Thought I’d draw your attention to this gem of a quote by teen pop star Hilary Duff:

“I’m not, like, a crazy feminist. I think women definitely need men. Like, I couldn’t imagine having a girlfriend!”

Um, yah. Because you can only get your feminist club membership if you’re crazy, renounce men and have a girlfriend.  Thanks Hilary for being such a great role model.

“It doesn’t say great things about me, but smoking has been a constant presence in my life for a long time- and I don’t remember what I used to do - or how I used to be without it.”

-Emily Flake, These Things Ain’t Gonna Smoke Themselves.

For the last six months I’ve been hilariously “pretending I don’t smoke.” I’ve gone from being a ten-year pack-a-day, stupidly proud, reckless, chain-smoking fiend to hiding my habit from my family, my friends, my employers and (occasionally) my live-in partner.  Although I’m sure that there’s been some benefit to reducing my smoking habit considerably by means of concealing it, my life has gotten ridiculous. Who am I fooling? I am 28 years old and I am hiding my habit the same way I would when I was 16 - and yes folks, that’s how long I have been smoking.

Let’s face it: the smoking party is over. No one smokes anymore and no one is stupid enough to even vaguely believe it’s not going to kill you dead. For those of you who are young and toying with the notion, don’t fret- I’m not going to go on the “smoking is gonna get you” rant, cause quite frankly we all know it and I’d be a hypocrite if I spouted it off here. I’d rather come from a place that suggests you define yourself, and since we’d all rather define ourselves as non-smokers, let’s do that, shall we? See, that was easy enough.

So, what the heck am I doing?  I’ve been a fool. I’ve been hanging on. I’ve been putting this off and putting this off, but I have to make a final decision to define myself either as a smoker or not. I think we’re all in agreement that it would be better for me to make the decision to be a non-smoker, so here I am, doing just that. I’m just not committed to smoking in the same way I was, so I’m going to do a very public dumping of the habit just so you, Shameless readers (smokers, non-smokers and “pretenders”) can watch me fall apart and pick myself up again.

(more inside…)

When Stacey May posted on marriage and feminist politics a few days ago, I promised I would try to write something on coupledom. Since then I’ve been walking around town with various thoughts bumbling around my head like feral hamsters - I’ll try to set a few of them down here to see if it lights anyone’s fire.

Coupledom is old. Really, really old. Maybe too old to call an institution - more like a human tendency, like right-handedness or male pattern baldness. It’s one of those things that seems so natural that we barely notice it, the way you stop seeing the tip of your nose even though it’s hovering right there in your field of vision. But I like making familiar things strange - it’s a good way of thinking about how naturalization works, and who it benefits. And of course the Hidden Cameras‘ call to “ban marriage” is extreme, but then you don’t get good pop songs by being moderate (“ban marriage, ban it sometiiiiiiiimes” just doesn’t have quite the same ring). And since my favorite gay folk church chorus put it out there, we might as well run with it for a bit. How come long-term monogamy is the Mount Everest of human relationships, that we’re all striving for “because it’s there”? Or, alternately, that it’s so normal that we don’t even think about it as something to strive for - it just kind of happens, somewhere between high-school graduation and Botox treatments. And, since these question are pretty much impossible to answer, why does it matter? And what happens to people for whom the shoe just doesn’t fit?

Some school-friends of mine recently went to a “professionalization seminar”, a session where you get tips on how to turn what you’ve learned in university into a kickass career. Much of the discussion ended up being about how to make sure you and your parter get hired at the same institution, how to plan maternity leave, and other relationship-related concerns. “And what if you’re single?” one of my friends asked. “Well,” was the reply, “I guess you have it easy.” Really? Moving to a new city where you have no friends or family or support network to start a very demanding job is easy? Singlehandedly caring for yourself emotionally and physically while attempting to do work that means a lot to you but sometimes makes you totally nuts is easy? I mean, yes, negotiating between career and family is hard too, there’s about eight tonnes of Ms. Magazine ink out there to tell you that, but opting out of coupledom, for whatever reason, doesn’t suddenly make you into a freewheelin’ bohemian without a care in the world besides which trendy new bar you’re going to hit up next.

