The Radical Notion

Encouraging women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians

If there’s one thing we can say with certainty about all college women… October 3, 2009

…it’s that they love hot pink!

Twelve housepoints to whoever can guess which entry this is from!

Twelve housepoints to whoever can guess which entry this is from!*

What better way to portray pioneers in women’s higher education (that are still producing better outcomes for female students than are co-ed colleges) than as rejects from Barbie’s Dream House?

Oh, if only. Can you IMAGINE how much more awesome our underwear pillow fights would be?

Oh, if only. Can you IMAGINE how much more awesome our underwear pillow fights would be?

(more…)

 

To say “I’m Sorry” would be a lie… June 1, 2009

Filed under: Relationships,Teh Interwebs — theradicalnotion @ 5:30 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

So, I’ve been puttering around the Interwebs, as is my wont, and getting inspiration for all sorts of TRN-worthy blog posts, but this afternoon I got distracted and started wandering around Askmen.com. I’m not linking, both because you can find it if you want to and because honestly, I think the world has enough people who read it already. For those not in the know, AskMen is a site for men, by men, and about men’s problems (namely, dealing with women). And I do mean dealing with them  – there are advice columns in which “Doc Love” tells you how to properly manipulate a woman into staying with you, complete with Important Capitalized Terms and percentages and frequent references to “Psych majors” using language and terms that I, a Psych major, have never heard in an academic setting. There are mentions of “Womanese” and “the fact that women do 90% of the dumping” and “every woman has power over every man, ever, and you just don’t know it” and “if these tips don’t work for your woman, she’s clinically insane. Get out and head for the hills!” and “would you let your woman have an abortion?” and before I get all ranty, let me just cut myself off and say that several blogs could be written with the sole purpose of describing the shittiness of this website. But I’m a glutton for punishment, so I read some articles, alternately cackling and sighing, and then decided to really grab the bull by the balls and search for the money word. (more…)

 

Trolly Fun May 14, 2009

Well, it’s finals season, and I don’t have the time or energy to make any posts for the next week or so. But! I am always thinking of my loyal readers, so I thought I’d share with you the latest trolly comments I’ve received. Apparently, my troll makes a habit of going onto liberal blogs and acting like a douchenozzle, as s/he crashed a thread about homophobic slurs here in March. I don’t exactly know how s/he found my humble little corner of the Internet, but I’m honored and proud to host hir. Unfortunately, as can be read in my commenting policy, I have a low tolerance for misogyny, illogical arguments, and just plain asshattishness, so I am forced to not approve “KillCommies” ‘ comments. Sadface. However, I would love to share them with you, in case people didn’t believe that female bloggers are harassed more frequently and angrily online.

Unfortunately, as I do not have the time to write an actual post, I really don’t have time to feed the troll and get my jollies on – not that it would make any difference, as this one is clearly not playing with a full deck of cards, and is just super-super pissed at all the wimminz and their voting and their pants-wearing and their sheer audacity of writing a blog. But! That doesn’t mean I can’t post the comments myself :). (more…)

 

No Girls Allowed, Part 1 April 30, 2009

My female readers will surely be familiar with the following scenario: you’re reading something, preferably nonfiction and not very formal, so that the author frequently addresses the reader to explain things, joke around, relate anecdotes, etc. Obviously you, the reader, knows that said author has probably never met you in his life (and it is a ‘he’ in this case), but nevertheless, while reading the book it’s expected that you and the author will form something of a rapport – an imaginary relationship, if you will – wherein the author is relating facts or a story to you and you’re indulging him because you find the subject matter and his way of relating it interesting.

Most of the time, it’s also assumed that anyone with an open mind and interest in the book topic would be welcome to read the book – and ostensibly, that’s true. I’m sure most book authors – certainly the authors of the books I read – are happy to get all the readers they can. Even if royalties and publicity were not motivating them, I want authors of things I read to have at least a nominal commitment to empathy and openness, with a distinct lack of hate or hang-ups vis-a-vis any particular group. There are plenty of authors who wouldn’t feel that way, but I try not to read things they write.

