feminist rage

You are currently browsing articles tagged feminist rage.

oh fuck it’s a liveblog, bitches

July 10, 2010 in Uncategorized by Jessica | 5 comments

I AM WATCHING THE HOOTERS SWIMSUIT PAGEANT. BECAUSE THIS IS A THING THAT HAPPENS.

OH GOD.

OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD. I DON’T KNOW HOW TO STOP TYPING IN ALL CAPS. HOOTERS HAS RUINED ME. DAMN YOU, HOOTERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSS!!!

10:40 PM

Oh my god. So you know how i just claimed I was watching the Hooters Swimsuit Pageant on Spike? Well. I am. I am also watching the World’s Ugliest Dog Contest on Animal Planet. Let’s switch back and forth between the two! Oh fuck it’s so fucking good.

Photobucket

We just went down to the top 10 on the Hooter pageant. The final top 10 count?

3 real
7 fake

5 brunette
5 blonde

1 black
9 white

1 wants to open “her very own real estate office”
1 wants her own swimwear line
1 enjoys “laying out and exercise”
1 “hates conceited people”
1 “loves laying out, shopping, cooking, and rooting for the Boston Celtics.”

Interesting Observation From Ian:
“It’s embarrassing how I’m just staring at their vaginas.”

Photobucket

Photobucket

10:52 PM

So there’s a purebred and a non-purebred version of the ugly dog show. We just watched the purebred version, which is, frankly, mostly Chinese Cresteds, though it’s disconcerting how many sadly inbred purebred dogs are up here, blind and stupid and drooling and being fawned over.

Dude that dog’s SICK, not cute. Something is WRONG with your dog. That dog should probably be put to SLEEP. Maybe it is happy now but it’s tongue should be in it’s mouth and both of its eyes should be able to see and it should be able to stand upright.

So. You know. This one? Kill floor. All I’m saying.


Interesting Observation From Ian:
“Okay…they got their 10 minutes. Back to the other mutilated bitches.”

11:11 pmOh god. Is that her hair?

Photobucket

Or is that actually a fold in her boob?

Photobucket

And speaking of folds in things that should not be folded, check out that flap of skin overlaying the clear plastic stripper shoe upper strap?

Photobucket

They are all wearing the same shoe – they’re all required to wear the same shoe. It looks insanely painful.

Final five:

Photobucket

Oh, to be the light-skinned black woman with Aryan features in a beauty contest.

Oh god. Is that horrifically racist of ME or of THE SYSTEM???

Also, next round? Questions! Michael Yo, one of the judges, said this was the part he was most looking forward to, because he wanted to know what the contestants all had going on “up there…because they’re all beautiful….” and at this point and I SWEAR TO GOD THAT THIS IS TRUE – THIS GUY GOT BOOS. I’m going into un-caps now only in order to re-emphasize the following: THIS FUCKING MOTHERFUCKER GOT BOOS FOR SAYING THAT HE WAS INTERESTED IN THESE WOMEN’S MINDS.

Interesting Observation From Ian:
The girls with natural boobs have all been left behind. Also, I CANNOT WAIT FOR THE INTELLIGENCE SECTION.

Oh god. This dog happened:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Fuck you, other dogs.

Back to the ladies….

And it’s the interview round! Oh good. Let’s ask them some questions about Darfur and the Gulf spill.

YOU KNOW, CHEWIE. You know.

Also, this guy, Michael Yo, was the one who, earlier, had answered, in response to “what are you most looking for in your Hooters Girl?” “Brains!” Here is his question:

And, arg, oh sigh, his response to her answer:

That’s what he believes.

Interesting Observation From Ian:
Also, that is totally Dan Cortese. And oh my god, the DJ is DJ Scribble! This is an MTV’s The Grind reunion show!!

11:42

Oh it is showdown time for the Ugliest Dogs!! I must admit a slight bias to Munchkin, who is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT and whose hair is floofy and who is wonderful.

Photobucket

Oh god. Who will the winner be? Will it be a traditionalist, like Archie? An upset, like Munchkin? Or some other dog, whose name I don’t remember, because this contest is stupid?

Photobucket

And the WINNER ISSSSS…..!

That bitch Archie.

Photobucket

Fucker.

Also…does…does that lady know that she’s wearing a sign that says “ugliest dog?” Because…that’s mean, if she doesn’t.

12:05

Hoots. Hooooooooooots!!

They never wore anything other than bikinis on this show. This is something I just realized.

