Babies and femmos.

Being a non-babied up person living in a world where it seems like everyone has spawned has afforded me the opportunity to observe things without being too emotionally involved. I have my pet peeves with how mums and dads behave just like I have my pet peeves by how ordinary everyday people behave. In fact, one might argue that I have a lot of pet peeves. Oh well, I’m peevey – you really got a problem with that?

A little issue has arisen lately in baby-land and I have to say, it’s given me more peeves than ever thought possible. I’m talking about how people react to the weight of babies. Now I realise that weight is probably the most important way that one can distinguish how healthy a baby is but I’m not talking about that. It’s the language that people use.

My friend S’s little miracle (really, he actually is – spend first couple of months at the Children’s hospital and really was touch and go for a while there) has been growing in leaps and bounds since he was released from the hospital. Really he is one of the cutest babies in the world. He’s one of those babies that strangers will boldly approach and want to hold. Things started off a little rough for the poor guy but now he’s doing well. In fact when people see him how they ALWAYS comment about what a big boy he is, and how chubby he is getting and …hey maybe mum should be putting him on a little feeding restriction. The thing is little N is not like those big babies you see on Phil Donohue where the baby is actually half the size of mum at 1 year of age and looks basically like an adult in diapers (though, I might be confusing this with a whole other episode of Donohue). Little N is in fact precisely in the 50th percentile for his weight. He’s the epitome of normality. He’s not 1 percent below or above he’s just right. Meanwhile mothers of babies born on the 15th percentile are commenting about what a chubbster N is – not in a nice way either – in an I’m slightly worried about your baby way – patronising, utterly patronising. Like as if being born thin and still thin is somehow better than than being normal and healthy.

The reason why it’s a peeve of mine is that I can see where this is leading. We already have this preoccupation with children’s weight and the so-called obesity crisis in children. I wish I could link to an entry that “pubby” wrote about this issue but he’s taken his blog off-line – but he also asked whether these figures were sincere because he hadn’t noticed that suddenly all these kids were supposedly fat. I work with kids. I see kids everyday and there is probably 1 per class who is overweight. IF THAT. I don’t have any this year at all. In fact I’m looking at all the children I know who started school this year and there is not ONE who would even be considered chubby – that’s almost 100 new children! Figures point to something like 40% of children being fat but from what I’ve seen it’s actually about 5% which is called a NORMAL DISTRIBUTION of fat folks. Maybe it’s 10% in some areas…yes, more concerning but still, hardly an epidemic! I don’t know if figures are being inflated or whether the way we measure fat is right off the scale (pun intended) but if it’s an epidemic then I don’t bloody see it at all.

The point is the weight obsession starts with babies. All these mothers (let’s face it, mostly mums) are obsessed with talking about the weight of their own children but not only that, I sense some smugness and defensiveness about weight, depending on where on the percentile the baby falls. Once I commented on how F’s baby J had grown into a big boy. I hadn’t seen him in about 3 months and he was like a new child. So what, he got big! Big deal, it’s great, it’s called growing. But I got flicked with the end of the wrath stick quick smart by F who snapped that actually he’s only on the 30th percentile now and not big at all. Okay, sorry didn’t think I was suggesting that your baby was a sumo wrestler but hey, whatever.

Incidentally why is it so wrong to say that a female baby is a “big strong girl”. Ever try saying that one? It’s like you’re saying “hey I’ve just noticed that your daughter is a big fat dyke. I can see that she’s a breath away from letting her body hair get to unflattering lengths and start listening to angry girl rock” I thought, growing was supposed to be a good thing! Maybe not in girls.

In other news concerning dirty femmo stuff, I was intrigued by a column in Sunday’s Age by Angela Pippos “What’s Wrong with Being a Fashionista Feminist Anyway?” where she addresses just how diverse feminists are in this era. She also says

I’m a feminist. Was that so hard?
It’s really not a big deal. I simply believe that women should be given the same opportunities as men. Throw me in in the river and see if I float. It’s hardly radical but, in my experience, any mention of the “f” word in male company can bring on a type of behaviour often seen in a David Attenborough documentary, followed by a sudden attack of mundane questioning”.

