SHOWstudio has done it again. Now it's a "political fashion" film by Nick Knight and the frontwoman of The Gossip, Beth Ditto.

SHOWstudio describes it like this:

Titled Feminist - a moniker Beth is proud to flaunt in an age when few else dare - Nick's film focusses on Beth's statuesque size (an attribute oft-remarked upon) and more tellingly her own playful and unabashed appreciation of this voluptuousness. Recalling his work with larger-than-life models Sarah Morrisson and Sophie Dahl, 'Feminist' revels not only in Beth's physique, but in her overwhelming body confidence and consciousness. Powerful, beautiful, self-assured and definitely in control: as opposed to just wearing the label, Beth is the living embodiment of the feminist ideal.

You have to see the beautiful film, you can see it here

But you know what pisses me off? A few reasons actually.

One, said person who created the thread simply created the thread to bash feminists.

Two, the amount of feminist bashing that's contained in the thread. Only one person said that he/she felt that making fun of obese people was not cool, but then continued to bash feminists. In one post (I think it's from the same person), they even go on to say "femi-nazi". Nazis wanted genocide. Feminists are progressive. They are complete opposites of each other. And to call those two blog posters as femi-nazis? Oh dude, you have not seen femi-nazis.

And three; this is the one I wanted to talk about. It's simple and it's clear-cut: if you are a woman in a male-dominated career or hobby, you are a fucking feminist. Believe it or not, you simply taking part in that career/hobby, you are being a feminist. You are paving the way for future girls/women and encouraging them to take part in these things, that seem like it's completely for men, but is not. It's just that some people like to take it further and talk about the issues that matter to them, whether it be about the portrayal of bodies to the misogynist art/writing in whatever they're talking about and like to be a little more vocal about it.

And this one gets me the most, though: the classic, "I'm all for equal rights for women, but I'm not a feminist."

FUCK.

DUDE. IF YOU WANT EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN, YOU ARE A FUCKING FEMINIST.

How hard is that for some people to compute? That my loyal readers, is called denial. Most of the time, denial can be quite damaging to someone's perspective and life.

I refuse to have the word "feminist" made into a bad word, like it's calling someone misogynist or something. I refuse to let the works of Andrea Dworkin ruin feminism for everyone. I refuse to let those people who call themselves "feminists" spread stupid lies about feminists and give me a bad name. I am so sick of people calling me a female supremacist. Feminism is a GOOD thing. It's a form of activism.

I love how people can be the most open-minded people, but when the word "feminist" comes up, they become the most ignorant fucks ever, as seen in that thread I linked to. 

And then someone in that thread says he/she doesn't like any form of activism. OH MY GOD. I won't even go there.

I will be co-presenting two sessions at the event. One is about female archetypes in Bollywood, and the other, more relevant to the readers here, is about immigration. The cheeky title is the same as the one for this post. Check our blurb:

Ever wondered how your families and friends immigrated to the U.S.? This session will begin with an overview of United States immigration laws, trends and recent struggles faced by South Asian immigrants. Also, there will be a Q&A session with a local Immigration attorney.

Many "A.B.C.D."s have no idea what immigration entails for today's incoming generation, as our parents entered straight away on green cards in the 1970s. This session is partly to provide education to others in the same boat, and to provide support and advice to those freshly off it (sorry, I couldn't resist :P). I will post more notes on this topic after the event.

♫ Their natures and interests differ markedly on this subject. He’s made one way, she’s made another. She wants them to be more alike, he wants them to just get on with it.

♫ Women nurture, men lead. Women want to be nurtured in their sex life, but men don’t nurture well. It makes them feel feminized, wussified.

♫ Her needs for attention and affection are minor compared to his need for acceptance as sex partner—that is, if she’s to be a keeper. 

♫ His primal motivations are conqueror’s role before and conqueror’s rights after their first sex together. Conquest itself must have pleased her, or she would not have yielded. So, why should anything else be needed?

♫ Male sensitivity about his sexual prowess exceeds female willingness to complain. Women intuitively know this. So, they complain to sister females rather than to their man.

♫ Men are on a mission to deliver love with a prepackaged agenda. Virtual virginity forces him to repackage himself with consideration for other things such as her personal preferences. (See post 248 about virtual virginity.)

♫ Women can talk about it—to other women, that is. But, talking to their man requires more caution and indirectness than that used in international diplomacy and negotiation, where phrases can sometimes have double, different, or even opposite meanings.

♫ It takes a lot of time and desire for a man to figure her out physically. He’s too preoccupied with figuring her out mentally and emotionally.

As we have seen, men should be more considerate of female wants, needs, and desires. However, human nature often interferes

NOTE: Thanks to her highness at beyondjems.wordpress.com. Her comments prompted me to start this series.