So. You’re happily zipping along, learning new things, wrapped up in the narrative, and then – BAM! All of a sudden the illusion that the author was speaking just to you, or had you in mind at all when he was writing this, is gone. The author has, completely unintentionally, revealed that the only readers he had in mind when writing this book were people like him – in short, people who were straight males. It’s not his fault, really – one of the hallmarks of privilege is that the privileged group is viewed as the default. In a joke, it’s never a woman who walks into a bar – unless, that is, the joke revolves around her being a woman. The majority of characters in books, movies, TV are men – unless there’s a reason for them to be female (like a love interest or to act as a gendered foil to a main character). And so on.

One of the most common ways that an author can make me acutely aware of my own lack of male privilege is by invoking our old friend, the male gaze. This excludes female readers in two possible ways:

  1. It establishes the idea that everyone views women  – and ONLY women – as sexually attractive and appealing beings. Of course, there are many women who are attracted to other women, but a good deal more are not, and as we’ll see later, I think it’s pretty clear that these authors are not directing their words toward queer women.
  2. Much more insidiously, it communicates the message that a woman’s primary value is dependent on her physical appearance. If she’s attractive, than she’s wonderful and deserving of rhapsodic waxings-on about her breasts and thighs and rosy cheeks (she should be honored!). If she’s unattractive (to the writer, of course), then she is an affront to humanity who should be stamped out , mocked, or at the very least locked away where no one can see her. By forever bringing up the topic of how a female character, celebrity, or other personage appeals to the author sexually, he unwittingly reveals his subconscious belief that women exist primarily for male consumption.

Women who are not sexually interested in other women get hit with a double whammy here, but anyone who doesn’t fit the template of “straight male” gets some shrapnel. Anyone who isn’t attracted to women (for example, gay men) suffers from number 1, and anyone who identifies as female is slapped with number 2. As one of the aforementioned double-hitters, I feel confident in saying that number two is much worse. Better to be ignored than actively belittled.

Want to see some examples of what I’m talking about? I know you do. Here are just a few of the ones that have given me a psychological hypnagogic jerk in the past couple of months. (more…)

 

I am not…a member of the Family ‘Felidae’ January 26, 2009

I am not a cat. When I have an argument or physical altercation with another woman, it is not a catfight. It is not sexy or funny any more than it would be if two men were fighting, or a man and a woman. If I say angry words to another woman, it is not an occasion to say “meow” or to hiss. Maureen Dowd, irksome though she may be, is not “much better at meowing at her own side”, nor does she have “cat-wit”. If a woman or girl of any age is being petty or mean-spirited, she is not being “catty”. If I get a new boyfriend or lover (or get him to make a commitment), I am not “sinking my claws into him”, nor am I entrapping him as one would do prey. (more…)

 

Feminism is an uphill battle January 25, 2009

[Trigger warning]

I should know, by now, not to browse Urban Dictionary. It’s like reading YouTube comments or farting around the Focus On The Family website – just plain masochistic (though the latter can be hilarious!). Alas, though – I wanted to see what the currently-accepted definition of “mustache ride” was (note: it was exactly as I suspected) and happened to glance over to the sidebar:

So I also clicked on "mustache party". You would too.

So I also clicked on "mustache party". You would too.

(more…)

 

Grin January 12, 2009

Filed under: Meta,Politics,Teh Interwebs — theradicalnotion @ 9:55 pm
Tags: , , ,

Why am I giddy right now? It’s probably because of one of my Firefox add-ons: in particular, the President Bush Countdown 1.1.2. As you can see in my previous post that used a screenshot of my browser, the P.B. 1.1.2. resides in the bottom left corner of my browser. I added it a year or two ago, so when I started it the number was in the 5 or 600’s; over time, the number has steadily decreased (as would be expected), and a couple days ago:

Deep in the bowels of The Radical Notion

Deep in the bowels of The Radical Notion

Can we get a close-up on that, please? (more…)