It’s pretty safe to say that society looks out for and protects the nuclear family in a way that it doesn’t single people, best friends forever, cousins, hippie communes, roommates, leather daddies and their baby dykes, polyamorous lovers, motorcycle gangs, bosom buddies, bridge partners, threesomes, or any other kind of romantic or non-romantic way that people come up with to stick together. The only institution that maybe comes close in terms of protecting itself is the Mafia. So, what I want to know is, how do you learn an ethics of care that includes those outside romantic partnerships and blood relations?(more inside…)

I am not a big fan of abstinence only education, nor am I a fan of talking to teenagers like they’re idiots. That’s why this New York Times article made me shudder. Long story short, abstinence-only organizations south of the border are still using their twisted “purity and morality” tactics despite the fact that they are “fighting serious threats to their future:”

Eleven state health departments rejected abstinence education this year, while legislatures in Colorado, Iowa and Washington passed laws that could kill, or at least wound, its presence in public schools.

Now, don’t get me wrong- I don’t think abstinence education in itself is a bad idea, I just think if teens choose to have sex they should have the information and the tools necessary to make that choice safely and in a self-respecting and empowered manner. But hey, that’s just me.

Eric Love is the director of an East Texas Abstinence Program, which runs “Virginity Rules.” This is a sample of the kind of “education” he’s giving teens in regards to sexuality:

 “Sex was designed to bond two people together.” To make the point, Mr. Love grabbed a tape dispenser and snapped off two fresh pieces. He slapped them to his filing cabinet and the floor; they trapped dirt, lint, a small metal bolt. “Now when it comes time for them to get married, the marriage pulls apart so easily,” he said, trying to unite the grimy strips. “Why? Because they gave the stickiness away.”

Um, excuse me? Giving my stickiness away?

via Feministing.

Please excuse me for making the personal a blog post, but lately I’ve been intrigued by Feminist and Queer responses to marriage. Specifically to the wedding-industrial complex. My previous post regarding Julie Goldman’s hilarious video Commitment Ceremony was of course meant to amuse, but it does bring up an interesting point of debate. Should feminists and the queer community support and participate in marriage? Mattilda, aka Matt Bernstein Sycamore, one of my personal heroes (and for fair disclosure editor of the anthology I was in, Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity) says no and says it well:

“Mattilda, aka Matt Bernstein Sycamore, editor of That’s Revolting!: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation find it “ironic that the central sign of straight conformity is seen as the pre-eminent goal of the gay rights movement.” For radicals like Mattilda, marriage is a signifier of class privilege, a way of dividing a particular version of gay identity from the larger queer community.”  (Clamor Magazine, May/June 2005)

In an interview with another hero, writer and activist Helen Boyd (who herself is married to her trangender “husband Betty”) Mattilda had this to say:

HB: Queer people occasionally love that Betty and I are legally married, and identify as queer, but I get the feeling your thoughts on that might be different. Tell me about marriage and gay marriage.

MBS: “Oh, no — marriage! Well, as we know from decades of feminist activism and scholarship, and from growing up in scary families of origin, marriage is still that central institution through which violence against women, queers, transpeople and children takes place. I don’t think we can reform marriage any more than we can reform other scary institutions of power (like the military, for example) — we’ve got to get rid of it!”

Marriage is a big ol’ mess of an argument in the feminist and queer community: if marriage is now an equitable partnership, why shouldn’t we participate and fight for it and our rights to it? Is marriage even an equitable partnership? Why fight for something based in patriarchy? Now that weddings are entrenched in capitalism, isn’t it our responsibility to reject them? If marriage is about “purity” and “property exchange” why would we even want to be part of that?  (There’s also an interesting post on RaceWire today about how “capitalism intersect(s) with wedding rituals in cultures other than mainstream white culture.”)

Now here’s my confession: I want to get married. I want a big girlie wedding and I feel the guilt and discomfort over this every day. In fact I want to get married to my current partner, who, for all of the reasons listed above does not. He believes that marriage is a sexist affront to feminist and queer values and that it is completely unnecessary (if not offensive,) having no bearing on the value or quality of our relationship, or any relationship for that matter.

