Skip to main content

time out

occasionally, you have one of those days where you worry that your brain is just going to explode and run out your ears. this has been such a day.

it's not anything to do with my day personally. i got a little work done around the house, watched team scotland win a football match, got some swatches done for future instalments of "a lip for all seasons" [finished the swatches, in fact], picked up some stuff needed from the grocery store, watched some of the tiny kittens live feed [we're on eleventh hour kitten watch for dorothy], felt guilty about not getting any writing done. about average, really.

nonetheless, i've spent much of the day in white-lipped fury, over a mass media rag that i haven't taken notice of in years. time magazine. why has this recycling bin staple suddenly gotten me so angry? it's because of a little user poll they're conducting to choose the one pop culture word or phrase that needs to be banned in 2015. among the candidates are tween-to-twenty-something staples like "bae", "i can't even...", "said no one ever", "kale" [because, fuck healthy greens already] and "feminism".

wait, what?

that's right. time magazine wants to hear from you if you want the word feminism banned [probably not literally... also, "literally" is one of the words on the list as well]. what the hell? don't worry, time reassures you that wanting to ban "feminism" doesn't mean that you have a problem with the idea of feminism, it's just that you wish bitches would shut up about it. why can't they just be sort of silent, acquiescent feminists? why do they have to act like it's important to speak up about being a successful, strong, proud woman? it's not like sexism still exists or anything.

it's not like some guy who took pictures of an underage girl getting raped and circulated them for laughs, so that she was bullied and tormented until she committed suicide just got off with a slap on the wrist.

it's not like a white, male united states senator demanded to know how a candidate to lead the equal employment opportunities commission can even show up to work with a straight face, because his entire job would consist of trumping up charges against upstanding businesses who like to hire women and people of colour to fill their lowest-paying jobs.

it's not like the amazing feat of landing a robot on a comet was just undermined by a spokesperson wearing a blatantly sexist shirt on national television.

it's not like an open carry advocate just dealt with opposition from "moms against guns" by telling its members to shut up and "put a dick in your mouth".

it's not like it's become a meme to yell "fuck her right in the pussy" at [mostly female] television journalists, because that's obviously the most hilarious thing that anyone could say on a live broadcast, ever.

it's not like a guy who champions choking women and says that a checklist of domestic abuse signs reads like a list of tips for a happy relationship [for a man] is currently on a world tour. [or that forbes magazine hails him as a canary in the free speech coal mine, whose views are basically harmless immaturity.]

and it's not like i just pulled those links from my friends' facebook posts in the last twenty-four hours.

no, what's really an issue is that women are talking about feminism like it's something the rest of the world should notice. like wanting to be treated equally and not judged based on appearance or marital status or any of the other conditions for respect that are imposed on women but not men is just such a downer. and this whole business about wanting to call attention to sexual assault is so tired. what is with these women? why can't they just be silent and let equality happen organically? or just accept the way that things are, because it's better than it used to be?

i'm not personally going to vote in this contest, but part of me is hoping that there will be enough #womenagainstfeminism groupies, pua aficionados and 4chan/ 9gag trolls to select "feminism" as the winner. because i think that would be a nice reminder to the corporate shills at time magazine of what they're pandering to by equating the fight for women's equality with colloquial trends. modern-era feminism has roots extending to seventeenth century dramatist aphra behn and eighteenth century novelist mary wollstoneraft. it has surged in waves and then been driven back [although always, slowly, winning advances] for hundreds of years, been vilified and demonized, been grossly misunderstood [starlet shailene woodley said that she didn't consider herself a feminist because she didn't believe that women should seek to dominate men], but as far as time magazine is concerned, it has the same cultural weight as "bae". [fyi, i may get my wish. "feminism" is currently leading the poll by a considerable margin.]

if ever there was an argument for women with high public profiles to keep avowing their feminism, this is it. [and, let it be noted that much of the list is made up of terms that have been appropriated from minority cultures, to be mocked by a white time employee.]

in the meantime, i'd like to suggest a term of my own that should be banned in the coming year: "time magazine". because if you want to find something that's outlived it's usefulness, that becomes more annoying every time you hear it, that's just an inconsequential piece of pop fluff, then you couldn't do better.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …