Fox News Boosts Preposterone to the Max

By (O)CT(O)PUS

I don’t think Greta or Megyn will be fetching coffee for Erick and his sidekicks anytime soon. Here is the latest imbroglio from Fox News, a gender comedy in five acts:

Act 1.  Breadwinner Moms: Mothers Are the Sole or Primary Provider in Four-in-Ten Households with Children:

“These “breadwinner moms” are made up of two very different groups: 5.1 million (37%) are married mothers who have a higher income than their husbands, and 8.6 million (63%) are single mothers” (Pew Research Center).

Act 2.  Fox News: Rise In Female Breadwinners Is A Sign Of Society's Downfall:

“You're seeing the disintegration of marriage, you're seeing men who were hard hit by the economic recession in ways that women weren't. But you're seeing, I think, systemically, larger than the political stories that we follow every day, something going terribly wrong in American society …” (Juan Williams).

“When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role” (Erick Erickson).

Act 3.  Fox News Host Rips Sexist Male Colleagues:

“Have these men lost their minds? (and these are my colleagues??!! oh brother… maybe I need to have a little chat with them) (next thing they will have a segment to discuss eliminating women’s right to vote?) …” (Greta Van Susteren).

Act 4.  Some Women Believe They Can Have It All, And That's The Crux Of The Problem:

“ I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture … One notable exception is the lion, where the male lion looks flashy but behaves mostly like a lazy beta-male MSNBC producer” (Erick Erickson).

Act 5.  Fox News Host Demolishes Erick Erickson and Lou Dobbs Over Sexist Comments:

"I didn't like what you wrote one bit. To me you sound like somebody who's judging and then wants to come out and say 'I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, and now let me judge judge judge, and by the way it's science it's science it's science it's fact fact fact fact. Well, I have a whole list of studies saying your science is wrong and your facts are wrong” (Megyn Kelly).

At Fox News, you can always count on the slogan "Fair and Balanced" to serve as a cover for "stupid."  Here is how other networks covered the Pew Research story:  Unlike Fox, CNN And MSNBC Turned to Female Panelists for Comments on "Breadwinner" Study.  Instead of R-2, E-2, and Lou-too, perhaps what Fox News really needs is a comment troll:

“Because who better than men to comment on women's issues? Sheesh, you libtards understand nothing. Obviously a noted mysoginst [sic] like Eric Ericson's [sic] opinion is far more germaine [sic] to the debate than some broad's. oh, and tell the dames to vote Republican, if they know what's good for them, rant, rant, foam, foam, blather, blather, my old man's a chipmunk, etc, etc... "  (remKuzucu).

Rape, and a Little Reality

So, another sad example of male privilege and victim-blaming came to light last week, when Canadian teen Rehtaeh Parsons hanged herself after the RCMP decided that it didn't have enough to act on, and closed the case. Despite one of the four boys having circulated evidence of him committing the crime (which also constitutes child pornography, incidentally). Despite the fact that it took hacker group Anonymous about two hours to find the names of the four boys involved.

Backed against a wall, the RCMP agreed to reopen the case. So, bravo, Anonymous.

This case is remarkably similar to the Steubenville, Ohio rape case, in which two teens took advantage of a drunk underage girl to abuse her when she couldn't fight back. In both cases, the victim was blamed for being a slut, when they were both unconscious (or all but) at the time. In both cases, the police tried to cover it up, and members of Anonymous wouldn't let them.

The Far Right (and some other idiots) practically dryhumped the Steubenville story, trying to empathize with the rapists and saying it was the victim's fault (because, after all, all men rape - they can't help themselves, right?).

Easily the weirdest reaction, though, came from a libertarian college professor, who put it this way:

Let’s suppose that you, or I, or someone we love, or someone we care about from afar, is raped while unconscious in a way that causes no direct physical harm — no injury, no pregnancy, no disease transmission. (Note: The Steubenville rape victim, according to all the accounts I’ve read, was not even aware that she’d been sexually assaulted until she learned about it from the Internet some days later.) Despite the lack of physical damage, we are shocked, appalled and horrified at the thought of being treated in this way, and suffer deep trauma as a result. Ought the law discourage such acts of rape? Should they be illegal?...

