1. THIS SHOW IS NOT FOR ME / I CAN’T RELATE
HULK REMEMBERS THE FIRST MOVIE HULK EVER RELATED TO. IT MIRRORED EXACTLY HOW LITTLE HULK GREW UP ON THIS MOISTURE FARM IN THE DESERT PLANET OF TATOOINE AND ALL OF SUDDEN THESE TWO DROIDS SHOWED UP AND CHANGED HULK’S LIFE FOREVER. YOU SEE [SARCASTIC JOKE GOES ON]. THE GENUINE POINT IS THAT IDENTIFICATION IN THESE SORTS OF DIRECT TERMS IS MEANINGLESS. WE DON’T RELATE TO OCCUPATIONS AND STATUS. WE RELATE TO EMOTIONS. WE EMPATHIZE WITH PEOPLE GETTING CRAPPED ON IN LIFE. AND REALLY? 20-SOMETHINGS FRESH OUT OF COLLEGE WITHOUT A JOB? THAT’S SOMETHING THAT’S NOT PRETTY UNIVERSAL? … OKAY.
2. YEAH, BUT THE SHOW IS ABOUT WHINY 20-SOMETHINGS WHO THINK NEW YORK IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE
YES. THAT’S WHAT IT’S ABOUT. BUT THE SHOW IS OFTEN LOOKING AT THEM WITH A CRITICAL EYE. BUT UNLIKE, SAY, A SHOW LIKE IT’S ALWAYS SUNNY IN PHILADELPHIA WHICH MAKES THEIR SELFISHNESS OVERT AND THUS ONE BIG JOKE, THERE IS A GRAY LAYER TO THIS ONE. MEANING THE THEORETICAL PROBLEM OF GIRLS IS THAT IT ALSO HAS AN UNDERSTANDING EYE TOWARD ITS WORLD. IT’S NOT OUTRIGHT CONDEMNING BEHAVIORS YOU MAY FIND CONDEMNABLE. IT IS TRYING TO HUMANIZE THEM. TO HULK, THE EFFECT IS AN HONEST APPROACH TO PEOPLE WHO ARE TOTALLY WHINY, YOUNG NEW YORKERS, BUT WHO, AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, CAN STILL HAVE VERY REAL, TEXTURED, WELL-OBSERVED AND RATHER FUNNY LIVES.
I wish I could excerpt the whole thing - there’s a brilliant preface about I Am Love and how you can not like a piece of media but still learn from it and the criticism surrounding it, as well as a few more bullet points addressing other complaints people have lobbed at Girls (including the race thing).
Seriously, if you’re at all interested in pop culture & criticism, this is well worth your time.
We are, I am, you are
by cowardice or courage
the one who find our way
back to this scene
carrying a knife, a camera
a book of myths
our names do not appear.
Rest in peace.
Traditionally, support for birth control was bipartisan. The Roman Catholic hierarchy was opposed, but Republican presidents like Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush provided strong support. Then family planning became tarnished by overzealous and coercive programs in China and India, and contraception became entangled in America’s abortion wars. Many well-meaning religious conservatives turned against it, and funding lagged. The result was, paradoxically, more abortions. When contraception is unavailable, the likely consequence is not less sex, but more pregnancy.
Contraception already prevents 112 million abortions a year, by U.N. estimates. The United Nations Population Fund is a bête noire for conservatives, but its promotion of contraception means that it may have reduced abortions more than any organization in the world.
Sometimes I think Nicholas Kristof is the only smart person left.
It doesn’t mean I’m religious.
Because I’m not.
It doesn’t mean I hate LGBT community.
Because I am a supporter.
It doesn’t mean I force women to give birth.
Because I never will.
Take what you want from my blog, but never assume I’m just your stereotypical pro-lifer. It is VERY possible to ask questions, state your opinions in a civil manner on this blog. I am respectful and I enjoy answering all questions received!
Thanks for following! :)
Let me tell you some things.
I used to investigate child abuse and neglect. I can tell you how to stop the vast majority of abortion in the world.
First, make knowledge and access to contraception widely available. Start teaching kids before they hit puberty. Teach them about domestic violence and coercion, and teach them not to coerce and rape. Create a strong, loving community where women and girls feel safe and supported in times of need. Because guess what? They aren’t. You know what happens to babies born under such circumstances? They get hurt, unnecessarily. They get sick, unnecessarily. They get removed from parents who love them but who are unprepared for the burden of a child. Resources? Honey, we try. There aren’t enough resources anywhere. There are waiting lists, and promises, and maybes. If the government itself can’t hook people up, what makes you think an impoverished single mom can handle it?
