Last night, Beefcake and I were talking and he mentioned how, in order to further irritate his roommate, Rogaine, who he hates passionately, he used to joke about how he'd like to fuck his younger sister. This tactic is pretty standard. But when Rogaine started to become upset as his sister was hooking up with people, Beefcake began ragging on him about how "broken" his sister was, indicating that she was horribly ugly.
At the time it didn't bother me much, but it stuck in my head, this "broken" word, as I cleaned houses with my mama all day. Somewhere between the 5th and 6th toilet I scrubbed, the word began to piss me off.
First of all, it's fine to describe someone's level of attractiveness and even to use it as a diss against someone's siblings (I've probably done it). But broken?
I doubt Beefcake invented this use of the word, though he is the first one I've heard use it (note: this is not an indictment of him, just the adjective). And the fact that he isn't the only one tossing this around makes me even more pissed.
Because to call a woman "broken" for being unattractive doesn't just imply, it blatantly states that without a set of features deemed good-looking by society, she is fractured, ruined, reduced somehow. She is less than, lacking in some way. She is reduced from a person into an object. It's a terribly effective way to begin seeing women as not deserving, less than a man, not able to have their own ideas or beliefs or wealth or rights or control over their bodies.
So please, menfolk, the next time you feel the need to put someone down on the basis of their appearance alone, find another word. Put your GRE vocab to use and find a more appropriate word. Or, better yet, maybe don't judge females on their looks at all. Crazy idea, eh? A feminist can dream.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Monday, May 24, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Man-up
I was watching tv this morning, and I saw a commercial that annoyed me a little bit. The commercial is for Miller Light (an awful, piss flavored beer but that's beside the point). A guy walks into a bar, orders " any light beer" from a female bartender who tells him that when he's ready to "take off his skirt," he should order a Miller Light. The guy walks away (he is wearing a skirt). Then it cuts to him and his friends, he's wearing pants and drinking a Miller Light. The voice man says something like "when you're ready to MAN-UP" drink a Miller Light.
It's the man-up that I have a problem with. First, the designation of "girlie" drinks vs. man-drinks (beer) always confused me b/c in my experience, "girlie drinks" get you a hell of a lot more wasted a hell of a lot faster. And yet, men take pride in their ability to consume multiple beers in a night (which I can't do b/c I'm a small person and only so much liquid fits inside me at any given moment.) Girls who "drink with the men" get automatic major cool points.
Second, the phrase "man-up" says that being a man (white and straight) should be our ultimate goal. No one ever says "woman-up" because only by maning-up do you take on the role of a man (so you are better, faster, stronger etc). Although I usually argue for Equal Opportunity, I don't think that we should start using the phrase "woman-up". Instead, we should stop establishing such rigid standards of perfection for gender. I shouldn't have to man-up and compare myself to a man nor should I woman-up and try to be a perfect woman.
Third, since this message comes from a commercial, the media continues to reinforce these ideas about gender. (see The Librarian's post about the influence of the media which I completely agree with)
As always, think about it ('cause clearly I think about things way to much).
Lots of love,
Lady Lola
It's the man-up that I have a problem with. First, the designation of "girlie" drinks vs. man-drinks (beer) always confused me b/c in my experience, "girlie drinks" get you a hell of a lot more wasted a hell of a lot faster. And yet, men take pride in their ability to consume multiple beers in a night (which I can't do b/c I'm a small person and only so much liquid fits inside me at any given moment.) Girls who "drink with the men" get automatic major cool points.
Second, the phrase "man-up" says that being a man (white and straight) should be our ultimate goal. No one ever says "woman-up" because only by maning-up do you take on the role of a man (so you are better, faster, stronger etc). Although I usually argue for Equal Opportunity, I don't think that we should start using the phrase "woman-up". Instead, we should stop establishing such rigid standards of perfection for gender. I shouldn't have to man-up and compare myself to a man nor should I woman-up and try to be a perfect woman.