As long as I’m safely unconscious and therefore shielded from the costs of an assault, why shouldn’t the rest of the world (or more specifically my attackers) be allowed to reap the benefits?

Now, I'm not going to try to refute his argument directly (if you aren't sociopathic, the answer should be obvious). What I'm going to point out is this:

A. Following that logic out to its obvious conclusion, there is no private possession of any item. This is more extensive than anything ever suggested by any follower of communism or socialism.

By this reasoning, nobody should ever be allowed to take their keys with them after they drive to work; while you're in your office, other people should be allowed to use your car. After all, if they refill the gas and return it before you leave for the day, there's no problem, right?

Nor can you lock your door: people should be allowed to have parties in your house while you aren't there, shouldn't they? As long as they clean up after themselves, no harm, no foul, right?

(Let's just pretend that there's no such thing as "depreciation" in the tax code: these are his thought experiments, not mine.)

B. Would you like to guess why the Right Wing is losing the idiotically-named "War on Women"? It's fascinating how this argument joins up with the abortion question: it's all the same. Dr Landsburg doesn't expand on his rape-apology in the way that I just did, because that's where it breaks down. In his view, not only is a woman's body just property (and not property that she controls, by the way), but it isn't even as important as his house, or his car. She's just there to be used by other people.

This is why the Right Wing is roughly as popular as chlamydia in most polls.

Disinterring Ophelia

"It is the false steward, that stole his master's daughter."

Bristol Palin's coupe de mere this week, the ubiquitous airing of Mel Gibson's verbal sexual abuse, and my accidental viewing of Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" video have convinced me that it's time to re-empower those who mother adolescent girls. I am reared up over the cynical forces that undermine and threaten to bury the tender developing selves of our daughters, so break out your copy of Hamlet (or watch any filmed version other than Gibson's); it's time to disinter Ophelia.

In Shakespeare's Hamlet, Ophelia's fate demonstrates the fragility of a young girl's hold on stability and safety. In adolescence, she begins to live for the approval of her father and of Hamlet, with whom she has fallen in love. Hamlet is pre-occupied with his own demons and rejects her; subsequently she loses her grip on reality, dresses in her best and drowns herself. Hamlet comes upon the gravediggers; here, Shakespeare inserts a cruelly ironic moment of graveyard humor before he allows Hamlet to discover for whom the grave is intended. Ophelia will haunt you forever once you know her story.

In 1994, Mary Pipher, PhD, published Reviving Ophelia: Saving The Selves of Adolescent Girls as a wakeup call to families, fingering modern media and culture for increases in the rate of depression, anorexia, and suicide attempts in teen girls.  The book made its title a household phrase and Mary Pipher was deluged with speaking requests. I recommended the book to dozens of families who were trying to save their girls from illnesses exacerbated by America's sexualized marketing of teens. It pleases me to report that many families realized how wisely, carefully, and persistently they were going to have to fight in that cause; they were able to shut down the gushing well of exploitation that was drowning their daughters. 


Other families, sadly, felt helpless; their attitude was, "If she doesn't get it on MTV (or through the internet, magazines, books, etc.) at home, she'll just get it at her girlfriends' houses." They didn't realize that, if they could set and hold strong boundaries at home, they could give their daughter a critical safe port. The daughter could then internalize the concept of herself as precious. The sense of being worthy of careful nurturing, of possessing a selfhood worth fighting for, could operate to help a girl protect herself as she moved toward womanhood. 

