I obviously need to pay more attention to pop culture.

Or, you know, not.

So tell me. Are you surprised? Because a shocking number of people are.

Those people missed the point of feminism. And they're doing exactly what they shouldn't be doing: gendering activities. Those aren't the activities of a woman; they're the activities of someone who likes to see things come alive under his or her hands, who likes to put raw materials together and create something new, who likes to have an impact on her environment. That person could be male, female, transgendered, or neuter.

The reason those particular types of activities were under attack by righteous feminists was not because they were fundamentally demeaning or pointless activities. Far from it; there's a lot of honor in being a creator, a craftsperson. The problem comes in when they were the only activities available to women. And yes, it is pretty demeaning to be scrubbing floors and cooking meals for your husband while he trots around under the impression that what you do is easy, and nothing compared to the work he does. Especially when the whole world seems to feel that way. But women have more choices than that, now. Sure, not everyone gets that. A lot of women still think they're destined for a life of childbearing and housekeeping. But if an educated, informed woman makes a choice to follow a certain lifestyle, who are we to judge?

By saying that anything is women's work is to perpetuate the very gender roles that feminism is attempting to combat. To dismiss any activity as demeaning when it is an informed and conscious choice of the participant is narrow-minded and simply incorrect.

I choose to decorate my home. I choose to bake. I choose to cook meals for my boyfriend (although to be perfectly honest, we usually cook together). If I chose to stay at home and have babies, or I chose to be tied up and whipped every night, or I chose to forfeit a family in favor of a high-paying career, and I have a fairly good idea of the consequences of my choices, and I made those choices myself with no coercion, then no one has any right to judge them.

I am a feminist, and so is my boyfriend. I do not hate men. I do not think that men are worthless or that women are better.

Feminism is not about hating men; it is about recognizing invisible societal systems of privilege and breaking them down. Yes, white men are privileged in our society. No, that does not make them the enemy. The ones who are truly the enemy are those who consciously support that kind of social hierarchy. Yes, many men perpetuate gender hierarchy without realizing it, and it's fairly easy to write those men off as assholes. But the important thing to remember is that many of them simply don't realize that their behavior is unacceptable. They've been taught their whole lives that men and women have a certain kind of relationship, and worse than that, they've been taught that people that oppose that system are "man-hating lesbians," or possibly "pussy-whipped girly men." Ideally, we need to revamp the whole system so men like those are raised in an environment that encourages them to see women as equals, but until we have a world like that, we need to accept that that notion is simply foreign to some people. Yes, those men need to be educated about the truth surrounding systems of privilege; yes, until they're helping us, those individuals are actually hurting us. But that doesn't mean that the entire male gender must automatically be castigated for those men who don't understand the need to rebel, and it doesn't mean that a man can't, halfway through life, gain an understanding of the worth of feminism and become a warrior for feminism instead of against it.

Most intelligent third-wave feminists can grasp that distinction. We don't see men as the enemy, but rather as a much-needed ally in the fight for equality; a group that can conceivably come to understand the need for what we're doing and help us in our work. Yeah, some of us fall into the trap of clumping all men together as pervy jackasses who aren't good for anything but staring at our boobs, but that's just because so many men act that way, thinking that it's totally appropriate. I'm not saying it's okay for us to make such generalizations, but it must be understood why we do it. Not all of us are lucky enough to be acquainted with a number of intelligent, feminist men who understand that women aren't just boobs, a vagina, and a tendency toward hysteria.

Just as feminists shouldn't be writing off men as worthless, nor should anyone else be writing off feminists as man-haters. That's just how it works. You want people to stop generalizing you, then stop generalizing them.

So to reiterate... I, personally, don't hate men. I love intelligent, sensitive, feminist men who see women as allies and do what they can to break down the patriarchal system of privilege, even though they know they are the ones benefiting from it. What I do hate, or at least, pity and somewhat fear [in the sense of, I fear what they are capable of], are sexist, ignorant men who are terrified that we may someday topple their patriarchy and take away their power. But I refuse to place the entire male gender into that latter category, because I deeply value the men I know who distinctly fall into the former category.

Some snarkiness ahead, then. No harm intended; I just want to whine, but I don't want to hurt anyone. So seriously, if you're a hardcore HP fan, DO NOT READ on. I'm just getting some whining out of my system, and I don't want anyone to think I hate them, or hate me for my opinions. But if you're not a hardcore fan, please, read on and tell me if you think I'm crazy. *sigh*

That being said, I am so very tired of Harry Potter. It seems like everywhere I look, people have some absurd need to keep public record of what page they're on or exactly what time in the wee hours of July 16th they reached the end and found out the big secret. Don't get me wrong; I truly enjoy the HP books. I've read them all several times (except Order of the Phoenix, cos it annoyed me) and I think they're well written. I think the reason this irks me so damn much is because half of these people are the same ones who complained when I made too many political posts back in November. Um, I'm sorry, but I was posting about things that actually affected peoples' lives. Half-Blood Prince is a work of fiction. You love it, you read it, good for you. Am I supposed to get excited because you got it on the stroke of 12 and had finished reading it an hour later? Good for you! You have even longer to wait until the next one comes out! But unless that book is single-handedly responsible for destroying all negative impacts of imperialism, I have trouble seeing what the big deal is all about. Yes, I'm sure it's an awesome book. I know I'll laugh and cry and be unable to put it down once I get it (in softcover). But I don't think it's a better book than, say, The Game by Laurie King, and no one seemed to feel the need to run around screaming about that.

