th in order to print the next issue of Bitch.

Now it's true that Bitch is no longer the lone voice it seemed to me back in 1999. There are many blogs and other online sources that cover similar territory these days. But I don't see the blogosphere as a substitute for print publications. For one thing, as Latoya at Racialicious reminds us, Bitch publishes articles by many of these same voices, and it's one of the few places that a feminist writer can know that her work won't be gutted. And even today not everyone has easy access to the Internet. A magazine can catch people's attention in places and at times that the Internet isn't practical, or even available.

So I've finally renewed my long-lapsed subscription, and donated a little bit over and above that. Not only because I, personally, adore this magazine, but because I think independent media sources are more important than ever. If we've learned nothing else from this presidential campaign, it's that the mainstream media has a long way to go in its coverage of women and women's issues. Alternative voices like Bitch are a breath of fresh air, and we need them.

Rebecca Traister says everything I tried to say about Sarah Palin and sexism and ties it up in one neat little video.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/09/04/palin_sexism_video/index.html



Okay, I'm done with this soapbox for now. Anybody else need it?

John Scalzi with some thoughts on Sarah Palin and her daughter's pregnancy.

The post, with which I agree almost in its entirety, can be summed up thusly:

1. The rumors about Sarah Palin's youngest child should have been beneath our notice, but boy was this a stupid way to deflect public attention from them.

2. We should follow Barack Obama's lead (scroll down to the first question and Obama's answer) and leave Bristol Palin herself out of the public discourse (although let's not pretend that the Republicans would extend the same courtesy if the situation was reversed).

3. I'll turn it over to Mr. Scalzi now:

...things that are up for continuing discussion include: Gov. Palin’s positions on abstinence-only education, women’s control of their bodies, birth control, Roe v. Wade, whether medical professionals can refuse on religious grounds to give treatment to women, and all other manner of topics relating to sex, women’s bodies, and choice. If Gov. Palin and the McCain campaign try to use Miss Palin’s pregnancy like they use Senator McCain’s former POW status — i.e., a cheap and easy trope to trot out in order to avoid answering reasonable questions — that’s well worth calling them on.

It's a fuzzy line, to be sure, but I think it's worth trying to walk it. Even if the GOP attack dogs wouldn't do the same for us. We're supposed to be better than them, after all.

So now that I've had a few days to think about John McCain's extraordinary choice of running mate, I find I have a few things to say about her.

My first reaction can pretty well be summed up in one word: "Buh?" I hadn't even heard that she was on the long short list. I knew nothing about her credentials, her background, her beliefs. I wasn't even sure how to pronounce her name. (For the record: it appears to be "pale-in", same as actor Michael Palin.)

This led directly into my second reaction, which was anger and irritation. Because the obvious conclusion to draw is that McCain wanted a running mate who was a woman, and it didn't really matter which woman it was. And Palin's own reference to the "18 million cracks in the glass ceiling" in her introductory speech seemed to confirm that this was a direct, and almost childishly transparent, play for Hillary Clinton's supporters. From The American Prospect:

The pick of Palin is dripping with transparent condescension, the notion that the enthusiasm behind Hillary was simply the result of her being a woman, that it had nothing to do with what she actually stood for, and in that sense it's equally sexist.... It's not very different from running Alan Keyes against Barack Obama in 2004.

But I am starting to see a little more logic to it now. Without even trying, I can name half a dozen Republican women who are more qualified to be vice president than Sarah Palin: Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Elizabeth Dole, Christine Todd Whitman, Condoleeza Rice... But none of those women is anywhere near as socially conservative as Palin (except maybe Hutchinson, but the rumor is that she's planning to run for governor in 2010). And if McCain has a weakness with the Republican base, it's that the Christian right isn't excited by him. The most likely explanation I can find for this pick is to fire up the evangelicals, and if you scroll down to the bottom of this transcript, John Kerry says pretty much the same thing. And unfortunately, there's a good chance that it'll work; James Dobson has already come out for the ticket, in a clear reversal of his former negative opinion of McCain, and I'm sure his cronies will follow.