Abolish poverty. Do you have any idea how much childcare costs? Daycare can cost as much or more than monthly rent. They may be inadequately staffed. Getting a private nanny is a nice idea, but they don’t come cheap either. Relatives? Do they own a car? Does the bus run at the right times? Do they have jobs of their own they need to work just to keep the lights on? Are they going to stick around until you get off you convenience store shift at 4 AM? Do they have criminal histories that will make them unsuitable as caregivers when CPS pokes around? You gonna pay for that? Who’s going to pay for that?
End rape. I know your type errs on the side of blaming the woman, but I’ve seen little girls who’ve barely gotten their periods pregnant because somebody thought raping preteens was an awesome idea. You want to put a child through that? Or someone with a mental or physical inability for whom pregnancy would be frightening, painful or even life-threatening? I’ve seen nonverbal kids who had their feet sliced up by caregivers for no fucking reason at all, you think sexual abuse doesn’t happen either?
You say there’s lots of couples who want to adopt. Kiddo, what they want to adopt are healthy white babies, preferably untainted by the wombs and genetics of women with alcohol or drug dependencies. I’ve seen the kids they don’t want, who almost no one wants. You people focus only on the happy pink babies, the gigglers, the ones who grow and grow with no trouble. Those are not the kids who linger in foster care. Those are certainly not the older kids and teenagers who age out of foster care and then are thrown out in the streets, usually with an array of medical and mental health issues. Are they too old to count?
And yeah, I’ve seen the babies, little hand-sized things barely clinging to life. There’s no glory, no wonder there. There is no wonder in a pregnant woman with five dollars to her name, so deep in depression you wonder if she’ll be alive in a week. Therapy costs money. Medicine costs money. Food, clothes, electricity cost money. Government assistance is a pittance; poverty drives women and girls into situations where they are forced to rely on people who abuse them to survive. (I’ve been up in more hospitals than I can count.)
In each and every dark pit of desperation, I have never seen a pro-lifer. I ain’t never seen them babysitting, scrubbing floors, bringing over goods, handing mom $50 bucks a month or driving her to the pediatrician. I ain’t never seen them sitting up for hours with an autistic child who screams and rages so his mother can get some sleep while she rests up from working 14-hour days. I don’t see them fixing leaks in rundown houses or playing with a kid while the police prepare to interview her about her sexual abuse. They’re not paying for the funerals of babies and children who died after birth, when they truly do become independent organisms. And the crazy thing is they think they’ve already done their job, because the child was born!
Aphids give birth, girl. It’s no miracle. You want to speak for the weak? Get off your high horse and get your hands dirty helping the poor, the isolated, the ill and mentally ill women and mothers and their children who already breathe the dirty air. You are doing nothing, absolutely nothing, for children. You don’t have a flea’s comprehension of injustice. You are not doing shit for life until you get in there and fight that darkness. Until you understand that abortion is salvation in a world like ours. Does that sound too hard? Do you really think suffering post-birth is more permissible, less worthy of outrage?
“Pro-life” is simply a philosophy in which the only life worth saving is the one that can be saved by punishing a woman.
Everyone should read this. Everyone.
When I was a student at Cambridge I remember an anthropology professor holding up a picture of a bone with 28 incisions carved in it. “This is often considered to be man’s first attempt at a calendar” she explained. She paused as we dutifully wrote this down. ‘My question to you is this – what man needs to mark 28 days? I would suggest to you that this is woman’s first attempt at a calendar.’ It was a moment that changed my life. In that second I stopped to question almost everything I had been taught about the past. How often had I overlooked women’s contributions?
Sandi Toksvig WILL ALWAYS AND FOREVER REBLOG THIS QUOTE
I’m taking a class called The Archaeology of Sex and Gender (I’m an anthropology and art history major), and we were studying female figurines from the Neolithic era. Some girl in my class brought up the point that when male figurines with giant phalli were discovered, they were interpreted by academics as symbols of power. When female figures with giant vulvas were discovered, they were interpreted by academics as symbols of fertility. “Why can’t the giant vulva be a symbol of power too?” she asked.
