Marginal Notes

Not Another Hallmark Moment

...because you're a bad bitch

From Doris Lessing's 'The Golden Notebook'

an exchange between Anna and Molly

    "And how about you Anna?"
    And now, for the first time, Molly had asked in a way which Anna could reply to, and she said at once:
    "Michael came to see me. About a month ago." She had lived with Michael for five years. This affair broke up three years ago, against her will.
    "How was it?"
    "Oh, in some ways, as if nothing happened."
    "Of course, when you know each other so well."
    "But, he was behaving - how shall I put it? I was a dear old friend, you know. He drove me to some place I wanted to go. He talked about a colleague of his. He said, 'Do you remember Dick?' Odd, don't you think, that he couldn't remember if I remembered Dick, since we saw a lot of them then. Dick's got a job in Ghana he said. He took his wife. His mistress wanted to go too, said Michael. Very difficult these mistresses are, said Michael, and then he laughed. Quite genuinely, you know, the debonair touch. That was what was painful. Then he looked embarrassed, because he remembered that I had been his mistress, and went red and guilty."
    Molly said nothing. She watched Anna closely.   
    "That's all, I suppose."
    "A lot of swine they all are," said Molly cheerfully, deliberately striking the note that would make Anna laugh.
    "Molly," said Anna painfully, in appeal.
    "What? It is no good going on about it, is it?"
    "Well, I've been thinking. You know, it's possible we made a mistake."
    "What? Only one?"
    But Anna would not laugh. "No. It's serious. Both of us are dedicated to the proposition that we are tough -- no listen, I'm serious. I mean -- a marriage breaks up, well, we say our marriage was a failure, too bad. A man ditches us -- too bad we say, it's not important. We bring up kids without men -- nothing to it, we say, we can cope. We spend years in the communist party and then we say, Well, well, we made a mistake, too bad."
    "What are you trying to say," said Molly, very cautious, and at a great distance from Anna.
"Well don't you think it's at least possible, just possible that things can happen to us so bad that we don't ever get over them? Because when I really face it I don't think I've really got over Michael. I think it's done for me. Oh I know, what I am supposed to say is, Well, well, he's ditched me -- what's five years after all, on with the next thing."
    "But it has to be on with the next thing."
    "Why do our lot never admit failure? Never. It might be better for us if we did. And it's not only love and men...

enter Polly Jones, clawing her way onto the pages of Lessing

    "Really, Anna, you're missing the point. Go on and admit failure. Admit that you're not so tough. Admit that being progressive makes you none the stronger. Admit that you hate being alone. "
    "That's what I'm saying -- Is it worth it?"
    "You still miss the point. You can admit to sadness. But, you will get on with the next thing. And, it is because they know that you will get on with the next thing, that you will always be left behind...or remain behind. You will always be the other woman, the mistress, the comrade, because that is who you are. So, yes, you might not want to take pride in your nature, but it is your nature nonetheless. Take me, for instance, just weeks ago I was madly in love, stroking his ego over the failed marriage. Oh, you know, indulging him. And then, he casually mentions that he wishes that I did not wear men's clothing around the home. Well, that was it. I went out and bought the most feminine of clothes. I then returned home and told him to go to hell. And, that's that and it's on to the next thing.
Polly paused as both women stared at her confused (after all, she was not a character in their story). So, she continued, "Oh, I take great delight in the thought of another man benefiting from my newly discovered feminine mystique, but I also could lie on the floor crying for days."
    "I'm not sure I follow," said Anna.
    "The point is that I may regret that I couldn't have gotten those clothes for him. The point is that I do sometimes wish I was the woman who did not walk away. I admit freely that sometimes I think I made a mess of my life. But, my thoughts are useless, because I can no more change my nature than a leopard can change her spots. And, really, why did he criticize my clothes in the first place? Was it really about the clothes? Or, was it simply an easy attack on an intimidating woman?"
Molly smiled weakly. Anna's mouth tightened.
    "Yes. He was intimidated. So, you're right. There is no use wondering if we've made mistakes. Because, it was never our choice in the first place. Because we do get on with the next thing. We just do."
Polly retreated knowing that she had just tangoed with all the lies to make herself feel better.
    "Well, I must be rushing along...I have my methodology to nail down and a research position to find to pay for my new clothes."

