Rock This Town November 13, 2012Posted by FCM in feminisms, gender roles, health, logic, politics, pop culture.
Tags: handmaidens, rock this town, sandra fluke, sarah palin, stray cats
does anyone notice a difference when female vocalists cover this song, as compared to the original version where a man-band performs the exact same thing? heres the original manly version:
maybe its just me, but im pretty sure that the women are actually talking about rocking. this town. and that the man isnt, and therefore — since its his song — this song isnt a song about rocking. this town. its a song about something else entirely.
we have text, and subtext, you see. text, and context. text, and pretext. the women are saying the words, but it just doesnt mean the same thing when they say it, because women arent rapey bastards swinging their male privilege — to rape and impregnate females — around and making rape culture and calling it culture. women are something else entirely.
being that this is the case — and it is — i am just not going to get that excited about a woman who stumps for right-wing men by “covering” mens anti-abortion platform. in fact, i am willing to give right-wing women the benefit of the doubt that when they say it, even when they parrot mens words exactly, the womens meaning is somewhat different. i am willing to believe that unlike right-wing men, anti-abortion right-wing women really are talking about babies, and normalizing womens reproductive function rather than pathologizing it, and generally take into consideration a female perspective, including what it takes to reduce the harm to women of misogynistic and male-centric policies and practices under patriarchy.
the fact that it will not be womens intent, meaning, or interpretation of the words that carries the day and informs the political policy and practice — it will be mens — is not womens fault. when men say “rock this town” it is mens meaning and interpretation that will carry the day, and impact the culture, even if that meaning is so misogynistic and offensive that most women would never even conceive of it. and it often is. which is the danger to women of covering male bands, and stumping for male-centric politics too.
ps. sandra fluke is a handmaiden too, for stumping for leftist politics and for not telling the world exactly *why* women as a class so desperately need birth control. and im not that excited about that, either, although the inconsistent policy and logic-fail of calling out palin but not fluke (or any number of left-wing dickpleasers like oh say gloria steinem) is a bit obvious. that is all.
That’s So Totes 70s! June 29, 2012Posted by FCM in feminisms, politics, pop culture, trans, WTF?.
Tags: catharine mackinnon, declaration of independence, mary daly, sheila jeffreys
1770′s to be exact!
full text of the declaration of independence below. its still relevant! celebrated, even! because men’s work isnt expected to change and evolve constantly, to accept the trends of the day or put on a pretty face, whatever that means, in whatever time or place. men’s foundational documents (declarations and yes — manifestos) are not denied, shunned, wrongly paraphrased, endlessly parsed or not parsed at all — even when they should be — watered down and ground up and obliterated to the point that they are ethereal nothingness, losing the plot. men’s foundational documents dont even have to recognize that women exist, and they are still valid, you see. it was an accident of language, it wasnt deliberate — even when it was.
when men build patriarchal foundations, the foundations are allowed to stand, and if anything, its the house that gets tinkered with and not the foundation (you know, like recognizing the existence of women — at the insistence of women). indeed, womens responses to men’s patriarchal foundations — when we are even allowed a response — is the window dressing and the furniture and the dishes and the towels. we decorate men’s patriarchal houses, literally and more literally. we attempt to make ourselves comfortable there. they allow us to do this somewhat.
when women build feminist foundations, like the works of sheila jeffreys, mary daly, and catharine mackinnon, men drop bombs on them and reduce our foundations to bombed-out, smoking craters. at least, they try to do this. some of us are resisting, but when our work has been thoroughly debunked by the people who get to determine such things, what does that mean for us? our foundations are destroyed, reduced to holes and rubble. we sit along side of them and weep, but that is not all we do. we decide that architecture itself is patriarchal, it must be. holding that truth to be self-evident, we work from there.