It blew my mind and reaffirmed my decision to study anthropology and art history.
I didn’t change mine. Whatever, not the point.
Some dude made a joke about my maiden name the other day and I called him out on it, teasing him ruthlessly about it, calling him a sexist with a big smile, etc.
And he said, “I”m sure there are men who have changed their names for their wives. I mean, I wouldn’t do it, but someone has.”
I was like, “Why would you do it?”
He said, “I just wouldn’t. It’s my name, it’s my identity. But I’m saying, SOME GUY out there probably has.”
I think the smiles stopped after that. I’m sick of shit like this. You’re not progressive if you wouldn’t actually do it yourself.
OH, SOME GUY SOMEWHERE HAS PROBABLY CHANGED HIS NAME. BUT I WOULDN’T DO IT BECAUSE MY IDENTITY MEANS SO MUCH TO ME. BUT WOMEN CHANGE THEIR NAMES BECAUSE…
Because we have no identities?
The idea of changing my name when I get married has never sat well with me from the time I was little. As I’ve gotten older, the underlying reasoning has crystallized, and this is it. This, precisely. It’s a relic of an old mindset and I’ve never wanted anything to do with it, even before I knew why.
“When abortion is shrouded in shame, excluded from public health-insurance programs, and made harder to get because of a web of legal restrictions, horror ensues. It happened before Roe v. Wade—searing memories of those days still motivate the women who lead the pro-choice movement and the aging doctors who continue to practice despite constant threats and harassment. It’s happening now around the world, in poor countries like Kenya, where abortion is illegal and a staggering one-third of maternal deaths are caused by botched procedures. And it happened with this modern-day back alley butcher in Philadelphia. It would be grotesque if Gosnell’s crimes were used as a pretext to make it even harder for vulnerable women to get the care they need.”
Keep an eye out for more on this, conservative sites are rightfully horrified by the story in Philadelphia (as we all should be), but their response is to defund Planned Parenthood and other sites that help low income women, and that doesn’t really help matters.
Once again, conservatives battle logic with all they’ve got.
When it comes to writing, Aaron Sorkin ranks high among my personal heroes, so I enter into this post with some serious bias. I don’t write television. I tried once, but I don’t think I’m cut out for it. Whatever kind of stories you tell, though, I think there’s a lot to be learned from the man when it comes to matters of writing.
I say this because he’s getting a lot of flak lately, tonight in particular, first for the sexism in the film The Social Network and now for his speech at the Golden Globes, in which he said “Elite is not a bad word.” I think the problem with the latest incident is a matter of not being on the same wavelength. A lot of arguments I’m seeing are valid ones about privilege and the white male, except that they don’t touch on the definition of “elite” Sorkin consistently uses. He doesn’t use “elite” to mean the white upper class, people born into wealth and privilege or who finagled their way there.
Sorkin uses “elite” to indicate intelligence. He isn’t saying it’s good to stick your nose in the air and thumb it at the little guy, he’s saying it’s good to be smart, to be bold with your intelligence, to trust intellect and be willing to make clever TV and films in a country which kneels at the feet of the lowest common denominator. To point to the words he put in the mouth of his character, President Jed Bartlet, in an article a few years ago:
You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence.
It’s not bad, he’s saying, to be the best. To strive for the greatest you can do, to reach forever for the stars and, when you’ve got them, reach a little further, aim a little higher.
When it comes to the charges of Sorkin being sexist, maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. The Social Network certainly is in large chunks, if not altogether. It’s the story of college boys letting power and money go to their heads. Did it have to be told that way? Not necessarily (but Erica Albright didn’t have to be the most rational character in the film and Marylin Delpy, the lawyer played by Rashida Jones, didn’t have to be the most compassionate).
What it is, however, is the story it is trying to tell. To suggest that sexism is a problem inherent in Sorkin’s work completely negates the existence of CJ Cregg, of Donna Moss, of Abby Bartlet and Amy Gardner and Mrs. Landingham and all the other women of The West Wing. To say Sorkin cannot write women is to forget his work on this series and on Sports Night, to erase the fact of one of the finest television series in history with some of the strongest female characters in recent memory: not simply in the sense of their having been tough, but also in terms of their capacity for compassion and brilliance and in their having been as three-dimensional as any male character on TV. It’s one thing to criticize his work, another to dismiss such an enormous contribution in the same breath.
EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS FOREVER.