Ta-fucking-ta

Women Fight Back

I am cautious of any feminism that is premised on becoming more equal with men. As bell hooks has trenchantly observed, white male patriarchs will allow certain groups of women power as long as other groups of women are able to replace them.

In a hierarchical system, we can't all have a piece of a pie. That is why we need revolution, rather than reform.

Miriam Martin highlights this point in a relatively recent article in response to the BC NDP's affirmative action policy:

The British Columbia New Democratic Party recently voted at its November convention to introduce a new affirmative action policy for candidate nominations. The new rules stipulate that women candidates must be nominated in at least 30% of constituencies where seats are not currently held by the NDP, while at least 5 candidates must come from “under-represented groups such as visible minorities, youth or the disabled” (Vancouver Sun, 17 Nov. 2007). They also stipulate that any seat vacated by a retiring MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) must be filled by a woman.

At first glance, many progressive people are drawn to this kind of legislated parity, as they recognize the gross lack of women and visible minorities in their mass organizations. They honestly seek a solution, but without necessarily understanding the roots of the problem. If we want to do away with inequality in society, however, we do need to have a clear understanding of where it comes from and why it exists. There are no shortcuts or band-aid solutions to the numerous, and often overwhelming, problems of this capitalist world. As is generally the case, this bureaucratic attempt to impose an artificial solution will do more harm than good.

Everybody agrees that inequality exists. However, without offering some explanation for how it came to be (because it has not always existed), then one inevitably falls back on old-fashioned notions of women’s inherent psychological and emotional “differences” from men – our weakness and vulnerability. This is the implication every time mention is made of “creating a women-friendly environment,” “giving women a hand up,” etc. How different is this from “let’s keep it down and watch our language; there are women in the room?” Most feminists and women activists today would tell this last speaker where to go – loudly and perhaps using many four-letter words.

The so-called feminists of the NDP seem stuck in old-school liberal feminist rhetoric, ignoring the very real systemic and economic barriers to participation that working class women face, and ignoring the fact that working class women can and DO enter the scene en masse when it’s worth their while. They appeal to the old-fashioned and long disproven argument that women aren’t participating because we are somehow intimidated. We are not naturally inclined to participate, or we need a little extra push and a helping hand to be successful. Maybe the men need to lower their expectations a bit, make some allowance for the new woman candidate. In this case, we need to suspend our democratic process. What does this say for the woman who seeks nomination? It says that she is not capable of running a campaign and winning on the basis of her ideas, earned respect and perspectives for the party. These are implications I’m sure we want to avoid; yet, they are the implications made by the BC NDP’s new policy and its party spokespeople.

“It’s giving an air of permission for women to step up and be part of the process”, said MLA Sue Hammell about the new policy; “I don’t think they felt as included before”. Well let me tell you, I’ve never met a woman activist who waited for permission to step up or worried about “feeling included”. These notions of women as passive, intellectually weak and in need of “a helping hand” are notions that working class women and genuine left activists must challenge head-on.

And unfortunately, this policy is likely to be used to exclude rather than include. Who chooses the women who will replace MLAs as they retire? Which 30% of constituencies will be the ones that must elect women candidates? Considering the track record of the thick bureaucratic crust that has formed at the party office, we can be quite sure it will be used in an attempt to quell dissent. The party brass is likely to use this rule to exclude working class socialists and replace them with right-wing careerists.

Most importantly, we must understand the ACTUAL reasons why women are not as involved as men, and target our efforts to solving the problem of inequality once and for all. Women’s inequality is about unpaid work. Since the advent of class society, when the development of agriculture allowed for the division of society into haves and have-nots, women have carried out what are arguably society’s most important tasks – domestic work and the bearing and rearing of children. And they have done all of this without playing any direct role in the production and exchange of wealth, i.e. without earning a cent for the services that they provide.

