vagina at the wheel

so painful to buy a used car as a lifelong non-car-owner. The whole thing has been a real anxiety fest. To begin with, I don't give a fuck about cars. I learned to drive when I was about 27 yo, in New York City, where I had no intention of driving but knew they had just introduced the graduated licensing in my home province in Canada and thought I'd save myself some aggravation. Getting the license was no problem. Using it has been great, occasional renter and autoshare champ.
I recently was compelled to purchase a car by a new job. Que the horror movie strings.
I have pored over consumer reports (did you know you can peruse them free with a Toronto Public Library card, online?); talked to everyone I know with a car (there are about 3 people I know who own a vehicle); sent up a flare on facebook (where i got some good advice actually); pored over MoneySense magazine; and tried to play nice with some sexist dumbshit.

Even the ads on autotrader + kijiji--the first time a friend mentioned the term "lady driven", I thought she was joking. But no, it's a common used car descriptor.
Today I mentioned it to the salesman from whom I finally bought, and was informed that it is ironic because "women are actually more destructive". He was in the rear seat of the car during my test drive, I gave him a quick look and the phrase "bitter divorced dude" went through my head. I guess we all have our own gender based stereotypes?

This was the same guy who told me that concern about the colour of a car is a 'women' thing. The whole process is death by a thousand papercuts actually, as you pick your way through a minefield of gender essentialism, where I have to pretend to understand things I don't understand; plus muster up interest and enthusiasm for things I have absolutely no interest in (emissions testing, what is certification?, do i need to worry about tires?, i don't know what transmission is, what is the warranty supposed to cover.....and on, and on, and on until you are fast asleep with your eyes open).

The annoying part is, you find yourself biting your tongue repeatedly, simply because I have no desire to repeat this hostile performance with another short dick dimwit. (Ok, that DID sound a little hostile.)
I'm inclined to try to forget the whole thing now, blessed amnesia will kick in as I'm driving into the sunset.

One more 'destructive' woman will be on the road, hopefully by tomorrow!

Mutante: Virginie Despentes

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

We're still talking about women "having it all"?

Kind of seems like not having kids is having a moment or something. I hadn't seen the original piece in the Atlantic "Why Women Still Can't Have it All" until after seeing the response piece on Jezebel. 

I guess it depends on what having it all means to you. I think most people just want to be happy, but even on that score it seems like not having kids wins out (according to the stats on the Jezebel piece). And I've talked to lots of parents who say that there is a huge tradeoff of leisure etc (the etc might mean 'being happy day to day'?), but that the pleasure of childrearing are intense. I'm sure that's true. My own father has told me many times that he thinks the point of living is to have kids--and for sure that level of hyperbole has made me a little skeptical. Almost sounds a little 'silk purse sow's ear' or perhaps he's trying to sell me something.

And hey, Dolly agrees with the no kids option! And since she is my spirit animal, she's probably on to something.

Jessica Valenti, who's written other things I've liked, has a book coming out in the fall: Why Have Kids? 

As much as I hate when people refer to their pets as 'fur babies' (barf), it all kind of makes me appreciate these knuckleheads.

Bitchface: Stop telling me to smile

I, like many, have a case of chronic bitchface. I guess it's epidemic these days. In my face I was born scowling and looking bored, and it's probably compounded over time as I accumulate exposure to general stupidity, evil, avarice, and all the other dwarfs (sorry, I meant deadly sins). Bitchface serves me well, I'm not aware I'm even doing it. Unaware, that is, until some helpful man helps reorient me to reality by making the patronizing/good natured suggestion that I should "Smile sweetheart! It may not happen!". My preferred reply would be "It IS happening!", but I sense that's not part of the script. Anyone with bitchface will probably attest, they are encouraged regularly, by well meaning men (and always men) to smile. 
Just smile and smile, like a fool, while the world turns to ashes, because you are a woman, and everyone hates an angry woman.
Part of the rub, for me, is that I'm generally not sad, angry or even unhappy. Most of the time I am actually thinking. Perhaps this is part of the problem? If I can't muster the common decency to arrange my mouth in a more pleasing configuration, clearly I need reminding. To what end would I reassure them that I am happy, content, lost in thought? How much of an idiot would I have to be to respond in kind, with a sunny smile at the behest of some complete stranger who has decided, quite literally, that he doesn't like my face. Can you imagine telling a male stranger to smile for you? How insane and actually how funny it would be? And yet how many of the bitchface sisterhood have had to peacefully endure being endlessly entreated to smile, smile and.....just SMILE goddamnit!