She goes on to list a few examples of questioning she is immediately dealt by affronted men “Do you expect men to open doors for you?” “Do you want a man to pay for dinner on a first date?” etc. You know the typical questions asked of femnos that makes everyone want to stab their eyes out. What really interests me about her column is the underlying question for me about feminism. Why is it still a dirty word? Yes, I’m being serious. In all my years of being a feminist I’ve never met one who hates men. I’ve never met one who burns her bra. I’ve never met one who spends all night planing to picket the local men’s club or any of the other stereotypes that are prescribed to so called ..here is comes “feminazis”. Do I know lesbian femmos? Of course. Does that mean ALL feminists are gay? Do I know femmos who are frustrated by the status quo and frustrated by some perceptions perpetrated by men. Hell yes, does that mean that they are frustrated with men in general? Pssssh, I don’t think so. I hate that type of generalising of feminists that happens but actually has little grounds in reality.

I don’t know about you but when I hear the old “you’re a man hater” (often comes in a feminist type entry) and it’s been written here on this journal as well me reading it on so many other feminist blogs that I’ve lost count – I often think that the person writing it either has shit for brains, doesn’t actually KNOW any feminists or rather…doesn’t KNOW any women AT ALL or that maybe..just maybe THEY don’t really like women all that much themselves, or feel threatened by them expressing an opinion – whatever. The fact that I *am* a feminist and I don’t actually know ANY feminists who hate men NOR do I hate them myself sort of makes me wonder why on earth that’s a phrase that is so easily thrown around by others when confronted with someone who claims to be a feminist? I mean I always hear about these so-called feminists who are supposed to hate men, usually it comes in the form of “yeah I know a feminist who hates men” but you know..it’s sort of like an urban myth to me. Have you heard the one about the lady with the boil on her face that exploded and 50 tiny spiders came out? Yeah, that common. If anything feminists have so much problem in appearing a unified group with unifying beliefs in the first place that *men* aren’t even the issue. It’s women and what women think that is more of an issue.

Perhaps it’s that feminist discourse is centered around the fact that things are not quite right in the world of woman. That there are certain issues that affect our gender and those issues maybe be life threatening or indeed socially confining to women. Maybe there’s some resentment too, that women get the focus for this type of discourse? The fact that they are discussed might be a little too confronting for some people and confused with hate – when really it’s not about hate at all, it’s about getting answers and asking WHY does this happen to women? Is that a wrong question to ask? I certainly don’t think so. It does NOT negate the FACT that things happen to men too and that is an important point. That in fact we are all individuals who have shit happen to us at some stage or another and that there are issues for men that are just as concerning that in fact SHOULD be discussed too. They should be discussed by the same people that are complaining that are sick of hearing about women’s issues and say that yeah, men have issues too can’t you see that? Well, dude, discuss away! Indeed, asking why the world is a certain way is not about hating anyone. It’s about trying to get answers about how things are and perhaps start discourse that will affect change. One can only hope anyway.

I know that discussions about rape, prostitution, maternity leave and domestic violence gets a lot of backs up, especially with men but the fact of the matter is that these things DO happen and they DO happen mostly to women and the fact that we make up more than half the population means that it’s something that everyone should be worried about. These are things that SHOULD be discussed widely and without refrain. It happens and the fact that it happens disturbingly often to one gender over another is a cause for feminist discourse. Live with it! I’ve read so many “anti-feminist” blogs (mostly written by anonymous people with anonymous comments – just goes to show doesn’t it?) that will reference one article where a woman has beaten her husband in a show of domestic violence. Yes it happens and this is horrible. I don’t want to diminish that – but the anti-feminist blogger will then say (and this happens in almost 100 percent of all anti-feminist bloggers) something along the lines of “and now you see why I refuse to get involved with all women. Women are evil etc etc”. This is in direct opposition to most feminist blogs which takes issue on women’s issues in society and how that affects us and in fact are a celebration of female achievement in the arts and culture. They are positive places that actually reserve any condensation of men to specific examples ie: THIS MAN said something not quite right about women. THIS MAN is wrong. Whereas the anti-feminist blogs that I’ve read are all about generalising one act to mean *all* women and being defensive about it too. Perhaps I’ve yet to come across a anti-feminist blog that is about being male positive instead of female negative. I’m know that there are some feminist blogs that really ARE venomous about a lot of things too, including men but definitely not the popular ones. The popular feminist blogs are generally very political places that invite discussion by men and indeed a lot of them have a dedicated male following too.