]]> http://thegentlemansgame.wordpress.com/?p=113 Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:54:48 +0000 Virgil Hart http://thegentlemansgame.wordpress.com/?p=113 I recently went on a trip to London, it was only 3 days, and as such, I can't really judge the people of London or their city to any fair degree of accuracy. But I'm going to do it.

5 Things I saw in London, which I found utterly hilarious.

1. A man being pick pocketed. Total hilarity, the twat didn't even notice, and quite frankly if you walk about like an aggressive cock, like most Londoners, during my stay, did, then you deserve it. His phone was stolen, and I lulzed. Hard.

You see, the sad thing is, if people hadn't been unapologetically bumping into me all day, as if the entire city was on their period I might have done something, perhaps alerted the man that he had just become a victim of crime.

But you know what?

I hold you all responsible for the actions of the few, if one cunt is aggressive or rude to me, you will all receive my spite, and judgemental, cynical, scorn because of it.

2. An Asian woman pushing an 8 year old over, on an escalator, without apologising, or even looking at her... Brilliant. Pure genius.

I literally masturbated over this hilarious mental image when I got home.

The look of pure hurt on that 8 year old's face as she fell head first into an escalator to have her hair mangled, her shins bloodied; brilliant.

The screams that came from that little girl as the escalator caught on her hair; they were like a symphony of delightful sadism to my ears that helped to wash away the aggravation that had become pent up inside me throughout the day..

I took great perverse pleasure in doing absolutely nothing but sitting back, and watching her little face slowly become drenched in a sea of tears, blood and torn out hair. She looked like she'd just been brutally ravaged, by a really sadistic priest.

I came a little.

3. A black man giving an Asian man racist abuse... Priceless. Words cannot even describe the sheer sexually overwhelming feelings of ecstatic joy I felt in my crotch region as I watched this masterpiece of degradation and irony unfold.

4. Drunks on bikes. You fuck-tards shouldn't be allowed drink, you can't fucking handle it, end of story. I saw 3 twats cycling down the wrong lane laughing hysterically drinking cans of premium larger. One fuck-tard crushing his skull between his hands, crouched on the floor crying outside a pub, around 5 bar fights, and God knows how many drunk girls passed out in corners (and yes, I did rape them all.)

5. An Englishman pick a fight with a drunk Irish man. Granted, I didn't so much witness this as I did start a fight, but still the point stands; utterly hilarious.

One Reason I will not be going back to London in the future. (And yes, I only need one.)

You're all very fucking rude. You don't queue for anything, everyone's in a rush, nobody says sorry for pushing or shoving or bumping into you, your train carriages can be likened to being in the position of a Jew in a gas chamber, only the Ziclon B is the fat fuck sitting next to you's body odour, you're all really fucking loud, all the fucking time. Your accent is so so grating that it can only be likened to driving a circular saw through the side of my face. Nobody says thank you to bus drivers, you're basically all loud, obnoxious, cunts.

Fuck you and your city. Actually, in all fairness, I do quite like your city, I just fucking hate your people.

I hope the rest of England isn't such a raging disappointment for me.

I am absolutely tired of being who I am today.  I have worked so hard to keep everything in order that it just tears me apart to see myself unable to complete basic things sometimes.  I spend so much time trying to believe that I really don't have DID, that there must be some mistake, it doesn't make sense, etc.  All the while, things keep falling apart around me.

I'd rather have a broken arm

At least I could wear a cast, could tell a story, and could hear nurturing comforting words

As well as people who could openly relate

Instead, I'm stuck here starting this blog today

Trying to force myself to come to terms with DID

and everything I don't understand about me right now

Like where the hell my wallet is and why I only discovered it on the way to therapy on an empty tank of gas

I drove home, unable to make my appointment for yet another unforseen reason, on hope and a bit of forced faith that I would not end up stranded on the side of the road without a wallet or any cash to buy gas for my car

Everything is falling apart around me, and now I'm forced to at least poke my head inside the door and see what all the ugliness is about.

As Justin Timberlake sings in one of his songs

Can anybody out there hear me?  Because I can't seem to hear myself
Can anybody out there see me?  Because I can't seem to see myself
There's gotta be a heaven somewhere.  To save me from this hell... ]]> http://jmendham.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/trusting-intuition/ Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:26:05 +0000 James Van Leuvaan http://jmendham.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/trusting-intuition/ I find that life and the universe deliver unusual twists and turns. The things that I think I can trust, turn into deceit, and those things which I do not trust realize themselves to be the clearest truth.

In many ways, it is suspect to me that perhaps truth is less entertaining then fiction, and in some cases more malicious.