I guess it just depresses me to know that people, even those I respect and love, are so easily drawn into being passionate about trivialities like a mass-market novel or the lives of various celebrities, but can't find it in themselves to give a singing fish for, say, the gross human and animal rights violations going on all around them.

That being said, if you dressed up to go to the midnight release party or read the book as fast as possible to avoid hearing spoilers elsewhere, or just for the fun of beating your friends, I actually have nothing against you. Bravo for knowing how to have a good time in life! Joy is vastly important. I don't for one instant think I'm "holier than thou" or somehow living my life better than you. It's important to enjoy life and appreciate great works of art.

I just get upset that there's mass hysteria about something so trivial and nothing being done about all these huge issues that I care about. Our society nurtures a cult of selfishness and entitlement complexes, and we suck it up cos it's easy. And it makes me sad.

I think The Daily Show shares my awe of this absurdity. There was a fabulous sketch recently where they treated a leak of HP books in Canada the way mainstream news organizations in the US have been treating the bombings in London. COULD IT HAPPEN HERE??? Very amusing.

edit: A caveat because I guess I still didn't make myself clear. I don't have a problem with Harry Potter per se. And I think the partying and the fun surrounding it is great. And as my friend Erika pointed out, it does a great job of encouraging people to read.

What concerns me is the cultural habits that it represents; we are encouraged in our Euro-American culture to forget that we are privileged and that there are those out there who aren't. We wrap ourselves up in the fluff of our privilege, snuggling up to our Harry Potter or our Celebrity lives magazines, tunnel-vision turned up to full and cotton wool in our ears, and conveniently forget that there's a rest of the world out there, not all of whom are privileged enough to expend so much energy on a book.

I'm not saying that we should all drop all of our fun times and spend our lives miserable and poor and hungry. But in the United States, at least, we are encouraged to not think about things that depress us. Animal cruelty in factory farms makes you sad, so think about something fun instead. We're taught to not get outraged; instead, get distracted. Give someone a chunk of money and take a vacation from reality for a while.

The Harry Potter craze is just one example of the fluffy part of our lives, but I want to see some examples, from an average American (one who didn't attend UC Santa Cruz or Berkeley) of getting worked up about some of the less pretty stuff.

It all matters, folks, the fun and the pain. Let's not get too involved in ourselves... please?

If it's emerging patterns we're worried about, why not just add a tiny thing that keeps track of how many times each song has been played (already a feature of itunes) and use that to make sure you don't play certain songs too much? At that point, patterns really aren't going to matter to the layman who just wants to listen to some damn music!

I have boring Cake songs that have a play count of sixteen and great They Might Be Giants songs that haven't even played twice.

Someone fix this, dammit!

Any argument that uses the Christian Bible as its primary resource is appealing to an unsupported authority. Faith does not equal science, people.

Now, I don't claim to be an expert on logic; I tend to act on instinct first, and then follow up with the logic. But we have no physical proof that the Bible isn't just some work of fiction or, more likely, allegory written by random people. And I know at least enough not to base my arguments on a book of fiction.

I knew it was only a matter of time before Google started doing maps better than everyone else. Absolutely awesome. Detailed, easy to use, clear... Google keeps kicking ass.

I can't believe how appropriately it fit in to that essay I wrote in my last entry, and how well it answered a lot of the questions I put forth. The book is, of course, all about human evolution, so I assumed there would be some similarity, but within the first twenty pages, I encountered quotes like,

Contemporary men and women are living relics of bygone days. In the short span of years that we have existed as a distinct species, insufficient time has elapsed to depart radically from the physiological and behavioral patterns we employed to respond to the conditions we found ourselves in at the dawn of our species.

That neatly explains the disconnect between our actions and our instinctual drives, and, as it implies that history will carry us beyond these behaviors, reinforces the idea that we should not defer entirely to the wisdom of our instincts.

Especially since we seem to have almost completely transcended natural selection (emphasis on natural), thanks to medical science, it's not really surprising that we haven't moved beyond possibly obsolete instinctual behaviors; we have no way to breed them out. Cultural mores are so firmly ingrained in our day-to-day behavior that we merely perpetuate them in our offspring. It looks to me like social reform is the only way to go.

