MY SHOWWW

Edit

Anti-Wrinkle Injection

Blue Contacts

Face lift and double lid procedure

Hair Growth Serum

Male Enhancement Pill

Nurse

Affluence

Thanatopsis

La Petite Mort

Thank you, Robin Morgan

Some critics have attacked Robin Morgan's article defending Hillary Clinton for its seeming condescension and its failure to address women voters who have decided to vote for Obama.
However, I think this article raises important issues regarding feminism and the treatment of Clinton by the media, the public, and other candidates. Read carefully and hopefully this article will challenge you to rethink the way you see yourself in relation to race and gender in the U.S.

Source: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html

Goodbye To All That (#2) by Robin Morgan

February 2, 2008

Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .

The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.

Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .

Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”

So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?

Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.

I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”

So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.

Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .

—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance. Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.

Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.

Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.

Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.

Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.

Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .

Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”

Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”

I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identifywith Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)

I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?

And goodbye to the ageism . . .

How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?

Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!

We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.

We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.

Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.

So listen to her voice:

“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).

And this voice, age 21, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”

“We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . . searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. . . . [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it.”

She ended with the commitment “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.”

And for decades, she’s been learning how.

So goodbye to Hillary’s second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?

“Our President, Ourselves!”

Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.

Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

As for the “woman thing”?

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

COMME DES GARCONS FOR H&M!!!!!!!!!

http://www.vogue.co.uk/vogue_daily/story/story.asp?stid=51803

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!

MISSING!

ATTENTION!

I am missing my self respect.

I lost it somewhere on the way to San Mateo.

I am now in desperate need of new clothes and korean food to temporarily patch the void.

Books: an alternative to getting things done.

Over finals weekend and throughout finals week, I naturally made it a point to ignore the quickly-approaching deadlines and monstrous final projects looming in the back of my mind. Since I have no T.V. the next best alternatives were sleep or reading--both of which I indulged in quite gratuitously. I finished:

1) Augusten Burrough's latest book Magical Thinking

I want Augusten Burroughs to be my main gay. Having read Dry and Running With Scissors, Magical Thinking doesn't disappoint--I love his painfully honest prose and his ability to reflect upon traumatic and emotionally trying events with clarity and humor....and then there was that time he got back at his free-loading housekeeper by paying his court-ordered fine of a thousand dollars...in pennies. and the other time he sought vengeance upon telemarketers by asking one of them to send him a picture of his dick. hah. oh Augusten.
He's quite adorable. To top it off, he's got a penchant for revenge, he's unabashedly narcissistic, and the KING of passive-aggression (and he has two french bulldogs!!)--he's pretty much me if I were a homosexual white man. Actually, no--I give myself too much credit...I aspire to achieve his mastery of passive-aggression. In the words of Wayne, "I am not worthy."



2) Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections:
Where to begin with Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections. I loved it--I couldn't put it down--his beautifully written and excruciatingly detailed account of an American family in decline was so hard to look away from--for lack of a better idiom--like a car crash in slow motion. It is quite an ambitious novel--using a narrow focus (in this case, the Lambert family) to cast larger meditations on themes such as mediocrity, the American dream, the disintegration of the nuclear family, generational gaps, scholarly fads (particularly critical theory....aaaaah), clinical depression, self-medication in all its forms, the ethics of anti-depressants, late capitalism, suburbia, sexual frustration, retirement, assisted living, life insurance, suicide, social politics...the list goes on. The Corrections is a timely novel for the cultural age we live in. I was particularly intrigued by Franzen's character Chip, an academic who concentrates in literary theory. His character becomes disillusioned by the seeming irrelevance of theory in contemporary culture and the obsolescence of the humanities in general. I realized then that my feelings of inadequacy with my very "impractical" major stems from self-denial and my fear of my work and all that I am passionate about will amount to nothing of consequence. but then again, as I believe this book suggests, or at least brings to the table for discussion, the same can be said about life and purpose--that we are a part of a something larger. What I like about this book (and simultaneously frustrates me) is that Franzen avoids coming to any conclusions about the issues he's raised---although I think he makes some judgments--he tactfully avoids any pitfalls of preaching or airs of being "above" the profound confusion at the heart of contemporary American culture--the product of centuries of "progress." I have come to some conclusions, however--I don't want kids. I want to die when I am no longer completely sentient or have progressed so far along in a terminal illness that I am in constant pain or can not control my body. Does this make me pro-Kevorkian?

YOHJI YAMAMOTO, I WORSHIP YOU

Wowowoowowowoowowowoowowowowoowowowowowowoowowowowowoowowowowow

can someone please introduce me to this man???

Funny Games

I was so excited for Michael Haneke's remake (of his 1998 film of the same title) of "Funny Games" this time set in America instead of Deutschland. I did not see the original Funny Games, but I did see Haneke's Cache from 2006 which was one of the best films i've seen that critiques surveillance and elevates it to the level of moral tragedy. I love German movies/directors. Even if it is a "romantic" movie, there is are elements of either cold intellectual distance, pragmatism, or deconstruction of the relationship between viewer and film (or all four) in the best movies. Cache was superb and i'm thinking of purchasing the DVD so I can watch it again. However, I have been hesitant to shell out the money: one, it is expensive because it is a foreign film that was on limited release in the states; two, I don't know if I want to invest in a movie that I will probably not feel like watching over and over (it's quite heavy), and three, I already spent a crap load of money this quarter.
However, Funny Games opened in America to mixed reviews and scores a mediocre 64% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Not too surprised, I guess--because for one, it is a remake and an American version at that. Something is lost when you separate the original from the remake by ten years (and in that ten years movies such as Saw, Hostel, The Descent etc. have exhausted--and numbed our sensitivity to, and novelty of--the sadistic, shock-horror genre--effectively lowering the spectacle of violence to mere economics. And keep in mind that the original movie was intended for a German audience, whose cinematic tradition and visual vocabulary are quite different from those stateside) and release it to an American audience that has a tradition of popular interest in voyeuristic, shock-horror films. And Tim Roth, Tim Roth--pretty much gets owned in this movie. Tim Roth is Tim Roth because he has an edge--and I suppose his role in this movie renders him a butter knife. Perhaps they could have cast someone like...Jude Law or Eric Bana or Gerard Butler or something. I think, however, Naomi Watts is probably a good choice. Seeing her turn in Mullholland Dr. makes me think she would be effective in this role--she does the tortured, modern day hitchcock lady gone wrong quite well.
Well. I still want to see it. and the original. I probably won't like it since I think that pretty much only Tarantino can tackle gratuitous, spectacular violence in film with finesse. And even then. I think that his more recent attempts are a bit strained. Funny Games would probably be more innovative and interesting to me if I saw it ten years ago. But whatever. We'll see if I can handle it--perhaps i'll watch the German version first.