The good news is, I can still turn it around, by letting the sun come out in the form of an insincere smile.
It's not quite street harassment--it's so well meaning! Nonetheless it has always angered me, to be told by a male stranger to smile. I'm not a performer. I'm not here to reassure you with a vapid grin that "IT"s not going to happen.

I remember in high school a good friend of mine told me I have an 'intelligent face'. He said something like, 'you know with a face like that, you're no dummy'. And I kind of know what he means. I choose to think he meant a certain depth in the eyes, a determined set to the mouth, a quiet vigilance of the world. What he probably meant was BITCHFACE.

Would it improve matters if I politely assured these well meaning dudes that I am very content, happy even; that my unsmiling face is thoughtful, and that sometimes even when I appear dead in the eyes I am brimming with good cheer and (gasp) sometimes even goodwill towards others? No, not at all. Because this dude does not give a FUCK why how I feel. You've missed the point, he cares how he feels, and until all the women are smiling, he's not feeling too great.

Sometimes I will catch a glimpse of myself and realize that I do, indeed appear pissed off. The best explanation I can come up with for this is that it is evolutionary--I have learned through many years of hard experience, that it doesn't pay to look too approachable or cheerful, if you're a woman in the public sphere. Especially if you are alone. In addition to being a bitchface, I have another affliction, which is my aversion to talking to strange men in public when I am alone. I do not wish to be chatted up at the grocery store, to make small talk on public transportation. Bitchface, an ever present book and a set of earphones are my arsenal and insurance against any strangers looking to shoot the breeze with me. But I shouldn't really say 'strangers' when what I am specifically reacting to is 'strange tail'. Yes, loose men endlessly scanning the faces of women, assessing who is feminine, friendly or fuckable. I'm not using my bitchface arsenal to repel anyone else really, not children, not the elderly, not other women (who have never commented on my lack of a smile), and not dudes who aren't scared of books and bitchfaces.

These afficianados of the feminine smile don't much like seeing you with a book either. The combination of a book and a neutral face can be quite alarming to some, particularly if that unsmiling bookworm happens to have a vagina too! The term 'bitchface' might be considered negative by some. Not me, I like it. In truth the evolution of the face is simple, it's a face in repose, a thoughtful face, a reading, writing or relaxing face. Sometimes, in the public sphere though, make no mistake, it is a bitchface. Bitchface is, for me, and I suspect many women, insurance against public annoyance in the form of unwanted (usually male) attention. Who the hell wants to chit chat with that dour faced, humourless lady? Well, turns out there are lots of them, but first they all want you to smile!

So come on ladies! SMILE! Chances are your face won't break, it won't happen, and you might just make someone a little happier, because that is now your responsibility!

Amelia Jones + the female narcissist

“…the female narcissist is dangerous to patriarchy because she obviates the desiring male subject (loving herself, she needs no confirmation of her desirability from him). in the case of an artistic practice that performs female narcissism (such as wilke’s), the threat lies in its making superfluous the arbiters of artistic value. already presuming her desirability, wilke obviates the modernist critical system; loving herself, she needs no confirmation of her artistic “value.” 

—	Amelia Jones, Body Art: Performing the Subject

I haven't read Amelia Jones, I came upon this quote on another blog. But I think it articulates why artists like Cindy Sherman, Marina Abramovic, Orlan are fascinating to me and a lot of people. This level of self regard is kind of riveting, especially when the culture considers self involvement or 'selfish'ness to be a character flaw. What then do you make of prolific female artists who make huge bodies of work which at it's essence is about self regard?