Third, since this message comes from a commercial, the media continues to reinforce these ideas about gender. (see The Librarian's post about the influence of the media which I completely agree with)
As always, think about it ('cause clearly I think about things way to much).
Lots of love,
Lady Lola
BDSM and Consent
Since we're on the topic of consent anyway with General Lee's fucking AWESOME posts, I thought I'd write about something I've been milling over in my head for a while, and that's why we could all learn a few things from BDSM.
BDSM stands for bondage, discipline/dominance, submission/sadism, and masochism (quite a mouthful, pun intended). It encompasses a whole spectrum of sexual activities and a very distinct subculture, ranging from light bondage and pinching and dirty talk to outright torture and rape fantasy. BDSM is mainly characterized by its focus on power play between tops (dominants) and bottoms (submissives). I experimented briefly with BDSM for a while, but stopped short before ever actually having sexual contact with the person; he wanted to dictate other aspects of my life, down to my panty choice, and as a feminist, I found that infuriating, not sexy.
Other feminists give BDSM a lot of flack, criticizing it for replicating the same power dynamics that we see in the real world (men dominating women) in the erotic bedroom context. Also, how could a practice that allows for the exploration of possibly torturing women and playing out rape fantasies possibly be positive for women?
Personally, I find the focus on strict consent in BDSM admirable. There are usually negotiations of boundaries long before sexual interaction occurs to suss out each person's comfort level, and the use of a safeword to know when it's time to stop or take a break if someone feels unsafe or uncomfortable in any way.
I love the idea of a safeword, especially since "no" is sometimes misinterpreted as "try harder" or as a person being coy. Having a per-determined word that both parties agree to respect represents a way to have more agency in one's sex life, to know that one's boundaries will be respected. Failure to honor the safeword is considered the most serious misconduct in BDSM, since it essentially at that point becomes sexual assault or even rape, depending on what exactly is transpiring after the revoking of consent. Such clearly defined parameters won't necessarily ensure amazing sex, but they will ensure that no one feels traumatized or scared or hurt afterward.
Also, for many survivors of rape and assault, this ability to play with power and manipulate a sexual encounter within predetermined boundaries is an extraordinarily powerful way to reclaim a sense of agency. Add in an enhanced understanding of consent, and I think BDSM has some serious knowledge to impart on mainstream sex and sexuality.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
BDSM stands for bondage, discipline/dominance, submission/sadism, and masochism (quite a mouthful, pun intended). It encompasses a whole spectrum of sexual activities and a very distinct subculture, ranging from light bondage and pinching and dirty talk to outright torture and rape fantasy. BDSM is mainly characterized by its focus on power play between tops (dominants) and bottoms (submissives). I experimented briefly with BDSM for a while, but stopped short before ever actually having sexual contact with the person; he wanted to dictate other aspects of my life, down to my panty choice, and as a feminist, I found that infuriating, not sexy.
Other feminists give BDSM a lot of flack, criticizing it for replicating the same power dynamics that we see in the real world (men dominating women) in the erotic bedroom context. Also, how could a practice that allows for the exploration of possibly torturing women and playing out rape fantasies possibly be positive for women?
Personally, I find the focus on strict consent in BDSM admirable. There are usually negotiations of boundaries long before sexual interaction occurs to suss out each person's comfort level, and the use of a safeword to know when it's time to stop or take a break if someone feels unsafe or uncomfortable in any way.
I love the idea of a safeword, especially since "no" is sometimes misinterpreted as "try harder" or as a person being coy. Having a per-determined word that both parties agree to respect represents a way to have more agency in one's sex life, to know that one's boundaries will be respected. Failure to honor the safeword is considered the most serious misconduct in BDSM, since it essentially at that point becomes sexual assault or even rape, depending on what exactly is transpiring after the revoking of consent. Such clearly defined parameters won't necessarily ensure amazing sex, but they will ensure that no one feels traumatized or scared or hurt afterward.