For the record I have read many male written gender positive blogs that have nothing to do with anti-feminism – they don’t shy away from bringing up issues that are specific to men either! They are great and there should be more of them. They write about male and female issues with sex, violence and everything in between and they are so great because they don’t fall into that age old trap of ‘what I admire about women is their breasts, bum, legs, they look beautiful, they smell beautiful’ – which is quite typical in what DOES tend to get written about women from a male perspective. I mean that kind of blog is great and all but male blogs that go beyond that REALLY need to be applauded for being so great – and they’re not great because I agree with them, because I don’t always, they’re great because they are truthful without falling into “all feminists are bitches” type rhetoric.

Considering that not all feminists are the same, nor do any of the old stereotypes stand up why is it that the F-word is still a dirty one?

Anyway, on to Musical Monday in this haphazard post of mine. Of course, let’s just complete the entry with a reference to Kat Bjelland; an artist I’m pretty much so in awe of I can’t quite figure out the right words. She looks like an angel but has the voice of a terrifying demon. That’s the best I can come up with. In the early days she cavorted around with Courtney Love and Jennifer Finch experimenting in a couple of bands before all went their separate ways and all became highly influential artists in their own right, with their own bands. I sigh here as I make the distinction and say they were ‘female centered’ bands – grrl rock if you will. Why? Oh because I’ve featured many, many bands who have all male members and sing about manly things but never distinguished them by saying ‘all male’ or ‘male centered’. It’s funny how these distinctions work in rock for women as opposed to men but there you have it.

Babes in Toyland had been around for a good many years before I got into them. I was completely taken with Kat Bjelland and in particular her rock operatic meets screaming banshee type singing voice.

She was a cheerleader in high school by the way.

A cheerleader AND a dirty femmo too. Oh my god, is your mind about to explode? Yes, it’s true, us dirty femmos aren’t just one type of person. I guess, that was my whole point. Mothers can be feminists. Hot girls can be feminists. Women who love men can be feminists. Scientists can be feminists. Radio personalities can be feminists. Men can be feminists. Cheerleaders can be feminists. It’s not just one type of person. And for the record I’ve read many a comment implying that those people mentioned above CAN’T be feminists – like mums can’t be feminists. ha! Well I’m linking right here to a GREAT entry by a femmo mum who outlines some great points about how to raise your daughter a feminist and you know what? The initial question about ‘how do I raise my daughter a feminist?’ came from a bloke. How’s that for breaking down a few barriers. Yes folks, it’s not actually about man hating. Sorry to disappoint – on with the music.

Bruise Violet – Babes In Toyland (apparently not about Courtney Love..but I doubt it! lol).

Sweet 69 – Babes in Toyland

From Little things Big Things Grow

Working in a school I know that “sorry” is a word that is of paramount importance. One encounters it on a daily basis, an hourly basis even. It’s apparent to me and has always been, that only the truly arrogant do not see the point in saying sorry. It’s the same children that can’t give a sincere apology that find it hardest to not only make friends, but more importantly keep friends. It’s those that can’t say sorry, that also have problems empathising, problems sympathising, problems engaging and problems growing emotionally as humans. Some never say it at all – steadfastly refusing on some technicality never realising that the word is symbolic of mate ship – the one true Australian value. Some children need to understand a situation better before they will utter it, some will take the responsibility on the chin and say it when it needs to be said and others still will say sorry even on behalf of their friends because they know that sorry is not always about blame but also (and most importantly) about comforting someone to the point where they are then able to move forward.

And so, with this in mind the collective we: Australians who cared about taking a united step forwards, waited today for the word we knew was aimed to give comfort, to put a hand on the shoulder of a whole race of people, our oldest people, and say not ‘we regret that..’ but that we are sorry – because when all is said and done this is what a friend would say to another friend. I’m sorry, you didn’t get that job. I’m sorry your mother died. I’m sorry this bad thing happened to you. And yet, this devastating issue of an indigenous generation ripped away from their families many years ago now, had not heard that simple two syllable word…until today.

And it was said.
And it was good.
And hopefully from this little thing big things will grow.

From Little Things Big Things Grow – Paul Kelly (written with Kev Carmody) (A song worth listening to)

Powered by Podbean.com

in case the player doesn’t work

At the Movies

Hang up the Chick Habit.