While the wealthy owners and employers become richer, they have a material vested interest in keeping things this way. Imagine if an employer was required to pay a wage not only to the employee, but also to the caregiver of the employee’s children? As long as there has been a ruling class, this has not been in their interest, and the capitalist ruling class is certainly no exception. Their survival depends on paying the minimum possible for the most profitable output, and if they spare anything extra, they will be out-competed by somebody who has not. So, every institution of the ruling class – education, religion, the media – enforces this role of women as unpaid caregivers as though it were natural and biological, as though it always has been and will always be.

Even prejudice itself is beneficial and profitable to the ruling class. As long as women are thought to be inferior and people of different backgrounds and ethnicities are feared, the ruling class can take advantage of these prejudices to further exploit women and so-called minority groups. The example most familiar in North America is that of the hugely exploited subclass of Latino and Filipino workers who clean toilets and offices and care for the children of the wealthy. The other side of this coin is that prejudice itself is fueled by a system of inequality, where ordinary working people feel they must fight and compete to survive. If there was no want and no need to struggle for survival, there would be no reason to hate the black man across the street “for stealing your job” or the ill and addicted for “leeching off your tax dollars”.

Now that women are essentially forced to work outside the home, as well as take care of our homes and children, this system means that we work twice as much as men do and are unpaid for half of our work. The pressure on women to care for their immediate, as well as extended, families is extreme and we will choose carefully for what exploits we will find or make spare time. This is why, in revolutionary situations, when it becomes a matter of putting food on the table, when there is nothing left to lose, women do participate in politics – en masse and with great organization. This has been the case in every revolution or mass strike that has taken place for as long as such things have been recorded. It was the women of Russia marching for bread on International Women’s Day that sparked the February Revolution, and it was the women of Cumberland, BC that beat off the police with umbrellas during the big strike in 1912.

Until domestic work and child-rearing are paid and socialized, working class women will not participate in their trade unions or political parties to the same extent as men – especially if the mass organizations do not give working women a socialist program worth fighting for. Domestic work and child-rearing will never be paid work under capitalism; not because capitalists are evil, but because the system simply does not allow it. Inequality will only truly disappear when capitalism has been abolished and its cause and necessity eliminated.

And here we come to the most important argument against the kind of affirmative action policy that the BC NDP has just passed. To really take all of society’s inequality head-on, the NDP will need to have a strong and concrete program that reaches beyond the limits of capitalism - one that includes paid and socialized domestic work, free healthcare, education and transportation (that is planned and genuinely public rather than publicly-funded and capitalist run). The ruling class leeches enough money out of the working class to make all of this easily affordable, in addition to full employment, the construction of decent homes for the homeless, and a reduced work week with no loss of pay. According to the Vanier Institute of the Family’s annual report on the state of Canadian Family Finances, the average net worth of Canadian families in 2005 was $364,300 (www.vifamily.ca). This means, effectively, that if wealth was distributed evenly among Canadian households, we would all be worth $364,300. This is wealth that is produced by ordinary people who are paid a wage to create and sell goods or provide a service. But somehow in this ridiculously unfair system, this wealth goes into the pockets of a small number of people who create nothing themselves but happen to own the companies that employ us.

If capitalism is to be abolished and if the NDP is ever to be successful in appealing to the working class and poor majority, they are going to need to have such an unapologetic socialist program. This requires that there be educated, outspoken and respected working class socialists at all levels of the party. These individuals must be elected on the basis of what they have to say and not on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, skin colour, ability, etc. What kind of woman has the time to participate in and run for election on behalf of a political party? It is not the working class woman who comes home from work each day to face her other equally challenging job – taking care of her children and home. There will always be a handful of notable exceptions (outspoken working class militant women activists), but in general it will be a middle class woman who can pay somebody else to look after her children and home, or perhaps a political science student with bureaucratic aspirations. Do these women represent working class women better than a militant male worker? Obviously not. The best people must be elected on the basis of having the best ideas and the best political perspectives for the party. We do not pave the way for women’s equality by watering down the party program or by-passing our internal democracy. We do not pave the way for women to participate equally by “creating women-friendly environments” or by “giving an air of permission”, but by removing the economic barriers that prevent them from doing so.