So they’re counting down to the winner and the first-runner-up. It comes down to a blonde white girl with big hair and big boobs, and the one black girl in the entire fucking contest. I’m sitting here railing against how racist and unfair it is that obviously everyone knows the white girl will win, and it’s infuriatingly condescending that they kept the one single fucking black girl around this long just to give her second place, just to make themselves look good, and I say it out loud, and angrily, and I probably say something like, “OOOOOOOOOOOOOOH GOOD, THEY’RE GIVING THE BLACK GIRL SECOND PLACE BECAUSE THEY’RE STUPID LIBERALS,” and Ian points out that this is probably not the kind of thing that a person should say out loud, even when one is in one’s own living room and obviously only being sarcastic and only doing so in front of one’s decade-long boyfriend, because it’s still kind of awful, even so. BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS IT, ARG.

Photobucket

Last year’s winner presented the crown to the new winner. She looked like a slutty princess. Does that mean that this was or was not actually a Betsey Johnson?

Photobucket

Dan Cortese is very serious, you guyz.

Photobucket

(PS but just like incidentally, this is what the host of the dog show looked like:)

Photobucket

Anyway. And then the black girl wins.

Photobucket

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCK.

Photobucket

Is it more or less racist of me that I am SO FUCKING GODDAMNED THRILLED by this?? More or less feminist of me?? I DO NOT KNOW. But I am so happy!!!

Photobucket


Interesting Observation From Ian:
I think the one who won showed the least amount of her vagina.

Also interesting: Ian just pointed out that we’ve been watching the Animal Planet Ugliest Dog contest from 2006.

FUCK.

12:48

hurk

June 2, 2010 in Uncategorized by Jessica | No comments

Can I say that I hate this poster so much that I don’t even want to actually put it on my website because I never want to look at it again? Can I also say that I hate every single thing about it and you guys pretty much know all the things I’m talking about already, right? Like, I don’t have to explain why this is going to be tagged as “feminist rage,” right? But also as “designer’s rage” and “photoshopper’s rage” and “ugh why does Katherine Heigel inspire within me such feelings of lip-curling disdain” and “goddamnit they just drew her whole body on, didn’t they, and as proof, here is this other poster where they’ve obviously colored in her shoes and dress differently despite the fact that they’re really obviously still the same garments?” (It seems as though Ashton actually changed suits. Or at least shoes. And his bangs are brushed to the other side. ARG. WHY AM I STILL LOOKING AT THIS.)

grumble

May 28, 2010 in Uncategorized by Jessica | No comments

Brought to you by cnn, where sometimes “convicted murderer” = “activist,” we now have “genital cutting” = “genital mutilation.” (Yes, yes, fine, fine, this is also what the AAP called it, but these people also wanted to, you know, allow it, so. The WHO, the UN, and Amnesty International all call it “mutilation.”) Anyway, actually, this is just my knee-jerk feminist rage getting me side-tracked. My real problem with this cnn article is actually the photo they chose to use to illustrate it, and my rage is less feminist and more journalistic:

Photobucket

I…see. Thank you, cnn. (Now suck my balls.)

i’m pretty sure, though

March 28, 2010 in Uncategorized by Jessica | 3 comments

I fully acknowledge that I may be overreacting. But. Also, I’m not.

Photobucket

Found this little guide for teachers in the young-people section of Borders at the mall today. Inside:

Photobucket

The “dreamer” (about cute animals), the “visionary” (in science and exploring), and the “achiever” (with her violin).

In other words, the Girl, the Boy, and the Asian. Puke. Yes, thanks, Borders.

humorless!

February 26, 2010 in Uncategorized by Jessica | No comments

All right, all right, I still have a blog, I swear. And it’s mostly humorless feminism and pretty shoes, aren’t we just a bundle of contradictions. And also I didn’t kill McQueen.

Speaking of (the first two parts)!

Re humorless feminism: ugh. These posters are both stooopid.

Photobucket

Photobucket

I found them near my building on campus. And the thing is, Teenage Jessica would have been all like, “HEEEHEEEBOOBIES” and also “BUT IT’S FOR A GOOD CAUSE BECAUSE I’M AN ACTIVIST AND/OR UM A SINGER I GUESS” and “HEY THERE’S A GUY THERE TOO SO IT’S FUNNY QUIT BEING SO HUMORLESS.” But grown-up Jessica is basically humorless. The one for the singers is the less-annoying of the two, I think, but the one about investment transparency just makes me roll my eyes so hard they’re about to fall out. At least put a fucking web address on there, yo. Otherwise you’re just showing us your tits. HA HA BUT THERE’S A GUY THERE TOO SO IT’S FUNNY. I don’t know. Humorlessness.