On that note, I highly recommend Leonard Shlain's book. Also, be sure to take a look at this site. It's my new favorite website, and I'll be writing more about it later. Also, see Kinsey. I saw it this evening, and even I, a fairly liberated woman, found it enlightening. I might write something on that topic a bit more later as well. For now: sleep.

Before I begin, I want to clarify that I don't for a minute think I'm smarter or more in a position to know anything than the scientists behind that article. But from my point of view, I see a lot of holes in their argument, and in the spirit of thinking for myself and questioning everything, I decided to speak a little about it.

The article discusses various biological/evolutionary explanations for extant observable human mating behavior. I don't doubt the majority of the reasons they cite as the initial impetus for various behaviors. However, I think that placing responsibility for human behavior directly and entirely on biological drives ignores several important aspects of contemporary humanity.

Biologically and historically speaking, certainly males and females have behaved in specific ways in seeking a mate with the intended goal of reproducing, thus passing on their genes, and ensuring that any offspring are healthy enough to survive to sexual maturity and can reproduce themselves. I am not questioning that. But to say that these incentives are still the main driving force today is to ignore cultural mores and pressures that I believe often predominate over instinctual drives.

This is an interesting article, relevant to the article I previously talked about. Instead of mindlessly arguing against the bill, this short article, while not defending it, does give the reasoning behind it. Apparently the proposed bill is to prevent cases like this, where an unready mother gave birth and abandoned the child, leaving it to die (or possibly killing it herself).

That begs the question, what does that have to do with miscarriages, which are defined by the loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks; not exactly the same as an abandoned newborn.

Of course, I mainly read Plastic for the responses, and as one poster pointed out, Cosgrove, the main proponent of the bill, is now clarifying his wording to apply only to stillborns, rather than miscarriages.

That is a rather important distinction; one can only hope that the bill will be stated clearly enough that it cannot be used for anything other than that proposed purpose.

Oh. Dear. God. (Make that: Oh dear. God.) This article is in response to a proposed bill in Virginia that requires women to report miscarriages within twelve hours to "the proper law-enforcement agency" or risk prison time and a fine. Now, I'll be honest and say I don't know all of the details, and I don't live in Virginia, so some might say it's none of my business. But if it's possible in Virginia, where my grandmother and the vast majority of my extended family live, then it's possible anywhere.

What's next, honestly? I hate fear-mongering as a technique to rise people to action, so please understand that I am attempting to induce outrage, not fear. But seriously. Now, not only are there people who want to keep us from being allowed to terminate a pregnancy that is contained entirely within our own body, but suddenly even the very act of conception and the possible accidental termination thereof (which is more common than you think, corroborated also at this link) becomes someone else's business. Big Brother much?

Now I know no one (intelligent) really believes that every sperm is sacred and every egg must be fertilized. But how is that really different from what happens when a sperm and an egg meet and some cells begin to mutate? Are we going to begin awarding cancers and tumors the status of human beings?

As terrifying as the breach of privacy is, what's really the issue here is the precedent it sets. This takes one major step towards the establishment of a foetus as a human being which, as you may imagine, takes a step towards the confiscation of a woman's right to choose. You cannot choose to kill a human being. As for right now, you can still make choices about your body and what happens to it. And if, during the natural and healthy act of sex, an egg and a sperm meet up, and the woman in whose body it happens doesn't want to face nine months of puking and backaches and bloating, I think she should be allowed to make the choice to not go through that.

Now I don't pretend to think I have all the answers. I don't think in black and white. I don't know if there's a line we can draw where an unborn child crosses over to humanity. But I do know that a clump of cells that could not survive outside a woman's body is not a human being. And an unborn baby 8 months in the womb, mostly fully formed, and the chance to survive with medical help were it to be removed from its mother is.

Where that leaves us? I don't know. But I find it interesting that Republicans, who claim to want less government, are the very people who want the government snooping into my uterus, and if that's not The Man poking his nose into every nook and cranny, then I don't know what is. Funny that...

StumbleUpon is my latest addiction. I went on an extensions rampage recently, installing every Firefox extension that even mildly appealed to me. StumbleUpon was one of them, and I'm damn thrilled with it. I got Aaron (my boyfriend) addicted too. It's a virus!

But seriously, it's quite fun. As a Firefox extension, it adds a little toolbar underneath the address bar. You fill out a bunch of information about yourself (pretty sure they don't sell it, but there's not much personal stuff anyway) and then press the little "Stumble" button; it takes you to random, user-suggested sites that fall into categories you selected, which you then review with thumbs-up or thumbs-down, training it to know what you like. So far something like 95% of the websites it has taken me to have been really appropriate for me. I've found some cool stuff that way; and it's also taken me to established favorites like The Onion, and Bitch.

Again, I guess I can't speak for much of America, because I really don't understand why we're so afraid of breasts. Everyone who was breast fed has fondled a pair. And sex? If you exist, someone must have had sex to bring you here. Why be so terrified of it?

I'm getting off-track, aren't I? It all comes down to my complete lack of understanding of Republicans and religious fundamentalists.