A few months ago I saw the Tarantino movie Death Proof and it got me thinking. For the record, I am a fan of his work – mostly for his brilliant use of quick dialogue but also for the blur that exists in his depicting a concrete era. I like the fact that Pulp Fiction is 50s influenced however also very much a contemporary look at the culture at the time. It’s like all of his work, not quite retro, not quite a homage but very much flavourful of a genre or era without being overpowered by it. I also happen to think he has flawless taste in music and so, no matter the film I know that the soundtrack will be a killer.

I remember though when PF came out. Tarantino got a lot of flack for
a) language.
b) violence.
c) lack of strong female characters in his work.

Personally I think all three were bogus complaints all based in truth of course, but bogus nevertheless. I enjoyed the language and violence and if a man can’t make a boy centered movie with a bit of grit then I don’t want to know him. Yes, he uses excessive language and yes some of the scenes in all of his movies are disgusting. So what? Deal with it.

Tarantino was a smart cookie though, he saw how popular his character Mrs Mia Wallace (from PF) was among both ladies and gents that he addressed his lack of strong female leads quick smart and made one of the most kickarse lady movies ever – Kill Bill vol 1 and 2. Death Proof once again looks at female leads, however, he also adds in a strong male character to mix it up: Stuntman Mike.

The movie Death Proof has two parts within the movie – and this is going to be full of spoilers folks… The first part – three girls who think they are “badass” take to the road, visit a bar meet Stuntman Mike and end up dead. The second part – another group of girls, take to the road, visit a diner, meet Stuntman Mike and kick the shit out of him.

What was different? And just how did the second lot of girls outsmart and out kick Stuntman Mike? I mean, this guy had his sadist act down. He has a death proof car folks and he was not afraid to use it to kill women of his choosing.

Let’s just have a little look see at wider society and women. One could argue in this era of post-feminism we have two kinds of women – women who don’t take any shit and women who do. Of course, the reality is that there are many kinds of women, all individual – but this is a MOVIE guys, let’s be serious – plus, we’re looking at generalities here and in terms of a generality this would be right. Shit takers and shit givers. One could argue the same for men as well. People. People are shit takers or shit givers.

The shit takers in this movie would be seen in the first part of the movie. They are the hot, sexy girls who flirt with any man that moves. Why? Well just because they can folks, just because they can. For the record, no man complains about this fact. Who doesn’t want a hot girl dressing sexy and flirting with them? Hell, did I mention they are hot? The guys are lining up to buy them drinks and the girls accept the drinks, give the boys a little sugar by way of kisses and flirting and then leave. Hell, that’s their prerogative, girls don’t have to put out if they don’t want to do they? These girls in part one, in no uncertain terms know what they want. They are not stepford wives. They are not on a hunt for a husband. They are not gold diggers or any of that. They have careers and their own minds. This is very important to the plot because in no way are we to think of these girls as traditionally “weak”.

Things for these girls seem pretty peachy. Everyone thinks they are a lovely, and they are. In the land of successful females they go very far. The thing is though, even though they seem so in control of their lives they are not. All men’s interactions with these girls are only based on sex. The men buy drinks for them because they want sex. The girls promise lap dances for a certain password from men. In fact they are much more crude than the men in the film – they would see themselves as the type of women who are empowered by their sexuality. Watching the movie, you get that impression too. Their “careers” (or just the way they live their lives) are based around sex, or being sexy. Now, sex is a powerful tool and it has been theorised ad nauseum that sex is the most powerful tool that a woman can have in this world. I’m inclined to agree that it IS but I also happen to think that this SUCKS. It means that our options are quite limited if we want to be successful doesn’t it? Here’s what I think about these kinds of women: women who use sex to their advantage in dealings with men (by sex I mean flirting, being sexy to get what they want etc) are not the kind of women I like. I think they are selling all of us short and quite frankly demeaning themselves. HOWEVER, I do think that women who do use sex as power get very far. Mostly because our society rewards this kind of behaviour from women, rather than from men.

So why then do these women die if they have all the power? Well because like all people with only one source of power they are easy targets. These are the girls who are watched and while there is power in being ‘beheld’ there is absolutely no autonomy. All their power is based in sex and so when you take that away – ie: you’re not interested in their sex then you render them completely powerless and useless. They don’t matter any more. They are nothing. And Stuntman Mike, he’s a sadist from way back, he doesn’t care about the sex – only the cruelty that comes with exploiting that. They have no power when it comes to him and rightly so; they all die. Now you see why I think those girls who base all their power in sex sell the rest of us short. They don’t really prosper in dire situations – and life itself is one dire situation after another really.