Now, I can similarly think of half a dozen Republican men with conservative chops and better credentials than Palin, so criticism of the pick as blatant tokenism still stands. But it does make it seem a little less random, and a little more worrisome for the outcome in November.

The other concern I have about this choice: the return of in-your-face misogyny in the media, and in the "progressive" blogosphere. It's already begun -- the first post in Shakesville's "Sarah Palin Sexism Watch" appeared approximately an hour after McCain announced his choice, and it's already up to four entries -- and it will only get worse. And it makes me really sad and frustrated to know that the Republican mainstream will do a far better job of striking back on her behalf than the Democrats ever did for Hillary Clinton.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Sarah Palin that don't come back to her gender: her social conservatism (anti-choice, anti-gay, thinks creationism should be taught in schools), her terrible record on environmental issues (doesn't believe in global warming, lobbied to get the polar bear removed from the endangered species list), her thin resume*. From Feministe:

Women are not stupid, even if John McCain thinks we are. And the progressives among us will not be voting for an anti-woman candidate just because she happens to be female. But hopefully, we also won’t be excusing sexism and misogyny directed at Sarah Palin just because we find her views abhorrent. And hopefully media elite and progressive writers will have the sense to attack Palin on the issues, and not on what’s in her pantsuits.

Let's hope.

*I think it is totally fair to go after Palin's lack of experience. Some people are saying that we can't criticize Palin's inexperience when Obama faces a similar issue, but I find the situations to be quite different, for several reasons: first, it seems clear to me that Obama has been preparing himself to take on the job of commander in chief for a long time now, at least a year and a half, and very probably longer, while as recently as this July, Palin didn't know what the vice president's job entails (hat tip to sepdet for the link). But more importantly, Obama just went through a grueling national primary, and during that process, several million people decided that he was ready to be president. So far, Sarah Palin's readiness for the job has been vetted by... John McCain. Who, we might note, is one of the people who has most questioned Obama's lack of experience.

Not from where I'm sitting.

The above link goes to Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention. If you haven't seen it yet, it is totally worth your time. She did everything she had to do -- enthusiastically endorsed Obama and exhorted her supporters to do the same, dinged McCain, and was gracious and passionate all at the same time.

I still wish there was some way we could have had them both. In some alternate universe, somewhere.

Also very worth your time is this article by Eric Boehlert on the coverage leading up to Clinton's speech, and how the media completely ignored historical context to bolster their story of a bitter, power-hungry Hillary Clinton and a running-scared Barack Obama. He starts by pointing out that runners-up Jerry Brown and Jesse Jackson both gave prime-time speeches to their conventions (1992 and 1988, respectively) in which they didn't even endorse the nominee. And then he zeroes in on stories from the present day:

What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy.

Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many delegates and votes as Clinton did during the primaries and then did not have her name placed into nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm.

But, boy, in 2008, an awful lot of media outlets have played dumb. When covering the August 14 announcement about Clinton's role in Denver, they miraculously forgot to make any historical reference to similar names-placed-in-nomination at previous conventions.

Instead, readers and viewers were left with the obvious impression that what was scheduled to happen in Denver was remarkable, an anomaly. And I suppose if you look at the events through a soda straw, it does look unusual. But if you include the slightest bit of context, the story changes into something normal and routine.

But that's not the story the press wants to tell (the Clintons are not normal!), so the press simply erased the context and stuck to its preferred story line that Clinton's appearance in Denver and the placing of her name in nomination are one for the record books.

He then goes on to show how this context-free coverage has demonized Clinton, yet again, and made Obama seem like a pushover, depictions that are bad for both Senators and, oh yeah, the Democratic Party as a whole. But we have a liberal media, of course. Everyone knows that. Right?

How screenwriters are taught to fail the Bechdel Test.

Interesting discussion in the comments, too. Found via another interesting post, this one about the dearth of female characters in Pixar films and other Disney animation.