I happened to see segments of Stefani Germanotta's (Lady Gaga) music video for "Alejandro" (a worthless waste of audio perception) on the screen of an adjoining exercise bike at the gym. The rider of that bike looked to be about 40 and perfectly normal, but she was glued to the video.  I have to admit, it was the proverbial train wreck; my neighbor's screen was so hard to ignore, I almost missed the news on my own screen that the BP oil well had just stopped gushing. Imagine what the Gaga video would be like for a thirteen year old girl! You can see it on YouTube here, but approach with caution. It's not that the video is objectionable in a new way (it pretty much struck me as picking up where Madonna left off), but that it is objectionable in the same old way.

I often despair at how each generation has to relearn lessons that the previous generation sweated to master.  Not only did absolutely NOTHING change in the exploitation of teenage girls since Pipher's book was published, but the trend has accelerated. The age of menarche has declined across the decades, and secondary sexual characteristics (telarche) appear even earlier due to rising obesity in children; tracking along with these changes, America's media, driven by an unchecked profit motive, reaches further into childhood to sexualize and exploit our daughters.

In Bristol Palin's passive aggressive decision to alert Us magazine, instead of her parents, about her decision to marry the father of her son, I see the fear and anger of a daughter whose family failed to protect her adequately. Bristol learned from her mother to live an overexposed life, and she applied that lesson to her television debut on the reality show "The Secret Life of The American Teenager." Specialness that special can only be learned. To me, it all further demonstrates the Palin family's willingness to exploit its most vulnerable members relentlessly. The Palins seek celebrity rather than substance.

There is a segment of the country's middle and lower class women who slavishly worship Bristol's mother; in their idolization of her, in their--typically inaccurate--identification with her, I see a feminine cohort that Feminism has failed.  Perhaps especially when they try to wrap the cloak of Feminism around themselves.


In the huge popularity amongst teens of Stephani Germanotta's pornographic music video, I see another failed crop of adolescents, both male and female. The lyrics of "Alejandro" are explicitly aimed at a young audience: "She's not broken, She's just a baby. But her boyfriend's like a dad, just like a dad/ and all those flames that burned before him. Now he's gonna fight your fight, gonna cool the bad."


Now, listen to Mary Pipher, PhD.  The video will sound and look a little dated, but its message is more applicable now than when it was filmed.




Who do you know that needs to hear it?

Sexist Sex

Oh, for goodness sake.

A short while ago I checked my aol email account & was greeted on aol's home page by the trivial celebrity headline of the day. Apparently some female celebrity (never heard of her) is pregnant and - oh wait! - HERE'S THE JUICY PART! - she's unmarried! Wow!

Good grief, I thought. Who the heck cares? Now - part of my grumbling is due to a free-floating irritation with our celebrity saturated culture. But the other part of my grumbling has to do with the sexist, holier than thou gasping nature of the headline over the fact that she is unmarried.

This is a new concept? Single, unwed motherhood? Public figure unwed single motherhood? Remember the broohaha over the Murphy Brown pregnancy about which Dan Quayle so famously (stupidly) opined? At the time the issue was forced into open discussion as a public debate erupted over the definition of family, over the puritanical shaming of women "caught pregnant" out of wedlock, etc. That was over a decade ago but apparently we have not moved on from our gasping at such news - at least in the media driven, sensation generating headlines of pop culture.

And dare I ask the question? Where is the headline about the father of this soon to be born child? Just once I would like to see a headline gasping out the words - HOLLYWOOD CELEB JOHN SMITH IS GOING TO BE A FATHER BUT HE'S UNMARRIED! or better yet - HOLLYWOOD CELEB JOHN SMITH HAS IMPREGNATED HIS GIRLFRIEND!

If we are going to insist on puritanical, sensational headlines to fuel our pop culture appetite then we can at least stop being so sexist about it. Let's at least strive for an egalitarian approach to our puritanical shaming.

On a final note - I actually don't think that all that many people (the RIGHT excepted) care that much about the fact that this celebrity is unmarried & pregnant. What I do find fascinating, however, is that the media continually tries to play on old puritanical ideas of shaming to generate sensation about the story they are trying to sell. The extent to which we are suckers for this is debatable.