By all means, encourage women and people of minority ethnicities to participate in their union and in the labour party. And adamantly oppose any sexism, racism or other prejudice in the party ranks. But do not be fooled by proposed band-aid solutions to inequality. We must continually explain that inequality exists because of capitalism and will continue to exist as long as capitalism exists. Only when capitalism is abolished and a system of democratic planning introduced will we be able to create the material basis for all inequality and prejudice to whither away once and for all.

Links:

BC NDP’s Affirmative Action Policy - No band-aid solution for women's emancipation by Miriam Martin, via Fightback: The Marxist Voice for Labour and Youth

Sources for photos can be found by googling women AND protest

No International Women's Day should go by without mention of The Global Women's Strike.

The Antidote to Women's Liberation

Thank God for Axe: the antidote to women's liberation.

If women for were actually smart enough to be President of the United States, little teenage losers would have to start waking up to the reality that the little cyber dolls, that Axe provides them for ego jerk-off sessions, ain't going to be found and they ain't going to get laid.

For more on how much I hate Axe, read my earlier post 'Strange Bedfellows: Dove and Axe'.

So, am I to assume that Unilever (incidentally, producer of Dove's purchase-your-empowerment campaign) is backing the McCain campaign? Maybe,  there's money to be made in the endless shipping of Dove shampoo to the resident-troops and new markets for Fair and Lovely, if McCain takes root and expands Iraq-a-la-Disneyland.

No. I'm F***ing Matt Damon

I am not a liberal feminist in that I don't believe that women's liberation lies in opportunities to be more equal with men. But, for some reason, I find women being raunchy to be liberating in some strange, perverse way.

Anyway, I am too tired to blog about anything serious since I'm exhausted from fucking Matt Damon. So, here's a funny Sarah Silverman video to watch:

The Houseboy

OK...so, I've tried online dating on and off. Generally, I try not to say much about people in my life to respect their privacy, but the following is a conversation with someone I have never met. Please know that there is no identifying information that could allow someone to search for this person on online dating sites. Also, I know ya trolls are gonna jump on me using online dating...go for it.

Houseboy: Hello Ms. X. If you should ever find yourself in need of a free, live-out, part-time, well educated houseboy to do all the menial work in your life...please, by all means, consider me for the positions. I have worked for a professional (profession edited out as possible identifying info) for three years, doing just that. I also do yardwork and windows! Please don't dismiss the concept too quickly. I even have references and police clearance. Thanks so much.

Me (thinking it is a joke): Dear Sir, Thank you for your kind offer. I would most definitely be interested in using your service. Are you able to clean out the eaves on a roof? Please pass along your references, your photos, and any other relevant information. I will also require you to sign the release form for the police clearance. Regards, Ms. X

Houseboy: Thank you so much for responding. I thought you might be somebody who would be able to utilize something such as this to make your life a little bit easier. I would be more than happy to sign the release for the police clearance form. I would need to speak with my references prior to giving out her particulars. I hope that you understand. I would also provide you with my passport, driver's license etc. etc. Yes, I could certainly clean out the eaves. May I ask what, in general, you might need done on a regular basis...As for what I can do: Housework: Detailed, meticulous cleaning. Hardwoods done by hand, grout lines cleaned, appliances inside and out, all corners cleaned, bathrooms detailed etc. etc. I have a very comprehensive list that I can send you if you so wish that another client used. Yardwork: Weeding, cutting, trimming, transplanting. Garage cleaned. Car detailed, not just cleaned. Windows. Painting and general repairs. Etc. etc.

Me (thinking this may not be a joke): Are you really serious? Why would you want to do that? If this is like a submissive/dominant thing, I'm not interested.

Houseboy:Good grief no!!! I am really sorry that you might have misinterpreted it as such. I simply do this on a part time basis because I genuinely like to. I saw that you are an educated, busy person who might benefit from having somebody to do the work that gets in your way from enjoying your life.  I sincerely apologize if you took this offer the wrong way, and if I somehow offended you.

Me: I just thought you had a good sense of humor! Were all of these clients women? In any case, I enjoy housework and yardwork. That is part of living, in my view.

Houseboy: Just because I like doing this doesn't mean I don't have a wonderful sense of humour; and I say that with a great degree of humility! Yes, So-and-So (edited) was still a woman last time I saw her, as we her friends. I simplyhave a different perspective regarding women, and how they should be using their time; I was saddened to read that you enjoy house and yardwork! I don't believe it should necessarily be part of everyone's life.

