You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘gender’ tag.

Swoosh swoosh swoosh. Corduroy trousers, the gentle zipping sussurating sound as I stroll through the neighborhood. When I reach the main street, my steps are faster, and the sound steps up: zizz zizz zizz, this girl means business!

As a child, I loved corduroy. I loved the contrast of textures, the velvety stripes and the stern, plain valleys between them. I loved their toughness. I loved the word: cord-u-roy. And I loved the sounds as I walked: swoosh, zizz, zoop.

Then adolescence arrived, with its attendant self-tortures. Suddenly, the sounds (swoosh, zizz, zoop!) only meant painful, scorching body awareness: legs! I have legs! They swoosh when I walk! Gaaaaah, how mortifying! Totally. For years, I eschewed corduroy, to avoid the swoosh that told the world “I have a body! I have legs! I have a body! It sings when I walk!”

Years later, mindful of all the bodily risks and near-misses between then and now, I happily announce: I have a body! It sings when I walk!

Corduroy trousers, I love you. And you love me back. I know you do, because you whisper it to me: swoosh swoosh swoosh.

If you’re still not using Ask Metafilter, you’re missing out.
You’re missing intense and geeky discussions of specific word usage and shifts in the language.

You’re missing fun and useful threads of advice, like this one on getting through the winter.

You’re missing semi-sociological conversations about power dynamics and gendered space, like this question asking “What happens when men pass each other on the sidewalk?”:

Help me understand the power dynamics in play when two men pass each other on the sidewalk.
Over the last few years I’ve started to get an inkling that there’s a whole separate silent conversation happening between men on the street that I, as a woman, am not really ever aware of. How they make eye contact, how much space they allow for each other to pass, who moves aside, etc. When someone bumps me with their arm I assume it’s accidental; I’m starting to think such things between men are not always so (at least if the number of almost-fistfights my ex got into are any indication).

I realize much of this probably happens on an unconscious level, but I’d love to hear any explanations or rules anyone can lay out, and whether this is a constant thing or contextual.

The ensuing discussion is fascinating and in some places contentious.

Anyone can read Ask Metafilter, and if you pay the $5 cover, you can join, ask one question each week, and give advice all the live-long day.

54. All’s Well That Ends Well, by William Shakespeare.
After reading Twelfth Night, I realized I have perhaps been giving the comedies short shrift, so I am revisiting them. All’s Well That Ends Well is not, to my mind, as charming, balanced, and rich as Twelfth Night, and [spoiler!] Helena’s determination to have and hold that schlumph of a man is puzzling. She’s charming, intelligent, loyal, and sweet-tempered; he is an ass. What a waste.

55. How To Keep Kosher, by Lisë Stern.
As the subtitle says, this is a comprehensive guide to kashering the home kitchen. Stern’s clear, step-by-step instructions make this potentially overwhelming task seem manageable. She does include surprisingly little discussion of kitniyot, which is a fascinating issue, and hotly contested.

For #56, I’m counting two as one, thinking that properly represents the proportion of each that made any damn sense to me. Faith and I agree: linguistics is hard.
56a. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things, by George Lakoff.
I’ve been meaning to read this for years, enticed by its title, as who would not be? Despite the juicy title, this is one of the driest damn things I’ve ever read — and I’m an archaeology student, for cryin’ out loud. Lakoff (not unreasonably) expects the reader to have some very basic knowledge of both linguistics and cognitive science, and further expects his often quite abstract models and assertions to be transparent without the benefit of examples. Examples do bulk up a text, but often they are necessary. DO YOU HEAR ME, Lakoff?

56b. A Mouthful of Air: Language and Languages, Especially English, by Anthony Burgess.
This is both highly approachable and largely unreadable; Burgess fills the text with thrills, buzzes, and shudders. So contagious is his enthusiasm that the reader almost fails to notice how slippery and unsound his logic seems to be. Um, as far as I can tell. There are those better positioned to judge, of course.

57. Bel Canto, by Ann Patchett.
Gripping and lyrical, but its effect was evanescent. I spent a week fervently recommending this to family, then completely forgot its existence.

58. Case Histories, by Kate Atkinson.
Meandering, but more engrossing and less dreary than Behind The Scenes at the Museum. This is why so many friends have recommended her writing.

59. Tales of the Night, by Peter Høeg.
Feh, I give up.

60. Why We Do It: Rethinking Sex and the Selfish Gene, by Niles Eldredge.
The entire work is based on a series of fallacies: that altruism presents a “Darwinian conundrum” (pg. 176), which Dawkins, Blaffer Hrdy, and others have repeatedly shown it does not; that an adaptive trait is an innately good or desirable trait; that evolutionarily devised impulses dictate (rather than influence) behavior. Sloppy thinking is infuriating, particularly from a scientist, and Eldredge compounds his sins by writing abominably.
61. Life Before Man, by Margaret Atwood.
A 1970s Margaret Atwood novel about open marriage? I deserve everything I got.