Enter part 2; 14 months after the part 1 girls have been brutally murdered by Stuntman Mike. Life has changed dramatically in this time. The opening shot, of a cheerleader makes you think that these are going to be yet another bunch of archetypal females that make male fantasies churn, and yet it is realised immediately that this is a big joke on us. These girls might be watched but they also do the looking, and the choosing. These girls are nothing like the ones that came before. It feels like one decade has gone by, socially speaking, rather than only a year. Enter our four main protagonists – again, all sexy/pretty girls who hang out in a male dominated world. They talk about their boyfriends, they talk about their jobs – but they pay their own way. These girls are lovely as well, but they just do their own thing. Their power is based somewhere outside the realm of sex, though it is apparent that they are not abstaining from sex, nor from men. They are just not concerned with flirting it up with randoms. Stuntman Mike notices them though and he’s getting ready to kill again but something happens: The girls won’t be bullied. He can’t take away their sexual power by hating them, because their power isn’t based in sex. They’ve got something different going on.
1) They stick together when it counts.
2) They make their own fun.
3) They are not afraid to get down and dirty.

This is extremely different from the girls in part 1. Both sets of girls have their own jobs and have lives and their own money. On the surface they are poster children for ‘new woman’ – but as always it’s the inside that counts. The part two girls aren’t basing their power in sex. They don’t need their sexuality reaffirmed everywhere they go. And so, when Stuntman Mike approaches them, they aren’t scared into a corner by him, nor are they titillated or charmed like the part 1 girls were. Sure the circumstances were different in part 2, but in the end the part 2 girls were not to be beaten down and killed. They got back on the horse and chased the man down and then beat him until he died. As in, with their bare hands. I have to make the distinction that they’re not targeting normal everyday guys – they aren’t the perpetrators of violence but they can turn it on when someone else starts it – I love that.

In the second part, the twist is that the girls win. Which comes as a surprise because actually no one expects that to happen – it’s so rare in a movie of this sort (slasher/car movie – incidentally movies I grew up watching – especially car movies which I had major nightmares about). These women also stick together and this is an important point. When women base their power in sex then you can easily tear them apart – you don’t even have to try. This is because when you have a group of women who all base their power in the reaffirmation of their sexuality and you add one man into the mix then that group of women will immediately begin tearing each other down in order to get to the man. I’ve seen it a million times before with girlfriends. In the case of the movie you have the part one girls arguing about whether to take the guys home with them, even though they all agreed not to. And you also have them exchange rivalries with each other over men. This isn’t good when you’re trying to make it out alive. The part two girls stick together and don’t have any interest in being rivals at all. It’s why they come out alive.

I guess what I’m saying is, and Tarantino touches on it to, that there are girls who look to men to reaffirm their sexuality and those girls are always going to be beaten down because not only does that not last forever but also there will always be people who will want to exploit that. Hell society exploits that all the time. It may be a HUGE power source to be perpetually sexy – but it’s also one of the EASIEST to exploit and manipulate. A girl who is thought of only as a sum of body parts (only praised because she has a great arse or great legs or whatever it is that is admired at the time) is easily cut down into body parts when it comes down to it. She’s never whole, she’s just legs, or neck, or lips etc. That kind of blows. If a girl only has that going for her then she doesn’t really have all that much at all and if that’s all she’s admired for then it says little about those doing the admiring. You see these kinds of girls everywhere, in life and in blog-land too funnily enough. Sometimes words are enough without pictures even. Everything comes back to sex – or rather to the odd comment or entry that screams; ‘remember, I’m sexy!’. Couple that with being ultra competitive with other women and you have someone who is easily dismantled, humiliated and left alone without backup. Not a good position to be in when being hunted down (aka, life)

Girls, keep your girlfriends close and your interests varied. Girlfriends will back your shit up with the chips are down and if you’re not afraid to smudge the mascara a bit then you can kick some major arse! Don’t worry, you can always keep a makeup compact in your purse, for the touch up afterwards.

Should girls kick arses or are they better off just using sex to get what they want? Is not using sex too utopian for the society we live in – do women HAVE to use their sexuality to their advantage in order to get ahead, not just in work but in life, generally speaking?
How do men use their sexuality to get what THEY want – and why doesn’t anyone ever call them on it?