Palin’s Wardrobe

The Huffington Post, of all places, has come out with a defense of Sarah Palin’s $150,000 wardrobe and $22,000 in makeup expenses. Their argument is, essentially, that women will be judged by sexist standards so the RNC totally had to spend almost $2K to get their veep to look okay.

What a load of malarkey. Yes, women face double standards, but that standard has less to do with wardrobe than people think. Those snide remarks about Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits were not just about her pantsuits; they were also coded remarks about her thighs. This is not unusual. Criticisms of women’s clothes are often really criticisms of women’s bodies. Sarah Palin’s body is titillating enough to enough men that, as long as her clothes reveal that body sufficiently, it doesn’t much matter where the taffeta suit is from.

Second of all, has no one at the RNC heard of knock-offs? And could not Ms. Palin somehow make do with, say, four or five suits, rather than the plethora of outfits she has? And how does one spend $22,000 on makeup? Does she have a makeup professional traveling with her, applying makeup before she appears at rallies to her fan base with their chants of “Sarah! Sarah!” The fans are the ones who would judge her by a double standard so harsh that if she spent any less on her looks, they would spit on her and vote for Obama the Muslim? Puhhhhhhhhhh-leeeeeeeeeease. –Then again, maybe they would; and the fact that the RNC tacitly acknowledges that and plays into it, showcases exactly how “feminist” they are.

Nope – no excuses. All that happened here is that a wannabe richy who installed a $30,000 tanning bed in her offices got a free $175,000 wardrobe, given her by a bunch of people who don’t even understand what a lot of money that is, and don’t care, and just want the hot chick to look hot, because that’s all they picked her for.

The Hook-Up Culture

Independent Women’s Forum loves to talk about hook-up culture and how it damages women. The latest essay on this subject is a representative entry: Kylie Harrell, Duke student, argues that casual sex takes an emotional toll on women because women produce a hormone during sex called oxytocin. This hormone produces a sense of bonding, which is why women feel “heartbroken” when their male partner doesn’t want to turn a one-night stand into a relationship. Conclusion? “There is a biological explanation for the way you feel and the way he doesn’t feel,” writes Harrell, but this truth is being obscured by a “radical feminist agenda.”

Interesting, but oxytocin also is associated with reduced stress – so, if women are heartbroken the morning after he doesn’t call, they should by the same token recover that much more quickly. (Or, hell, maybe women should just become lesbians / woman-identified women — but something tells New Feminist that that logical extension of Harrell’s argument would be classified as “radical feminism,” so it must be stupid).

Furthermore, focusing on some hormone ignores other explanations for these women’s sadness. Maybe they feel used because they were used, not because they’re chicks.

Men implicitly get a free pass in this article for the highly scientific reason that they’re dudes and dudes do dude stuff. Evidently the conservative-leaning IWF doesn’t believe in free will.

In short, Harrell’s, and the IWF’s, insistence on biologizing everything is questionable and one-sided.

However, having said all that, New Feminist actually agrees – sort of – with Harrell’s conclusion, though not her premises. Casual sex isn’t a good idea. The very definition of casual sex is sex without emotional attachment – that is, using another’s body to pleasure oneself. In a responsible situation, the using is mutual, a bargain struck – I’ll let you use mine if you let me use yours. But it is still using.

New Feminist isn’t a fan of people using people. To NF, this comes under the heading of objectification, which doesn’t get any better just because more people do it, or because people agree to it. If consent were all that mattered, then every battered woman who says, “Well, I was asking for it,” would thereby make her own situation A-OK.

Consent is not enough – objectification is not good. It’s a moral and feminist issue and biology is frankly irrelevant. Is it easier for men to use women and treat them as objects? Interesting, but they still shouldn’t do it. Is it harder for women to use men and treat them as objects? That’s nice, and they shouldn’t do it either. They also shouldn’t give men a free pass and blame their failure to feel good after getting entangled in patriarchy on their lady-hormones.

A Car for Ladies – Excuse Me, a Car-ette!

From the Guardian:

Iran’s biggest motor manufacturer is to take the country’s gender sensitivity to new levels by producing a car specially for women.It will be fitted with features common on the international market but seen as female-specific in Iran’s male-dominated culture. These include an automatic gearbox, electronic parking aids, a navigation system and a jack designed to make it easier to change a wheel, suggesting that women drivers lack the mechanical competence of their male counterparts. Alarms may also be installed to warn of flat tyres. The vehicle will be painted in soft “feminine” colours and include interior designs tailored to women’s tastes. There will also be audiovisual entertainment systems for child passengers.