Me: How should women be using their time?!

Houseboy: That is difficult to answer, as I can only answer for myself and not the gender as a whole. I know how I prefer to spend a portion of my time, and that is liberating a few select women from the work they would rather not do. I have always believed that you follow a path you feel most comfortable following...so rather than just thinking about such concepts I actually try and employ them. I hope that makes sense!

Me: If you like it, why are you surprised that I like it? People forget that we were hunters and gathers. In this hyper-egotisical world, there is joy to be found in doing the basic dirty work of life. I think it is nice to have a man as a partner who shares in household responsibilities and someone who acknowledges the "double day" that burdens many women with jobs and families. But, if you're a single man, I don't see that you are any less burdened by household work than these women. What about your liberation?

Houseboy: To be honest, I believe that typically most people do not want to assume the menial work in life...and I included you in that cohort. I suppose that I am not seeking liberation because that is not part of my thought process or ideology. I don't necessarily feel burdened, and would rather ease the burden of somebody else. The Greeks believed that each individual had his place in the societal structure, and I suppose I believe this as well. As such, I do that which I feel most comfortable doing...witness the offer.

Me: What is your educational background? My problem with the societal structure is that "liberation" for many women here means the exploitation of women in other, marginalized countries. So, tell me: if you find a woman on here that you actually want to date, how do you think she will feel about you now helping out in the homes of women that weren't organic connections but somehow selected off the same dating site?

Houseboy: Degree(s) in blank and blank (edited out possible identifying info). I agree, liberation for some women has meant increasing exploitation for others. As for your last point...it would be awkward indeed, and I do not look forward to crossing such a compromised bridge. I am not sure what I am exactly searching for on this site. I suppose I try and compartmentalize my life and keep the two sides of me separate. I am sure that it is not entirely healthy to do so!

...So, umm, if anyone can explain this to me and help me escape from The Twilight Zone, that would be great.

Tortured Freedom

The bad news: sometimes a little torture is needed to create a free society.

The good news: once you achieve a free society, all persons will be emancipated from torture and evil by modern and progressive wonders...such as laser hair removal.

The ad reads: "cessez de torturer votre peau"  or stop torturing your skin.

That's some smooth marketing from Carte Blanche...

real smooth.

Link:

Advertisement for 'Priciderm Laser Hair Removal' by 'Carte Blanche' Advertising  Agency of Montreal, Quebec via Ads of the World

Maxim's Five Scariest Women Alive

Maxim's list of the so-called five unsexiest women alive has stirred controversy. Some find the nature of the remarks sexist and offensive. Others are put off my the viciousness of the criticisms. And, others may simply be confused at this hodge podge of women that have been deemed the 'unsexiest women alive'.

Maxim's reps have dismissed the negative response as being over-the-top. I mean really, what's the big deal?  It's not as though images of women in magazines are that important and powerful...It's not like it's a matter of geopolitics, so let's not...y'know, make a federal case about it.

I have spent my fair share time with stupid, i-wanna-be-macho men. I'd like to offer my intimate knowledge of their language to translate what they mean for the rest of the world. Consider me your ambassador into the foreign world of Maxim...

Let's take a look of the 'who' and the 'why' of Maxim's list:

5. Britney Spears

Maxim: Less than five years ago, Britney had a python wrapped around her well-toned torso onstage at the VMAs. Since then, she's lost the ability to perform, but gained two kids, two useless ex-husbands, and about 23 pounds of Funyun pudge.

Maxim Translated: We liked Britney as the 'good girl' with a naughty streak. Now, she is breaking the rules in ways that we don't get. Also, how can we can imagine her as our personal little oops-i-did-it-again sex toy when we keep hearing about her kids in the news?! Her body actually looks pretty damn good...but she still screwed up by going from underage sex symbol to mom. We also liked it better when she was all "oh, baby, baby". What's with this "gimme, gimme" stuff?