Explaining My Last Post

I perhaps seemed a bit cranky with my last post. I perhaps seemed to be a bit down on the male sex. Actually – nothing could be further from the truth.

My last post was a satirical, passive aggressive swipe NOT at men but at EXTREME, man-hating radical feminists.

I am NOT a radical feminist. In fact, I am a mild-mannered feminist – believe it or not! Let me clarify – in my personal definition – one is a feminist if one believes that women have the right to live their lives equitably with men and if one actively supports women in doing so. By this definition – men may be feminists.

Now there are those who would criticize such a definition for not being politically specific “enough” – yes, well, but that is where the trouble can begin to start. When we start to define a philosophical point of view too narrowly, drawing the boundaries a bit too snugly – we begin to become exclusive. We begin to become intolerant of those that do not meet our narrow criteria. To my way of thinking – this can begin to become counter-productive. Of course all feminists are not going to entirely agree about this or that. Do Democrats all always agree? Republicans? Of course not. Humans & human nature are far too complex. What is important is to keep in mind our common goals for a better, fairer world.

And this is where my frustration with EXTREME radical feminism begins. The term “radical feminism” basically refers to a brand of feminism that believes that it is not possible to work within patriarchy in order to bring about change. And therefore the patriarchy & the patriarchs (you men) need to be replaced by women. This has always made me a bit nervous as it seems to be privileging one sex over another. Just a different sex this time. Dangerously close to being an example of reverse sexism. However, I’ve usually been able to at least philosophically engage some of its arguments in the spirit of moving the whole issue of women’s equality forward.

BUT – what I am encountering more & more in the blogosphere is a very extreme form of this philosophy. A blatantly MAN HATING strain. And, as if this wasn’t bad enough, many of these women are also rude & unkind to any woman who dares to disagree with them. I have seen this occur in more than one comment thread on more than one blog. They make fun of us women who believe men can be part of the solution rather than the problem. They ridicule us women who enjoy sex with men. (Some claim to be “political lesbians” – which means that they loathe sex with men but feel no desire sexually for women so then, I guess, are largely asexual except for masturbating - maybe. I have no problem with such a lifestyle choice – but I resent their implications about the rest of us who are desiringly heterosexual as if some how that means we are selling out feminism).

Such ill will towards their fellow women distresses me beyond words. I’m not kidding. It angers & saddens me. With such behavior we are making each other the problem, the enemy. This is nuts! And what the hell does such an exclusive club accomplish? It is counter-productive.

It makes me angry – so angry that I feel myself thinking awful things about these extreme radical feminists which means I am going against my own principles of always trying to be supportive of other feminists.

Now – lest anyone think these are just yelling, ignorant hotheads – no they are not. What is unsettling is that many of them are clearly well-educated & know how to frame an argument well.

Finally, I have been readings feminist blogs on & off for a couple of years. Whenever screaming & yelling begins – whether between men & women or women & women – I have often wondered whether the free & open forum for the expression of thought that the blogoshpere provides is really of benefit to feminist discourse in general. I worry sometimes that the anonymity afforded by the blogosphere allows for so much bad behavior that it is dragging such discussions & their participants down into an irretrievably polarizing muck.

SOOOO – I do not want to eat males – squid or human. Some of my favorite creatures are male – always have been & I hope always will be. I hope my satirical angst caused no offense.

Sorry - But I Am An Angry Feminist Today

Not to be a divisive downer at holiday time, but Katha Pollitt offers some troubling food for thought on the issue of Rick Warren & the inauguration.

To be blunt - As a feminist - I am sick & tired of men such as this being held up as "OK" - & what better way to say that someone is "OK" than to give them such an international stage. And don't, Mr. Obama, talk to me about the need to make nice with his sort. Don't talk to me about the need for us all to overcome our differences. NO! It's time for the Rick Warrens of the world to learn how to make nice with us! HIS SORT needs to learn to overcome OUR differences. I am sick & tired of having to do their work for them because all that means is that THEY WIN! Much of this election was about the fact that the Warrens & Dobsons of the world were becoming more shrill! Why the hell are we appeasing them?