Iran Khodro, the state-backed manufacturer, said it would put the first models on sale next June to coincide with Iranian women’s day. The car will be part of the Samand range, which has been exported to allied countries such as Syria and Venezuela. However, the women’s car will initially be aimed solely at the Iranian domestic market.

Vahid Najafi, managing director of Iran Khodro’s order unit, said the design was prompted by a sharp increase in women drivers and car owners and was based on research into their preferences and needs. Cars will be built in response to orders from customers.

“Women’s necessities are different from men’s,” Najafi said. “For example, a woman goes shopping, takes children to school – so this car is going to have some visual distinctions that will separate it from other cars. It will be more beautiful. Cheerful and attractive colours will be used – for example red. A series of decoration pieces will be added to the interior, on the dashboard for example. What’s important for women is that the car should be comfortable and handle well.”

The idea is in line with gender separation officially encouraged by Iran’s Islamic authorities. Last year they backed a proposal for a female bicycle designed to conceal the rider’s legs and upper body. Women are discouraged from cycling, mainly to preserve notions of female modesty, and are banned from riding motorcycles, except as passengers.

A women-only taxi service, with women drivers, was recently launched in Tehran and other big cities. Men and women are segregated in buses and on Tehran’s underground.

Iran Khodro last year announced plans for an Islamic car – with a navigation system designed to locate Mecca – to be produced jointly with Malaysia and Turkey.

Frankly, despite the sexist motives of the designers and the crass ones of the manufacterers, these cars sound a lot nicer than whatever dingy, featureless cars the macho sex is awarding itself. Since when is ugliness manly?

“Why aren’t people targeting Joe Biden?!”

“He said FDR was on TV! He said he was shot at! Not criticizing him is sexist and unfair to Sarah Palin!”

1. No, it’s not. HER words are HER responsibility. The “he did it too!” school of defense is – well, second-grade.
2. Biden’s being “shot at” is not much of a news story in a year when Hillary Clinton made the same gaffe, but a) first and b) much more spectacularly. People don’t like to read the same basic story they’ve already heard about a gajillion times. Sorry.
3. At least Biden has heard of FDR. He’s also heard of a lot more than that, like Supreme Court cases. Palin’s not getting flak for mixing her facts up; she’s getting flak for not knowing any facts to mix up.

Conservative Subterfuge

Vote Republican if you want equal pay, suggests the Wall Street Journal. Why? The wage gap is smaller when Republicans are president. Not counting too far back, of course.

Here are the problems with this line of thought:

1. Saying the wage gap is smaller is like saying, Well, he didn’t hit you very hard.
2. The whole idea that the economy does better under Republicans is particularly laughable right now, and always suspect. See 3.
3. Every party magically invokes the concept of delayed effect when it suits them (“We’re just dealing with fallout from the previous administration”). Who’s to say this smaller gap isn’t the result of fallout? Bottom line: this WSJ chappie should consider the causes of his findings (if they’re even accurate). Correlation is not… you know. (You know – he doesn’t.)
4. And finally, let’s say the beautiful labor market will take care of everything. What would be the big deal about taking legal steps too? Geez.
5. And let’s not even get into the other Republican retreat du jour: “Well – well – but Obama pays his women staffers less than men!” Not so. Obama gives equal pay for equal work, he just doesn’t have women at high levels. This is shitty and a reflection of Obama’s problem with sexism, but it a) has nothing to do with any of the above and b) is not technically a wage gap, which is not just about glass ceiling but about unequal pay for equal work (yes, it happens) and the revaluing of work such that what women do is considered less work-y and therefore worth less.

Moronitude is so rampant it’s tiresome.

Christianity and Feminism, Part 3

Women can’t be priests because women weren’t disciples. Right?

To this, New Feminist could reply by arguing that there were women who acted as disciples, blah blah blah. There are some good arguments to be made there, in re: Priscilla and Junia and so on, but let’s skip it and cut to the chase: this whole claim is arrogant.

What, so suddenly the very same people who whine that “if Paul wanted us to take context into account, shouldn’t he have, like, spelled that out for us really clearly and in little words?” – suddenly, these people have no problem figuring out exactly what Jesus’ interior monologue just must have been when he selected disciples: “Judas, no boobies, OK; Martha, good candidate, but boobies, next; Matthew….”

If there were really some mystical difference of essence between men and women that unfitted women for the priesthood, then you’d expect that God and men would be closer in that mystical essence than women. But no… the Bible repeatedly refers to God using feminine parallels and metaphors, and most theologians wouldn’t think twice about asserting God’s nature to be neither masculine nor feminine.

So essentially this disciple bit boils down to: God is both – and more than – male and female, but only men can represent God ’cause I like the male stuff better. Also, I know exactly what Jesus was thinking.