Also, for many survivors of rape and assault, this ability to play with power and manipulate a sexual encounter within predetermined boundaries is an extraordinarily powerful way to reclaim a sense of agency. Add in an enhanced understanding of consent, and I think BDSM has some serious knowledge to impart on mainstream sex and sexuality.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
C-O-N-S-E-N-T (find out what it means to me)
As a gender non-normative person, I have had interesting experiences with consent. Let me note at the beginning of this that I often put those faults of consent both to myself for not communicating enough as well as to the other person for not asking enough, and a great deal to the general issue of what the media has taught us to believe about sex and consent.
Really, anything involving sex involves consent – and the question of sex, considering my last post, is a grey area. I don’t think you should worry whether holding hands counts as a sexual act to your partner (then again, lesbians do love hands…) but communication, as always, is key.
In the context of feminism (and life in general, I might argue), communication and consent are absolutely necessary. Yet, where do we find consent? How do we know it’s consent without just up and popping the awkward question “so, do you want to, uh…”
Well, kids, I have thought about this question long and hard (that’s what she said) and have come to conclusion that knowing you have full consent does, in fact, require you talk to the other person. I know, I know, it’s awkward. Talking about sex with someone you’re about to/planning to/would like to have sex with is never going to be the easiest thing, but it is so fucking essential.
Just think about the alternative. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to be a sex offender. No one wants to be that awful, traumatic experience you had. No one wants to have an awful experience. As far as I can tell, everyone who wants to be having sex would like to be having good (if not mindblowingly awesome) sex all the time. But in order to have that good sex, we need to communicate. There’s no other way around it. And although checking in mid or post act is a good practice to get into, it should not be your only tactic.
I had already had been sexually active for three (relatively active) years before a partner ever stopped to ask me “is this ok?” prior to performing an act. Now, granted, she was the first sexual partner I ever had with whom I directly disclosed my gender status, but she still gets a damn gold star for both effort and consideration.
Getting caught in the heat of the moment is a nice dream, but sex does not always happen that way, and I’d hope that even with the heat, you might have had a conversation previously or be able to stop the other person if things don’t feel right. All you need is a basic “hey, give me a second” before either changing tactics or saying “I actually don’t like being touched there” or “I don’t think I’m quite ready for that yet, what else can we do?”
Consent is a huge topic. You can’t just have a quick conversation that consists of
partner 1:“Wanna fuck?”
partner 2:“Sounds great!”
partner 1& partner 2 (unison): “Let’s go!”
But consent is also something that requires you to know yourself – not just your partner. I, myself, am a big supporter of masturbation. It’s a great way to explore your comfort levels and sexuality without the bother of communicating it to someone else, especially if you haven’t figured it out yet. If you can feel sexy all by yourself, awesome! If it requires some erotica, some vibrations, a little pictorial stimulation, go for it! Hell, if cyber sex is what you need (might I suggest chatroulette, if your turn on happens to be mutual masturbation with some random dude), then why not? My point here is that finding out how to stimulate yourself while physically alone, learning what you want out of sex, is just about essential to having good sex.
For some people, having good sex is just a loner activity. Food for thought: In lesbian culture, primarily, there is such a thing as a “stone butch”. The stone butch is a woman whose primary sexual goal is to get her partner off - this means that she receives pleasure from the pleasure of her partner. Some stone butches pleasure their partners and then pleasure themselves alone later. Some stone butches pleasure their partners and get pleasure from some indirect stimulation, from the partner, theirself, their environment, what-have-you.
The point of this short lesson is not to send you off rushing to be a stone butch (unless it’s who you are and then, hey, have a great time!), but instead to understand, again, how many kinds of sex there are, how many different sexual expressions people have, and that good sex can and should involve accommodation to all parties comforts, desires and needs.
Over and out,
General Lee
Really, anything involving sex involves consent – and the question of sex, considering my last post, is a grey area. I don’t think you should worry whether holding hands counts as a sexual act to your partner (then again, lesbians do love hands…) but communication, as always, is key.