(More on the Bechdel Test, also known as The Mo Movie Measure. It's really pretty appalling how few films pass. Books and TV do somewhat better, but there's still a long way to go.)

The New York Times examines its own coverage of Hillary Clinton for sexism.

Given that a media outlet is examining itself for bias, I think the article takes a relatively fair look at the question. Maureen Dowd bears the brunt of the criticism, which, given Maureen Dowd, I have to say isn't too surprising -- she is listed as one of the worst offenders in NOW's Media Hall of Shame, along with some other choice candidates. This of course raises the question of whether people focus on Dowd because she's a woman, but I suspect it's probably the other way around: the NYT lets her get away with using gendered language in an unacceptable way because she is a woman.

Over the course of the campaign, I received complaints that Times coverage of Clinton included too much emphasis on her appearance, too many stereotypical words that appeared to put her down and dismiss a woman’s potential for leadership and too many snide references to her as cold or unlikable. When I pressed for details, the subject often boiled down to Dowd.

A man might have been able to get away with writing columns like that in a lot of places, but I wonder if it would have raised more eyebrows in editorial than it apparently did. And I don't really expect to see them reign her in now -- as the article points out, Dowd is paid to share opinions, which gives her more leeway than a straight news reporter. Still, it's good to see some self-examination from someone in the media, even if it's a little bit late. Especially when you consider the article that prompted it, which contains a lot more denial than it does reflection.

Nicholas Lemann, dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, said: "I have not had a lot of regretful conversations with high-ranking media types and political reporters about how unfair their coverage of the Hillary Clinton campaign was."

Among journalists, he added, the coverage "does not register as a mistake that must not be allowed to happen again."

So then, how do we make it register? NOW is talking about a cable network boycott, which would be a start, but I don't watch the cable news networks anyway. Something to ponder.

(Link to first story courtesy Shakesville.)

I should probably let this go, but I keep thinking about it, and tracking Technorati for reactions in the blogosphere, maybe to convince myself that I'm not overreacting. Or maybe it's the hope that more people will call him out on it.

This post from an Obama supporter in "Alas, A Blog" may be my favorite response so far.

Someone in the comments to that post says that someone will get an excellent book on sexism in the mainstream media out of this campaign. I agree, and I look forward to reading it. May this issue continue to get the attention it deserves.

I've been avoiding posting about this topic for a lot of reasons. Mostly because I know it's a hornets' nest, and I really don't want anyone on my flist to think I'm attacking their beliefs. That's not my intention, I promise. But it's also an issue that's been bothering me, a lot, and something pushed me over today. So here goes.

(By the way, before I get into this, I want to put my cards on the table: I voted for Obama in the California primary. So this has got nothing to do with which candidate I support, and everything to do with patterns in our language and our society that bother me, a lot, regardless of the individual people involved.)

So, Hillary Clinton, and the increasing stridency of the calls for her to step down before the primary season is over. I understand the impulse. I even agree with some of the reasoning. But the language that people are using disturbs me more every day. Case in point: this post from Wil Wheaton's blog. Now, Wheaton is a blogger who I read semi-regularly and usually like and respect. In this post, he does two things. First, he quotes from a piece which refers to Clinton as the "psycho ex-girlfriend of the Democratic Party", and then he flatly rejects any criticism that the piece might be sexist: "I'm not sexist. This isn't sexist. That's a stupid straw man, and if you try to make that claim, I will point and laugh at you."

If Wil Wheaton feels the need to track me down in order to point and laugh at me, that's fine, but the fact is that the "psycho ex-girlfriend" line is sexist. I cringed the minute I read it, and nothing in the rest of the post convinced me that it was okay to stop cringing. The lone commenter who dissents says pretty much what I would like to say, and so I quote:

The metaphor evokes a trope in sexual politics, that of the irrational girl who cannot accept that a relationship is over. Labeling, categorizing, pigeon-holing someone in this way "he's a geek, she's a slut, he's a pig, she's cow" is at once appealing to a fragment of truth, and also making the target controllable.