Madonna

Maxim: After building a personal fortune on Top 40 pornography, Madonna traded pioneering sexuality for, like other old Jewish women, self-righteous bellyaching and rapid postnuptial deterioration. Combine a Paris Hilton–like pet accessorizing fetish only for dirt-poor foreign babies with a mug that looks Euro-sealed to her skull, and you´ve got Willem Dafoe with hot flashes.

Maxim Translated: She survived all the crap about her image and personal life like the shit we keep dishing to Britney Spears. She actually has stuff to say beyond the sexual sphere and has left us to play in the soft-porn-sandbox. Damn, she's another one that had to go have kids...

3. Sandra Oh

Maxim: The only thing worse than a show about doctors is a show about sappy chick doctors we're forced to watch or else our girlfriends won't have sex with us. We're holding Dr. McSkinny, with her cold bedside manner and boyish figure, personally responsible.

Maxim Translated: Our girlfriends tell us to shut up while they're watching Grey's. After watching the character of Dr. Cristina Yang - the kind of woman we've never had - we can't get it up. Yang sucks the potency right out of you; she is so damn smart and fearless. And, Jesus, we're still reeling from the beating Oh delivered to the twit-like-us in Sideways.

2. Amy Winehouse

Maxim: When we first heard this chick boast about her reluctance to go to rehab we thought, Now there's a girl we can party with! But upon beholding her openly hemorrhaging translucent skin, rat's nest mane and lashes that look more like surgically attached bats, we were the ones screaming, "Nooo, nooo, nooo!"

Maxim Translated: Yikes. She scares poor 'ol Snoop. We like our bitches to know how to play ho to our pimp.

1. Sarah Jessica Parker

Maxim: How the hell did this Barbaro-faced broad manage to be the least sexy woman in a group of very unsexy women and still star on a show with "sex" in the title? Pull your skirt down, Secretariat, we'd rather ride Chris Noth.

Maxim Translated: It was hell to have the most popular show on television revolve around a successful writer (and worse be based on a now rich writer). Freakin' 'Carrie' reminded us of that girl in writing class who was too cool to come to our keg parties...Y'know the type who has gone on to write for The New Yorker? They think they're so above us because we're...err...writers for Maxim...basically writing prostitutes to freakin' twelve-year-old boys...Nevermind.

So that sums it up, folks. These guys aren't sexist and mean...their careers depend on co-opting the sexiness of women and spinning it out in the form of easy, non-threatening sex symbols. You can hardly expect them to be OK with women who keep showing up humanized as moms, spiritual beings, ambitious go-getters, and ladies-with-an-attitude.

2010: The Year of the Sex Olympics

If you ask me, sex workers should be getting some sort of corporate endorsment deals given that they are such a vital part of our wickedly awesome economy.

Really, it would give a whole new meaning to Nike's slogan: "Just Do It!"

In terms of the debate, sparked by Vancouver sex workers attempting to organize a brothel, I agree with the position that prostitution is violence against women and spurs more violence. I also agree that many women would not choose the vocation given other options.

At the same time, many jobs under capitalism involve violence, coercion and oppression.

The connections between tourism and the sex trade are well known.

Why shouldn't sex workers organize and unionize like other exploited workers?

If you want your freakin' Olympics, you better be prepared to gulp down your big, fat morals with your diet Coke.

Links:

'Sex Workers Plan Brothel in 2010 Olympic City' by Wency Leung via AlterNet

Interesting wikipedia entry on a play called The Year of the Sex Olympics

Some Day

'Some day' by Joanne, age six

Some day I will be a teenager.

Some day I will be a ballerina.

Some day I will be a mother and I will have some babys.

Some day I will be a grandmother.

Some day I will be a monkey.

The End.

'Some day' by Joanne, age thirty-two

Some day, I will be an independent woman, complete with house, car and RRSPs.

Some day, I will hope to still be desirable - an aging, commodified 'Cosmo' cunt.

Some day, I will be a big fat academic success – a white woman who has built her career on the ‘study’ of poor women of colour.

Some day, I might compete with these same women who poach all the men as mail-order-brides, undermining the chances at ‘love’ for an outspoken bitch like me.

Some day, I might remember what it feels like to be regarded as human and to regard others as such.

Some day, if I'm lucky, I will be a monkey.

The End.