And re pretty shoes:

I don’t really have anything re pretty shoes, actually. Um. Here’s this. I ain’t got no shame in saying I want those boots.

incidentally, new york magazine…

December 23, 2009 in chick blog by Jessica | 3 comments

See, this is the problem with being a furious feminist! You’re going along just fine, reading New York articles, and then suddenly you have to stop, become angry, write a blog post about it, and then by the time you’re done you’re all like, “Well, it’s time for my cooter waxing appointment now, anyway,” and you never get to finish anything!

I found this article in googling for a definition of “grup,” which was, and I’m only just now actually looking this up and checking the dates and the writers’ names and all just now, so I’m realizing this is slightly weird suddenly, but this was a word used in an essay about the first Sex and the City movie.* (The word apparently comes from a Star Trek episode in which everyone lands on a planet ruled by children, and it means “grown-ups misplaced among the young people,” or, as New York would have it in this article to which all of my chitter-chatter is leading up [wow, did I do that right there?], old people who still, like, listen to music.) I would very much like to point out, now that I’ve noticed it, that the essay defining the word “grup” in this sense was published in New York magazine in March of ‘06, written by some dude. The SATC essay that references it so casually without re-defining it because it assumes that its readers are already so familiar with the definition was published New York magazine in July of ‘07 by some chick. I have not heard this word before, or since (except for just this morning when someone quoted one of the articles and I had to go look up the word…god, I’m typing like I’m drunk here, but I swear I’m not). Has anyone else? Correct me if I’m wrong, here, but, um, New York? Quit trying to make grup happen.

Wow. That was a long paragraph for a Mean Girls quote joke.

AND NONE OF IT IS ANYWHERE NEAR MY POINT. My point is this:

In reading the article that defines “grups,” I noticed an instance of this very casual, lazy, off-handed…what’s the word? Not sexism, exactly, though that’s almost it. “Male privilege,” maybe? Or “patriarchal blind spots?” Anyway – it’s an instance of “men” being “humans” and “women” being “female humans.” And it’s totally undeserving of such a long post, but I got distracted on that side-rant! So the first paragraph of the article, if you didn’t bother to click through, reads: “When did it become normal for your average 35-year-old New Yorker to…” and then lists a whole bunch of things that a “grup” might do. Sixteen of them, in fact (not including “all of the above”). Some of them use male pronouns, and some use female pronouns. As I was going through this list, I noticed about halfway through that the only ones that used female pronouns were the ones that talked about the “she” in question having a baby. So I decided to actually count them! I made a chart!

Photobucket

It’s not a particularly fancy chart. (Ugh – and I just noticed that I made a typo on it, but I’ve actually already deleted it, so I don’t want to go back and make a new one. In K, I mean that I left G gender-neutral, not H. It still adds up correctly.) But! It does come out that there are 7 things about dudes (one of which is also about babies) and 3 about ladies (two of which are also about babies). AND – that’s me being generous. There were two that were about “shaving” but did not contain any gendered pronouns (though they were both later extended into one that DID contain a male pronoun) but I was super-fair and called those “presumably male” instead of “male” – if you count them as male, then it’s 9 to 3, or 8 to 1 if you’re not counting people with babies. Which all becomes even more infuriating when you look at the photo:

Photobucket

ARG. New York magazine is supposed to be liberal, urban, hip, young. That’s what this goddamn article is about. But even here, just soooooo fucking CASUALLY, without noticing it or thinking about it, humans are dudes and ladies are lady-humans. If the numbers on this chart had been reversed, this would have been an article about/for ladies, but since dudes are dudes, it’s an article for everyone.

Eff you, New York magazine from 2006.

So there.

* Um also PS that is NOT the definition of Third Wave Feminism.

meh indeed, geeks.

November 2, 2009 in Uncategorized by Jessica | 5 comments

Incidentally, this is sexist.

Photobucket

Eff you a little bit, thinkgeek.com.

take me home to my sensitive yet masculine husband

September 20, 2009 in Uncategorized by Jessica | No comments

I love these commercials so effin much.

Strong, handsome young black dad doing very domestic things with his young son – and no mother in sight. Politically – and more importantly, economically, commercially, adverting-ally – what the heck is going on here? Who are these commercials selling to, exactly? I somehow can’t buy that these commercials are aimed at men or fathers or single fathers – these commercials are still aimed at women, I think. But where IS the mother in these ads? Is this a single father? Is the mother at work? Or is the mother simply not pictured in order to make it easier for the women watching this commercial to place themselves in that role?