Dunham: “Girls” sex scares men

Dunham: “Girls” sex scares men

This interview is from last month on Salon.com. I've been thinking about this since I saw the first episode of "Girls", that there is a particular flavour of joylessness to the sex as portrayed on the show. Maybe it's not fair to compare to Sex and the City (even though Dunham says they owe a huge debt to SATC for trailblazing etc), but this is one area where the comparison interests me a lot. Namely the characterization of the sex--on SATC there was a strong message of sexual autonomy and empowerment.

On Girls it just seems like a humiliating chore.

I know one show can't and shouldn't try to be all things to all people but I can't help but be a little bummed that the women on the show don't seem to be getting off at all. I read a short interview with Alison Williams (who plays Marnie) where she said that the sexual mores on the show were about youth culture; that it's an accurate portrayal that maybe older generations wouldn't relate to.

Uh, yeah.

The scenes are depressing enough without now having to worry that they're also realistic! Oy. Maybe I'm just accustomed to more rose-coloured portrayals of sexuality in my preferred TV/movie watching? I don't think I'm crazy (old, sure)--the women on the show so far seem to be getting the worst of some effed up situations. Would be nice of one of them at least had an orgasm or something......anyhoo, I'm still interested in seeing the rest of the season.

I like everything I've read about Lena Dunham; I can't help but notice that the way she writes sex for women on Girls seems the same as in her film Tiny Furniture. Just---ugh. Is it just too real for me? No, I'm not that jaded, I just wish it were a little more balanced.

In this Salon piece she says guys she's spoken too found the scenes very disturbing; moreso than women. In a way I can see that; mostly if I were a guy watching it, thinking that it was an accurate reflection of how sex is transacted in the modern age, mostly I'd just worry that the women were going to close up shop completely in protest. Anyway, as a woman, I'd like to reassure Dunham that the sex scares me too!

Slutwalk Toronto Friday May 25--more blah blah blah

Slutwalk is tomorrow evening. Originally I had lots of criticisms of it, I'm sort of coming around now. My issue isn't with the use of the word "slut"; I understand the concept of 'reclaiming' a term that's been used as a perjorative. I think that's probably a good thing. But in a way this isn't really turning the word on its ear exactly, since I guess the idea is to dress like a stereotypical 'slut' to challenge the assumptions that go along with that.
Nor is my issue the obvious one; that this march, it's messaging etc aren't necessarily that well understood by the average person who sees the march. Unless the point of it is 'we'll wear what we fucking want' in which case, yeah, I guess that message would be understood.
I read a good piece in Bitch magazine last year. They had a pro and a con side discussing the slutwalk phenomenon. I found some coverage from last fall on Racialicious.  Mainstream women's movements have always been criticized for ignoring class and race issues; obviously Slutwalk has the same issues. I don't know if POC have embraced the walk in Toronto or NYC for that matter. I do think it's interesting to consider the implications of 'taking back the word'. I understand well that to subvert of reclaim the meaning of the word 'slut' would be empowering to some women. However, that belief is from my own experience: I haven't been called a 'slut' much in my life at all. Regardless of my behaviour, this label isn't one I've had to deflect, ignore or labour with in any way. It's an academic exercise for me. But for women of colour or working class women, or ANY other women for that matter, may have a different relationship to the word. A relationship that would make them leery of taking it on for ANY reason at all.
But last week I read some more stuff online about the walk and I'm sort of coming around in a way. I do believe that any way to encourage an open narrative about sexual assault, issues of implied and overt consent to sexual attention, and victim-blaming, should be welcomed anytime in any context. 
The thing I don't like about it is it's still a discussion about women's clothes. I'm not sure that this discussion is best served by more analysis of what women wear and what messaging is implied by their sartorial choices. I think it's reductionist and it misses the point completely. This discussion should be about men; their actions, consequences for their actions; and for god's sake leave women's clothing choices out of it for once!