In the context of feminism (and life in general, I might argue), communication and consent are absolutely necessary. Yet, where do we find consent? How do we know it’s consent without just up and popping the awkward question “so, do you want to, uh…”
Well, kids, I have thought about this question long and hard (that’s what she said) and have come to conclusion that knowing you have full consent does, in fact, require you talk to the other person. I know, I know, it’s awkward. Talking about sex with someone you’re about to/planning to/would like to have sex with is never going to be the easiest thing, but it is so fucking essential.
Just think about the alternative. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to be a sex offender. No one wants to be that awful, traumatic experience you had. No one wants to have an awful experience. As far as I can tell, everyone who wants to be having sex would like to be having good (if not mindblowingly awesome) sex all the time. But in order to have that good sex, we need to communicate. There’s no other way around it. And although checking in mid or post act is a good practice to get into, it should not be your only tactic.
I had already had been sexually active for three (relatively active) years before a partner ever stopped to ask me “is this ok?” prior to performing an act. Now, granted, she was the first sexual partner I ever had with whom I directly disclosed my gender status, but she still gets a damn gold star for both effort and consideration.
Getting caught in the heat of the moment is a nice dream, but sex does not always happen that way, and I’d hope that even with the heat, you might have had a conversation previously or be able to stop the other person if things don’t feel right. All you need is a basic “hey, give me a second” before either changing tactics or saying “I actually don’t like being touched there” or “I don’t think I’m quite ready for that yet, what else can we do?”
Consent is a huge topic. You can’t just have a quick conversation that consists of
partner 1:“Wanna fuck?”
partner 2:“Sounds great!”
partner 1& partner 2 (unison): “Let’s go!”
But consent is also something that requires you to know yourself – not just your partner. I, myself, am a big supporter of masturbation. It’s a great way to explore your comfort levels and sexuality without the bother of communicating it to someone else, especially if you haven’t figured it out yet. If you can feel sexy all by yourself, awesome! If it requires some erotica, some vibrations, a little pictorial stimulation, go for it! Hell, if cyber sex is what you need (might I suggest chatroulette, if your turn on happens to be mutual masturbation with some random dude), then why not? My point here is that finding out how to stimulate yourself while physically alone, learning what you want out of sex, is just about essential to having good sex.
For some people, having good sex is just a loner activity. Food for thought: In lesbian culture, primarily, there is such a thing as a “stone butch”. The stone butch is a woman whose primary sexual goal is to get her partner off - this means that she receives pleasure from the pleasure of her partner. Some stone butches pleasure their partners and then pleasure themselves alone later. Some stone butches pleasure their partners and get pleasure from some indirect stimulation, from the partner, theirself, their environment, what-have-you.
The point of this short lesson is not to send you off rushing to be a stone butch (unless it’s who you are and then, hey, have a great time!), but instead to understand, again, how many kinds of sex there are, how many different sexual expressions people have, and that good sex can and should involve accommodation to all parties comforts, desires and needs.
Over and out,
General Lee
Consent, Agency and Feminism
One aspect of my view on feminism is the essential notion of Choice. Here, I am not discussing choice as related to abortion specifically, but instead Choice as a signifier of agency; the agency and choice to live in your own body as you see fit to inhabit it and interact.
Consent works a strong hand into this concept. The idea of living fully with agency and freedom over your own actions always draws the question: but what if you start killing people? Or stealing from them? IT WILL BE ANARCHY, AAAAAAAAAAAH - but let me cut you off there.
Here I see consent as a way to put a stopper on that chaos theory. Mutual consent, as a regulation, would suggest mindfulness and communication between people. Now, although I do not wish to become too philosophical and preachy, but think of the possibilities of a world wherein the violation of consent was the primary foundation of what we describe as wrong-doing.
Think of the vast possibility of interactions between people if the first question was “how do you feel about doing _____?” – I would argue that, to men and women and anyone in between, this would change lived experience drastically. I cannot call it the perfect plan, but it is definitely one that I'd like to apply more often.