So my question to you is whether or not marriage and feminism, or marriage and queer politics, are in direct opposition? What are your feelings on marriage and will you participate in the Wedding-Industrial Complex? 

I leave you with Anna’s recommendation: A live performance of the Hidden Camera’s “Ban Marriage.”

This Toronto event sounds great: it’s a photo exhibit documenting a high school program that uses hip hop to engage young people in gender, race, self-identity and community issues. In the words of one of the program facilators: hip hop has been dismembered by mainstream media to make it profitable, but that hip hop is not the hip hop that is a community force. The Hidden Wall reflects the way that hip hop has influenced the lives of the students at Dr. Marion Hillard High School in Malvern.

And…it’s also a family event, so you can bring your baby and your gramma.

For the sake of interest, there’s a great article in the New York Times about the demise of Jane Magazine, written by Kara Jesella and Marisa Meltzer, authors of How Sassy Changed My Life: A Love Letter to the Greatest Teen Magazine of All Time.

The article sums up the Jane debate pretty well:

“Readers and would-be readers often couldn’t decide if Jane was better than other women’s magazines or if, because it knew better, it was worse. Some thought it was too consumerist, that it celebrated a cloying brand of quirkiness for its own sake, that it spoke in some sort of inane urban girl patois and that it eschewed real feminism for you-go platitudes about drinking and sex…

…But in Jane, they found the one mainstream magazine that spoke to them, if imperfectly. It was the best of what a lot of women thought of as a bad bargain. In the end, that wasn’t good enough.”

Also, in the world of Shameless props, the Much Music Blog had this to say:

“First Sassy, then ELLEgirl, and now Jane - all have folded. Where have all the great girl mags gone? And what exactly are they making room for? At least we still have Shameless.”

Julie Goldman is hilarious. She’s a well-known staple on the NYC comedy scene, and her latest, “Commitment Ceremony” is currently playing at Outfest in LA.

This little ditty about how anything short of gay marriage is not good enough is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time.  Really, it made my day. Watch it. You’ll feel better about the world in general. Watch it for the line the Christain Right is more obsessed with gays than gays obsessed with gays. I have the entire Christian Right community in my vagina.

Yup, peed my pants.

It’s no secret that I am a feminist of the femme variety. I’ve already explained my interest in beauty products and high heeled shoes, and admittedly, my feminine obsessions translate to my newsstand purchases as well. I’m a magazine circulator by profession, so I buy and read a lot of magazines, many of which are thoughtful, intelligent and culturally relevent: Bitch, Ms., Utne, Venus, and of course, Shameless.

But every girl has her fair share of guilty pleasures, and mine was my beloved Jane Magazine. Every month I would relish in the relaxation that was page after page of witty full colour fun. While being informed of new sunscreens to buy and basking in the glory that was cute belts coordinating with cute skirts, I’d also get the occasional informative article on American politics, STD prevention and practical investment strategies for women. Last month, Jane even taught me that my boobs were perfectly normal.

Well my friends, Jane Mag is no more. The staff at Jane cleared out their desks today and the “subscribe!” link on the Jane Mag page is redirecting me to Glamour, because now I’m supposed to care only about bronzers and fad diets and not about my cervix, the health of my breasts, and taking a cross country road trip.

It’s a sad day folks. Even if you thought Jane was fluffy, trashy and vacuous, you have to admit it did offer a mainstream alternative to vapid articles about sex positions that seemed to only benefit “your man” (heterocentric anyone?) Jane was birthed out of the teen glory that was Sassy mag (before it got shut down by the Christian right for giving too much truth to teens,) and in my books any friend of Sassy is a friend of mine.

Now Jane had it’s fair share of content troubles, and was often criticized for not pushing the envelope far enough to differ itself from the media soup of shopping, sex and shoes that is other women’s glossies. Having said that, the demise of the magazine marks an important trend in the media landscape: mainstream corporate mags no longer need to cater to a woman’s mind. While there remains some thoughtful reads for women in an older age demographic, anyone under the age of 35 should make sure they don’t put their thinking cap on when they head to the newsstand.

Jane, you will be missed. Bathtub reading won’t be the same without you.