But also, this commercial caught my eye on tv because I think it literally is the very first commercial I’ve ever seen where a man is shown using a domestic household cleaning product in a serious manner – that is, he’s not making a mess of dinner, or breaking the vacuum, or not understanding how to make the air freshener work, or whatever. This is a man doing women’s work, and doing it well, and doing it seriously, and the audience is supposed to appreciate it and find value in it and relate to him and find him enough of a role model that we want to emulate him and buy Tide. This is seriously something I cannot remember seeing previously.

Here’s another version that I wasn’t able to embed. And, just to spread the joy if you don’t already watch Sarah Haskins, here’s this:

hey! that’s not labia!

September 15, 2009 in Uncategorized by Jessica | 4 comments

I am watching a movie called “Dead Girl,” which features this truly excellent poster:

Photobucket

My feminist blogs hated it because, spoiler alert, it’s a zombie movie about two teenage boys who repeatedly fuck a zombie girl who is tied down to a table. The feminist blogs call this rape. I am, you may have heard, a bit of a raging feminist. Nonetheless, as I am also a bit of a zombie afficianado, I believe I can say with relative certainty that one cannot rape a zombie.

That’s right. I said that.

The reason you should not fuck your dog is that dogs prefer not to be fucked by people. Same goes for horses, children, blacked-out drunk sorority girls. You shouldn’t fuck things that don’t want you to fuck them: that’s rape. A zombie, I maintain, holds no such preference. One cannot rape a hole in the ground. One cannot rape a Fleshlight. Frankly, one cannot rape a dead body – one can only violate it as a piece of property – it’s basically vandalism to fuck a dead body. And since zombies = dead people, there is no raping of zombies. Ah, sure, okay – that’s slightly untrue. Zombies DO have desires. Zombies desire brains. But that is the ONLY things zombies desire! So, by denying zombies your delicious brains, you are thwarting their wishes and therefore raping them.

Dear everyone, stop raping zombies by not letting them eat your brains. Start fucking them, though. They’re fine with that.

Brought to you by: Totally Reasonable Jessica.

Though, of course – none of this – not their point and not my point – is the point of this movie. This is the point of the movie, from the only blogger who appears to have actually watched the movie. What she is saying here is not some big fancy intellectual thing, and it’s certainly not some very delicate or subtle political thing. It’s totally completely obvious in the movie. These stupid blogs were just obviously working from the trailer and the synopsis and the praise that it got on the indie-movie-circuit (which they just knee-jerk didn’t believe, for some reason: “If there’s anything more disturbing than the material advertising the movie itself, it’s what reviewers have to say about it,” Sociological Images says, in response to a whole heaping ton of praise from people who actually DID watch the movie), and not from having seen it.

It’s annoying when the big famous feminist bloggers are stupid, because they’re what people read. And then, later, of course, the little feminist blogs pick it up and also don’t watch the movie and just repeat it anyway. Grumble grumble etc.

Pfff EDIT: Oh and fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine…this is totally a different zombie mythology where, yes, this zombie does show a distinct preference not to get raped. She’s also a fast zombie, though, and I don’t believe in those, either, so it’s a stupid zombie mythology. But fine, whatever. She’s getting raped, I guess.

HA and EDIT 2: Doods are randomly sitting in a car, listening to a call-in talk show on a radio station. Annoying man’s voice: “Heyyyyyy…and how old are you?” Woman’s voice: “Twenty-five.” Man’s voice: “And do you have a boyfriend or a husband?” Ugh. Just watch the stupid movie, feminists. Obv.

EDIT 3: Yeah, no, okay. So, first of all, the movie ends with figurative NAKED FEMINIST RAGE ON THE LOOSE! So there’s that. Also, it’s a decent take on the genre. I can’t say I loved it or whatever, but it’s a totally decent revision, and it is 1000% a feminist horror movie, which there aren’t enough of – especially ones like this that don’t proclaim themselves SUPERFEMINISTHORRORMOVIES!!!!! like Teeth or Jennifer’s Body or whatever.

Blah blah.

meh

September 14, 2009 in Uncategorized by Jessica | No comments

Not for nothing – I know this guy is an opinion writer and he’s from Princeton and he’s not really a part of cnn.com and whatever, but I’m just pointing out the first line of this:

“When Rep. Joe Wilson interrupted President Obama’s speech to a joint session of Congress by yelling “You lie!” a livid House Speaker Nancy Pelosi looked as if she was about to jump out of her seat and give her colleague a five-minute “time out” for misbehavior.”

If she really looked “livid,” why did she also look as though the punishment she was about to meet out was something so minor and “cute” – something a mother would do to her child? And would you ever have described Biden as about to send another man to time-out? Especially if you had first described him as “livid?”

I’m just sayin’.

« Older entries