Returning to the question of Choice, the reason I see feminism as the source in my concept of Choice is that, historically, a woman’s choice over how to inhabit and survive in her own body have been limited, especially in contrast to men’s choice and agency in that matter.
Now, one might argue biology as a basis to this historical fact – that if women were not supposed to be subordinate, then why do they have the burdens of childbirth and menstruation (etc, etc)? To that, I say biology will do whatever it pleases. Have you ever heard of intersex people? (If not, that is a subject of another post entirely) The general disregard to the humanity, choice and agency of the vast intersex population is not an issue of what biology has done to them – they can survive and work just as well as any other human being – but instead an issue of how society treats them. Therefore, what we discuss here is an issue of society, not biology.
It is society, social constructs, social and institutional inequalities and standards which maintain the issue of women lacking the agency to control their own bodies as they see fit. This lack of agency both maintains the intellectual barriers women (and other folks) have towards accessing their own agency, and it also upholds the more tangible, accessible barriers (such as access to birth control, poverty, sexual harassment, etc).
For fear of rambling on, I will wrap up the argument here. But I will leave you with this food for thought: what would your life be like if you were required to get consent for your strong interpersonal interactions? How would your life be if your agency and choice were not withheld, violated or unequal to others?
I do understand that these are extreme, utopian concepts, but every thought process needs a starting point, no?
Over and out,
General Lee
Consent works a strong hand into this concept. The idea of living fully with agency and freedom over your own actions always draws the question: but what if you start killing people? Or stealing from them? IT WILL BE ANARCHY, AAAAAAAAAAAH - but let me cut you off there.
Here I see consent as a way to put a stopper on that chaos theory. Mutual consent, as a regulation, would suggest mindfulness and communication between people. Now, although I do not wish to become too philosophical and preachy, but think of the possibilities of a world wherein the violation of consent was the primary foundation of what we describe as wrong-doing.
Think of the vast possibility of interactions between people if the first question was “how do you feel about doing _____?” – I would argue that, to men and women and anyone in between, this would change lived experience drastically. I cannot call it the perfect plan, but it is definitely one that I'd like to apply more often.
Returning to the question of Choice, the reason I see feminism as the source in my concept of Choice is that, historically, a woman’s choice over how to inhabit and survive in her own body have been limited, especially in contrast to men’s choice and agency in that matter.
Now, one might argue biology as a basis to this historical fact – that if women were not supposed to be subordinate, then why do they have the burdens of childbirth and menstruation (etc, etc)? To that, I say biology will do whatever it pleases. Have you ever heard of intersex people? (If not, that is a subject of another post entirely) The general disregard to the humanity, choice and agency of the vast intersex population is not an issue of what biology has done to them – they can survive and work just as well as any other human being – but instead an issue of how society treats them. Therefore, what we discuss here is an issue of society, not biology.
It is society, social constructs, social and institutional inequalities and standards which maintain the issue of women lacking the agency to control their own bodies as they see fit. This lack of agency both maintains the intellectual barriers women (and other folks) have towards accessing their own agency, and it also upholds the more tangible, accessible barriers (such as access to birth control, poverty, sexual harassment, etc).
For fear of rambling on, I will wrap up the argument here. But I will leave you with this food for thought: what would your life be like if you were required to get consent for your strong interpersonal interactions? How would your life be if your agency and choice were not withheld, violated or unequal to others?
I do understand that these are extreme, utopian concepts, but every thought process needs a starting point, no?
Over and out,
General Lee
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Elena Kagan: WTF America
There has been a lot of flack over Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, some of which is about the fact that she hasn't expressed a lot of views on many pressing legal issues we face today. But a big chunk of the talk surrounding her nomination is about her sexuality: is she gay?