No - I will not be nice or quiet about this. I have been being asked by my society to let male sexists off the hook ever since I was a girl. I've been told for decades to be patient - that change takes time. Well - I am sick of it! I am tired of waiting for some kick-back - like full respect & equality in my society - for my peaceful efforts. For women, Warren is a disrespectful choice (& for other "groups" as well.)

I am such a tired, worn out feminist today . . .

The Lucas Legacy

Many moons ago, in a galaxy far far away - a teenage girl named Squid went to see STAR WARS. She was so enthralled that she went to see the film 6 more times before summer's end. That fall, when back in school, she even wrote an essay for an English class assignment on Darth Vader. No kidding.

That same squidly girl would avidly await each of the subsequent 2 sequels. Decades later, as a squidly woman, she would stand in line for tickets to see the three original films - re-released onto the big screen - one more time. However, she did not watch her beloved films with the same eyes as she did as a teenaged girl. As STAR WARS played out before her eyes this time she began to think - wait a minute - how come every humanoid except Princess Leia is a white male? Can't people of color or even women! drive fighter jets? Or, at least, operate the controls back at headquarters? What do you mean, G. Lucas, that your awesome fantastical world is no more enlightened than mine?! I do not remember it so. I was once thrilled by Leia - the very concept of Leia. She was one of the first strong, do-it-yourself type of female characters I had ever seen (sadly) by the time I was a teenager. She was inspiring! She was AWESOME!!!! Now she seems, well, token-like in a sea of white men.

As does black Lando Calrissian, now, of THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK.

Sigh

It's hard to go back onest one eyes have been opened.

As I watched the 3 films of old unfold before my eyes on the big screen, I willfully tried to silence the complaints of my enlightened, feminist mind, to fully engage the film, to recapture myself of old. It only half worked. Maybe. The experience of seeing these films again on the big screen was fun - but the magic was gone.

To his credit - in the face of such complaints from "special interest" groups - Lucas did present a somewhat more "enlightened" view of humanoids in the subsequent 3 installments (parts 1, 2, & 3).

So what's brought on all of this Squidly angst? My child, with light saber at the ready, is currently engaged in combat with evil droids in our living room. As I type this post, its familiar sabery sounds fill the air, conjuring up memories of Obi Wan Kenobi in my mind. Six installments later, G. Lucas' CLONE WARS has now captured the imagination of my child's generation. I asked my child recently - are there any female characters in the CWs? Used to the question by now, said child responded - oh yeah, there are some. Some? mmmmm

I'm so suspicious, jaded even, on the whole subject these days.

In time, said child will no doubt see the original 3 films (parts 4, 5, & 6). Part of me looks forward to introducing my child to a wonderful part of my imaginative past, though part of me hopes the earlier films do not re-inscribe my child with certain narrow views of humankind. It's the same problem with children's books of old . . .

So G. Lucas' wonderful - I mean that sincerely - world of Star Wars lives on in my home. Trying to change with the times, G. Lucas is now capturing the imaginations of another generation of children - I hope - I fervently hope, anyway, that girls are as captured by the mythic world of Lucas' mind as are boys. I HOPE parents do not convey to them that such stuff is just for boys. Though I have my doubts. I actually think the gender coding of toys, movies, etc. has gotten worse, not better. Even my child is aware of it without prompting from me. Another post for another day . . .

So as I depart to go & assess the droid carnage in my living room I will imagine myself as Princess Leia - patiently picking up the pieces of the chaos wrought by men (Luke & Han). She had a great line in STAR WAS as she grabbed a weapon from one of them quipping - "This is some rescue. Either of you have a real plan for getting us out of here?!"