62. Women and Ghosts, by Alison Lurie.
Great fun to read; Lurie seems to have had great fun writing it as well.

63.

First, Barbie™ body parts as fine feminist jewelry. I see.

Also, Mattel introduces Inuit Legend Barbie™. Disappointingly, she is not clad in the traditional amauti, but gussied up in a caribou-pelt ball gown affair. She won’t get far on the tundra in that.

Y’all, please don’t email to complain about the high level of Barbie™-related postings lately. I imagine things will get back to normal soon, and by normal I of course mean non-stop postings about cannibalism.

From the fine folks at Mattel, the matador Barbie®!
[Link via Scribbling Woman.]

Does this mean we can look forward to Cockfight Ken® and Bearbaiting Skipper®? This is going to be the best Christmas ever!

#11. Drawing On the Right Side of the Brain, by Betty Edwards.

The professor leading my introductory drawing class is more interested in providing us a place to draw and giving us enthusiastic praise than in teaching us techniques, so I turned to this classic for help, sure that it would contain novel tips and exercises to expand my range. Eh.

For the total novice, this book would be a boon. For a moderately experienced or moderately talented artist, the exercises are a reminder, not an awakening. That can certainly be valuable, but I have already internalized truisms like draw what you see, not what you know, and am ready to move on to, for example, the formulas by which we create three-point perspective. Any suggestions?

#12. The House of Mirth, by Edith Wharton.

As always, Wharton is dry, witty, and displays a masterful economy of language. The book itself is beautifully balanced, with the playful manipulations of Book I echoed more darkly in Book II. This deeply angry book is written with remarkable restrain.

#13. The Maltese Falcon, by Dashiell Hammett.

The dialogue makes me a bit dizzy: because the 1941 film adaptation is faithfully lifted from Hammett’s prose (although necessarily shortened and edited), I cannot read it without hearing Bogey, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, and Sidney Greenstreet. It is charming, dark, romantic, and brutal in turns.

#14. Pornography, Sex, and Feminism, by Alan Soble.

I tried, I really did, to give Soble a fair reading, even after he declared (only 23 pages in) that female scholars researching pornography have historically recoiled in disgust and fear from the prospect of procuring it. I’m not sure why I tried, but I assure you that I did.

Perhaps more damning to Soble’s work, and emblematic of the simplistic nature of his reasoning, is his misreading of what constitutes the current literature on pornography, sex, and feminism. He takes several swipes, for example, at Andrea Dworkin, as if she is the current figurehead of modern feminism. As if, indeed, there is a figurehead of contemporary feminism, as if feminism were monolithic.

#15. The Repatriation Reader, edited by Devon A. Mihesuah

This text is essential reading for the serious student of the archaeology of North America. Mihesuah has collected a wide range of articles about the legal, ideological, and political issues surrounding repatriation of Native American remains and ceremonial artifacts, allowing the reader to explore the gulf between academic and Indian activist, and possibly paving the way for reconciliation between them. The unnecessary animosity that occasionally surfaces reaffirms my desire to work in museum outreach programs. With patience and hard work, we can bridge that chasm.

Yeah, yeah, the idealism. Read the book.

pocky1I didn’t plan to bring a bachelor’s gift, but how could I resist?

As I edge up to the ripeness that is 35, I have been wondering if is time to refine my skin-care regimen. This is easier than it sounds, since my “regimen” consists of scrubbing my face with a shower glove and borderline-fancy soap. Almost any change that doesn’t involve rubbing my face with a Microplane would be a refinement.

But I can’t do it. Every attempt I have made to look into the subject of skin care is hampered by my resistance to the undertone of desperation in the advertising, by the absurd prices, and by the patently silly names. So pervasive is the implied female fear of aging that I was pleasantly surprised to realize PrescriptivesLast Chance URL is their clearinghouse for discontinued items, not the name of a night cream.

(To blatantly steal a joke from quote Matthew Baldwin Jeezum crow, lookit all these links. What is this, Memepool? I mean: Memepool?”)

In local news:

Boondoggles, an area bar, is in danger of losing its Special Amusement license for the owner’s loose interpretation of a city ordinance requiring bar personnel to be clothed while serving liquor. According to a local news program, the owner “allowed two female employees to pour drinks while entirely naked from the waist up except for latex paint covering their breasts.”

First and most picayune: “allowed”? “Oh, please, boss, can we, please? Wll mow the lawn and walk the dog, puh-LEESE?”

Secondly, I feel confident that if ever a bar needed a Special Amusement license, this is the bar.

Navigate

Elli’s Links

Elsa’s Links

flickr photos
twitter
elsa.macbebekin (at) gmail.com

Archives

Buy my art

Authors

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.