If they are controllable, they are marginalizable. And they can be dismissed. The problem with controlling and dismissing Hillary using a trope from sexual politics is that it moves her from the realm of discourse and debate into the realm of sex (as in "getting it on"). And labeling her as batshit crazy in an ex-girlfriend sense means that she is not only sexualized, but her sexuality can be controlled.

And that's the heart and soul of sexism.

You said it, Backpacking Dad.

If this were an isolated incident, that would be one thing. But it's not. Sexist attitudes and language have shaped attitudes toward Hillary Clinton from the moment she appeared on the political scene. Shakesville, the feminist blog I read most often these days, has a feature called the Hillary Clinton Sexism Watch, and it's up to part eighty-nine. There are clear patterns. Promoted by people who should know better. And it will never stop unless people who recognize them stand up and say "No more."

One last point. Let's say that Clinton and Obama's roles are reversed: Clinton is leading, her lead narrow but with momentum on her side, and it's mathematically possible but increasingly unlikely that Obama will catch her. Would so many people be demanding that Obama drop out for the good of the party and to promote party unity? Maybe so. But even if they were, would anyone be calling Obama the "psycho ex-boyfriend of the Democratic Party"?

Finally, I can't even believe that I have to say this, but of course there has been racism involved in this campaign as well. It happens, and will continue to happen, and it's not any better than the sexism. But I don't think that calling out one form of discriminatory and offensive behavior invalidates any other.

Long but excellent blog post about the subjectiveness of attraction.

The upshot: being overweight is not necessarily your ticket to a long, lonely life. A fact to which, I, personally, can quite happily attest.

The world is not full of Attractive People and Unattractive People. It’s full of people who are attractive to some and not to others. I hear from trolls all the time who complain that they don’t want to be “forced” to find nasty, ugly fat women attractive–which utterly baffles me, since the last thing I want to do is encourage fat-hating dicks to date fat women. You don’t find fat people attractive? Fabulous. Don’t date them. I will find a way to pick myself up and move on without your love. But to assume your lack of sexual interest in fat chicks must be universal–-or that the mere existence of self-confident fat people having healthy relationships somehow “forces” you to find fat attractive–-is the height of fucking narcissism.

I wasn't familiar with Kate Harding before this; I may have to spend some time checking her out.

I can find xkcd to be hit or miss. But when he nails it, he really nails it.

Salon has a couple of great articles on being undecided today:

Walter Shapiro on the policy and style differences between Clinton and Obama.

And Rebecca Traister on why identity matters. She really sums up my conflicted feelings well. Back when John Edwards was my candidate, I was more than content with him ideologically and as a potential leader. But I had a nagging guilt about it: in the end, despite all the other options presented before me, I was supporting the white guy. A progressive, feminist, class-aware white guy, to be sure. But still. And now I have the opportunity to cast my primary ballot for the first woman with a real shot to win this thing. Will I really refuse to be a part of that?

Which is why, despite everything I've said about dynasties, and all my reservations about voting for someone who is such a product of the Democratic machine, I'm still thinking about casting my ballot for Hillary. Because in a world where Walmart can refuse to sell a t-shirt with the motto "Someday, a woman will be president" because it's "too controversial", yes, identity politics still matter. Hating that fact doesn't make it any less true.

Of course, a vote for Obama is just as historic in its own way. And in the end, I may well cast my ballot for him.

I don't know whether it's more frustrating or exciting that I still get to be undecided at this late date. I never imagined that my most difficult presidential voting choice would be due to having too many options, rather than not enough.

"Fandom is traditionally a female space" is not some secret code for "We think all men suck and don't want to invite them over to play."

I want to sit down every single person, whatever their gender, who has gone on and on about how OTW is "excluding men" and make them read cereta's essay on "Fandom and Male Privilege" until they get it.

(This post brought to you by one too many idiot rants and wanting an excuse to post a link to the above essay, which I think is worth all of your time.)