And that is why NF calls this line of thought arrogant – and dumb.

The Gender Wage Gap is REAL

Now that Obama has put out an ad on the gender wage gap, the usual roster of impregnably self-satisfied misogynists has been crawling out of the woodwork to bat for the ludicrous idea that the wage gap is like, totally OK, because men deserve higher pay. Evidently the truth just has to be repeated ad nauseum by as many people as possible, so here we go again:

Some common myths:

Sure, there’s a wage gap, but women take off from work to take care of their children, so what can I tell you?

This is true some of the time. SOME of the time. Often, what actually happens is that employers ask women if they are married and/or have children, and assume that if the answer is yes in either instance, that the women won’t be good employees (you didn’t realize it was legal to ask that, did you? It is, in most states). They are then less likely to be hired except by jobs that do allow for time off, which tend to be shitty-paying jobs. Or, if they are hired, they are paid less.

Men just work harder! And they travel for their companies! (for a recent example of this line of “thought”: Bloggernews)

Sigh. See above. You don’t have the opportunity to travel when your job is, say, being a tanning salon receptionist, and you can’t travel for a company that won’t hire you because they assume that, as a chick, you must be yearning to pop out children and quit your job in a few years.

There couldn’t possibly be real discrimination! C’mon!

Wal-mart, any one? Lilly Ledbetter?

Why didn’t the Fair Pay Act get passed?

Ms.

“I can’t wait to be Mrs. X!!!”

“Of course I am PROUD to be Mrs.!!!!”

Honestly, don’t any of these people realize that by their prancing little logic their husbands/husbands-to-be don’t give a rat’s ass about being married?

Also, what is with people who think, or purport to think, that Ms. is a title for divorcees? Or – even worse – who think that it’s for unmarried women (as opposed to unmarried little girls, who are “Miss”)? More and more, it seems, online forms give only two options: “Mrs” or “Ms,” thus encouraging this idea. A 2003 study finds that younger people are more likely to think this way, and no wonder.

Look, everybody; you don’t like not trumpeting your marital status, fine – trumpet away. Don’t muddy everyone else’s water.

One final note: New Feminist dares anyone to find one example of a person who insisted on calling a woman Ms. Birth Name when s/he knew that that woman preferred Mrs. Husband’s Name. Our editor can, however, show you a stack of mail and cards addressed to Mrs. Husband’s Name by people who know that she prefers – and is – Ms. Birth Name.

They is Singular!

As an English teacher, I’m frustrated…

this isn’t going where you think…

by all the people who use “he” to mean “people,” and then justify it by recourse to The White God of Grammar. For them, New Feminist offers the following excerpt from Steven Pinker’s Language Instinct, which just can’t get enough exposure:

The next time you get corrected for this sin, ask Mr. Smartypants how you should fix the following:

Mary saw everyone before John noticed them.

Now watch him squirm as he mulls over the downright unintelligible “improvement,” Mary saw everyone before John noticed him.

The logical point that you, Holden Caulfield, and everyone but the language mavens intuitively grasp is that everyone and they are not an “antecedent” and a “pronoun” referring to the same person in the world, which would force them to agree in number. They are a “quantifier” and a “bound variable,” a different logical relationship. Everyone returned to their seats means “For all X, X returned to X’s seat.” The “X” does not refer to any particular person or group of people; it is simply a placeholder that keeps track of the roles that players play across different relationships. In this case, the X that comes back to a seat is the same X that owns the seat that X comes back to. The their there does not, in fact, have plural number, because it refers neither to one thing nor to many things; it does not refer at all. The same goes for the hypothetical caller: there may be one, there may be none, or the phone might ring off the hook with would-be suitors; all that matters is that every time there is a caller, if there is a caller, that caller, and not someone else, should be put off.

On logical grounds, then, variables are not the same thing as the more familiar “referential” pronouns that trigger number agreement (he meaning some particular guy, they meaning some particular bunch of guys). Some languages are considerate and offer their speakers different words for referential pronouns and for variables. But English is stingy: a referential pronoun must be drafted into service to lend its name when a speaker needs to use a variable. Since these are not real referential pronouns but only homonyms of them, there is no reason that the vernacular decision to borrow they, their, them for the task is any worse than the prescriptivists’ recommendation of he, him, his. Indeed, they has the advantage of embracing both sexes and feeling right in a wider variety of sentences.

Words can be both singular and plural without changing form – witness sheep and fish. “They” was once indisputably one of those words, until the first grammar book writers decided to make “he” the pronoun of choice for explicitly political reasons.

If only people who – rightly – respected grammar also respected the history of grammar.