Ha! I will forever have a forgiving feminist heart for Lucas because of that line! Oh so sarcastically delivered by Carrie Fisher.

Editing Feminism To Suit

This is incredibly disturbing. Apparently Conservapedia is not enough to keep certain extremist (misogynistic) elements happy.

I read this post - Wikipedia & Feminism at Feminist Law Professors in dismay & utter disbelief. DISMAY that the "free & open" sharing philosophy of Wikipedia is being so callously abused in the name of misogyny. UTTER DISBELIEF that our court system thinks Wikipedia is a citable, verifiable source. WHAT!? For god's sake! I lecture my students every semester about the fact that Wikipedia is NOT a verifiable source. A helpful easy reference tool at times, yes, but completely unadjudicated.

Do I need to personally lecture the US Court system every Fall & Spring as well?!

As an educator I struggle continuously to try to get the plugged-in generation to appreciate & understand that they can not google the world, that libraries exist, that "copyright" is still a legal concept, etc etc etc. The problem is that there is so much "open sharing" of easily accessible info that I honestly don't think they stop to think about the ethics & reliability of how they use info they find online. These are tricky times in this regard in academia. Plagiarism is on the rise because it is almost so easy (so they think) that they don't realize how wrong it is. There is an ethical disconnect that is very real. Not their fault sometimes. They are responding to the cues they are receiving from their plugged-in world.

SO!! I am thoroughly annoyed to find out that I am being undermined by the US Court system which is apparently now validating Wikipedia - & who only knows what next.

As for the misogynists trolling Wikipedia and "informationally" preying on feminism - I am beyond words. Aghast. Though sadly I am not surprised. I try so hard to NOT be cynical - but in the face of such behavior - it is very hard.

It rattles my world to think that a student of mine might naively believe something misrepresented ON PURPOSE on Wikipedia about feminism. My mind just can't go there.

When Politics Become Personal

I am angry at Sarah Palin. No – to be fair & more to the point – I am mad at John McCain & his choice of SP for VP. I am angry at the idea of Sarah Palin. Because of her nomination I have yelled at one friend & been reduced to tears by another.

Feminism is personal. This election is personal.

The first friend wrote something about Palin & I “loudly” in an e-mail informed this friend that I was sick of hearing about the woman & couldn’t handle reading or discussing anything about her. It was a heated e-mail. Not my best moment. But it was honest. This friend accidentally got in the way of my own personal war with SP’s nomination.

The second friend this weekend asked me what the problem was with feminists & Palin. As carefully & gingerly as I could, I explained my personal feminist views on the subject knowing that this friend was a conservative republican. Yes – I have such a friend. A friend, a friendship that I value. This friend’s response to me was to basically accuse me of being a “so-called feminist” guilty of being blinded by feminist ideology.

The first friendship, due to kind understanding, has survived. I have been forgiven. The other friendship is holding on by a frayed thread at best. I have been a feminist since I was 13 years old. No kidding. Well over 30 years later - to be called a “so-called feminist” – there is nothing that a friend could say to me that would wound me more & bring tears to my eyes. These words were not said to me in jest.

Now lest this post cast me as a drooping female who can’t take the heat, who gets the vapors all too easily & who needs to lighten up – remember what I said. Feminism is personal. For female feminists especially, this election is hard – extremely hard. Maintaining objectivity & clarity of mind – which is so important – is hard. Not impossible, but it is hard. I honestly & frankly admit it.

At work last week I met with some colleagues about what we could do as a group to respond to the SP nomination from the feminist point of view before the election. It was a light-hearted meeting on the surface. Sarcastic remarks filled the air. Sarcasm laced with barely suppressed frustration & dread of what might be. There were men present at this meeting – a stronger sign of the hope for feminism than SP’s nomination could ever aspire to be. If men keep appearing as fellow feminists at meetings of feminists then the times ARE changing - and in more profound, REAL ways than putting an ANTI-FEM on a white house wannabe ticket.