First of all, homegirl's sexuality has NOTHING to do with her ability to perform as a Supreme Court justice. While I'm all for more diversity and less old white guys (and if she were out, I'd be pretty thrilled that America might be ready to accept an openly gay woman in a position of serious authority), her possible queer status has jack shit to do with her suitability for the position.
The fact that who she may or may not choose to sleep is being debated widely in the media indicates how, despite all of the advances of feminism and the women's movement, some things really haven't changed. An intelligent, accomplished woman in her fifties with short hair is not someone who just "didn't find The One;" she is either a lesbian, or undesirable. You're either Ellen Degeneres or Susan Boyle, with no gradations in between. Unmarried men in their fifties, of course, still have romantic options and possibilities, as they only grow "distinguished" with age as women grow old, haggard, dried up. Double standards, much?
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
First of all, homegirl's sexuality has NOTHING to do with her ability to perform as a Supreme Court justice. While I'm all for more diversity and less old white guys (and if she were out, I'd be pretty thrilled that America might be ready to accept an openly gay woman in a position of serious authority), her possible queer status has jack shit to do with her suitability for the position.
The fact that who she may or may not choose to sleep is being debated widely in the media indicates how, despite all of the advances of feminism and the women's movement, some things really haven't changed. An intelligent, accomplished woman in her fifties with short hair is not someone who just "didn't find The One;" she is either a lesbian, or undesirable. You're either Ellen Degeneres or Susan Boyle, with no gradations in between. Unmarried men in their fifties, of course, still have romantic options and possibilities, as they only grow "distinguished" with age as women grow old, haggard, dried up. Double standards, much?
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Friday, May 21, 2010
The (Real) Bar Scene
Although Northampton has a bit of a paucity of bars given that it's a college town, I must admit, the Sex Fairies are spoiled. Our bars are clean, well-lit, safe, and fun. Real college bars are NOT like this.
I got an education on this subject last night when I explored the West Chester bar scene for the first time. West Chester is a state college town in PA, and thus chock full of raucous bars. I spent most of the night staring at the chaos and drunk texting myself so I would remember all the lovely details.
The environment was so male-oriented and frat-like. The first bar we went to had five TVs, all of which were broadcasting sports, clearly pandering to the men of the bar scene. One of my companions, Beefcake, pointed out that sports are one of the few things that you can watch without sound and still understand, and while this is true, why do we need TVs at all? I don't go to bars to catch up on SportsCenter; I go to bars to get my drink on. This reminded me very much of the club at which I met Beefcake, where they broadcast episodes of Manswers (the show that answered pertinent inquiries such as "what does it take to make an implant explode?"), catering to a more male experience.
They also had $2 mixed drinks as a promotional special, something I very much appreciated, but which also seemed to unfairly target women: nearly all of the females at this bar were throwing back the mixed drinks, while the men sipped beers. It also reminded me of a frat's beer policy at WPI: men can get five beers free, women have unlimited (presumably in order to get them shitfaced and less able to discern who, if anyone, they'd like to go home with).
At this same bar, a very skinny, very scantily-clad woman was DJing. Before putting on the song "Crazy Bitch," she advocated to the other females in the place that they "treat their men right" later that night.
...female chauvinism, much?
The saving grace for this bar (for me, anyway) was the one lone gay female. With her short hair and flannel shirt, she made me feel at home. I wanted to buy her a shot out of solidarity of being the only folks there to understand the definition of "heteronormativity."
The second bar was much more crowded and college-scene than the first. By the end of the evening, the floor was coated in that familiar frat house beer sludge that comes from too many spilled drinks.
One man with a beer gut and early male-pattern baldness stood near the bar, criticizing the women who walked by him and blatantly looking them up and down. I wanted to storm over and lecture him on objectification (as well as questioning how a fat fuck like himself thought he deserved the attention of ANY of the females there), but knew a half-drunk five foot tall blonde yelling at him would not exactly be the pinnacle of conscious-raising, so I refrained.
And attention was clearly the currency of the realm here. For me, this was exemplified by the extent to which most of the women had dolled themselves up (I'm not sure I wore that much makeup to my prom), but even moreso by the faux-bisexuality on display (fuck you, Katy Perry!). Far be it from me to dictate a person's sexuality (I'm all for experimentation), but these two girls were making out for a man holding a camera. It was not only important that they attract attention to themselves by pandering to the male gaze directly in front of them, but also that they document it for later to prove just how fun and crazy they are. It didn't seem to be about enjoyment for them, as they stopped as soon as the picture was taken, but about attention. It made me sad.
While I'm sure I will probably drink in West Chester again, I couldn't help but be struck by the way the entire atmosphere replicated the male-dominated air of a frat house. It only made me more homesick for the safe, bourgie bars of Northampton, and made me see how sheltered we are from the outright chauvinism encouraged by so many bars and their patrons. We really do live in a pro-women bubble, and I love it.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
I got an education on this subject last night when I explored the West Chester bar scene for the first time. West Chester is a state college town in PA, and thus chock full of raucous bars. I spent most of the night staring at the chaos and drunk texting myself so I would remember all the lovely details.
The environment was so male-oriented and frat-like. The first bar we went to had five TVs, all of which were broadcasting sports, clearly pandering to the men of the bar scene. One of my companions, Beefcake, pointed out that sports are one of the few things that you can watch without sound and still understand, and while this is true, why do we need TVs at all? I don't go to bars to catch up on SportsCenter; I go to bars to get my drink on. This reminded me very much of the club at which I met Beefcake, where they broadcast episodes of Manswers (the show that answered pertinent inquiries such as "what does it take to make an implant explode?"), catering to a more male experience.
They also had $2 mixed drinks as a promotional special, something I very much appreciated, but which also seemed to unfairly target women: nearly all of the females at this bar were throwing back the mixed drinks, while the men sipped beers. It also reminded me of a frat's beer policy at WPI: men can get five beers free, women have unlimited (presumably in order to get them shitfaced and less able to discern who, if anyone, they'd like to go home with).
At this same bar, a very skinny, very scantily-clad woman was DJing. Before putting on the song "Crazy Bitch," she advocated to the other females in the place that they "treat their men right" later that night.
...female chauvinism, much?
The saving grace for this bar (for me, anyway) was the one lone gay female. With her short hair and flannel shirt, she made me feel at home. I wanted to buy her a shot out of solidarity of being the only folks there to understand the definition of "heteronormativity."
The second bar was much more crowded and college-scene than the first. By the end of the evening, the floor was coated in that familiar frat house beer sludge that comes from too many spilled drinks.
One man with a beer gut and early male-pattern baldness stood near the bar, criticizing the women who walked by him and blatantly looking them up and down. I wanted to storm over and lecture him on objectification (as well as questioning how a fat fuck like himself thought he deserved the attention of ANY of the females there), but knew a half-drunk five foot tall blonde yelling at him would not exactly be the pinnacle of conscious-raising, so I refrained.
And attention was clearly the currency of the realm here. For me, this was exemplified by the extent to which most of the women had dolled themselves up (I'm not sure I wore that much makeup to my prom), but even moreso by the faux-bisexuality on display (fuck you, Katy Perry!). Far be it from me to dictate a person's sexuality (I'm all for experimentation), but these two girls were making out for a man holding a camera. It was not only important that they attract attention to themselves by pandering to the male gaze directly in front of them, but also that they document it for later to prove just how fun and crazy they are. It didn't seem to be about enjoyment for them, as they stopped as soon as the picture was taken, but about attention. It made me sad.
While I'm sure I will probably drink in West Chester again, I couldn't help but be struck by the way the entire atmosphere replicated the male-dominated air of a frat house. It only made me more homesick for the safe, bourgie bars of Northampton, and made me see how sheltered we are from the outright chauvinism encouraged by so many bars and their patrons. We really do live in a pro-women bubble, and I love it.
Much love,
The Albright Sheriff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)