I was just betrayed by a person whom I trusted, with their motivation being money.  To the point where they were willing to present my information as their information in order to gain more of it.

Basically fraud, plagiarism, and outright misrepresentation of abilities and credentials, with the excuse that they "did not know" which is obviously a lie. Since no one ever submitting information would be ignorant that they were submitting wrong information when they were specifically instructed to replace the existing details with their own information.

Some folks are just simply thieves, and liars.

Yet, conversely, I have also discovered someone new and interesting. Quite grounded, and seemingly non-judgmental and directly honest. It is shown in her transparency. Interesting that I met her for the first time this morning - so it strikes me that God indeed loves me, and the last 8 months only existed to destroy my faith, trust, love and heart. so be it. I pity the 2 whom were used by evil to hurt me since it will be that much worse on them in so many other ways.  Well, oh well... we reap what we sow now don't we?

Have you ever had premonitions? The knowing of something that will occur that matches the very thing that you know must occur?

For the last 7 years previous to this year, I have waited in faith and trust for the first person that I have ever loved - despite any relationship prior - knowing that it was that faith and trust which kept me alive. The strength of that honesty was the foundation and pinnacle of all that I held inside me the cornerstone to the nature of who and what I am inside - which in all truth has kept me alive these last 7 years...

Both spiritually, and consciously I was able to be clear minded and forward thinking in all of my functions and focus.

Then 8 months ago I met someone who stated that I was a fool to wait that long and so on, and of course her and I ended up in a relationship. She was the opposite of everything that I held worthy. She lied freely. Had no compulsion to deceive, misrepresent, and - as was shown only just recently - steal in order to achieve her goals. All of which were money.

God says that those people who are evil of heart, will be seared in their conscience, knowing that they will destroy others, hurt, lie, steal and cheat in order to see the fruition of their own selfish gain. 

I can say in all reality and clarity that the last 8 months only existed to destroy the faith, trust and hope which had kept me alive for the previous 7 years, and bringing all of this to 8 years in total - in this exercise of personal growth and strengthening.

For those of you whom are curious about my constant referencing to numbers, it is as follows:

1: The number of God (one God, 3 attributes - Soul, Spirit, Flesh - vis a vis - Father, Spirit, Son)
2: The number of division or breaking apart
3: Proof and witness (see 1 for self evidence)
4: Foundation and spiritual balance (sometimes called pillars)
5: Grace
6: The number of man
7: the number of completion or finishing
8: the number of new beginning
9: (no idea sorry)
10: the number of man's order of government
11: (again no idea)
12: The number of God's order of government
Thus - 333 = perfect proof, 888 = perfect new beginning (since 3 represents proof of)
555 - perfect grace and so on

Now, last week things began to change. As you may or may not know by the two blogs which I have written called "Full Circle" and "Full Circle Part 2."

Both were professional meetings. One was a man who functioned within the same discipline, and industry as I. The other was a professional meeting with a woman who presented me with an opportunity as well as quite unrelated, intelligent, and transparently honest conversation.

Both times, in my intuition, I knew that I should not at all dismiss either of these meetings as irrelevant, and as I do not believe in coincidence - and as I was again beginning to trust God and listen more closely to the spirit of God who speaks to me in my intuition - felt no anxiety, and trusted the calm of the patience.

So, I did just that.

As it turned out - this gentleman and I struck up a conversation one day and now we are working together within the freedom of our own strengths and attributes within a project - as well as a confidence toward each others intents and end results.  I can tell quite directly that I can trust this person since the goal for them is personal achievement, and a love for their own family - as new as that gift to him has been - and we have the same desired intended result equally within each of our own software development methods.

The second situation has only just been experienced - as I met her this morning for coffee, regarding another opportunity - which was quite a bit more wonderful than just "work" related conversations.

Now, this is where it becomes interesting to me, and I will have to reserve anything written of it, since I know that only God can hear my thoughts, but anything presented is then presented for any and all negative spirits which ache to destroy good and right things in life.

So, I will say nothing on this for yet a little while longer, however, I will say that I am not surprised, and all the intuitive truths became self evident - in every dynamic - showing quite clearly that the viewpoint given inside me, is from God.

There are two kinds of ambition. One is malicious, the other is honest. 

The malicious ambition will lie, cheat, steal, con, rape and plunder anything and everything in order to achieve it's own goals and is usually laced with pride, and impatience - with greed as it's lust and love and focus.  It will have the attitude of "I will do this myself" which really translates to "I will take whatever I want to get what I want no matter what the cost to others, or whom I have to step on to do it."

No cost to right, or honestly, or love, or friends will deem inconvenient to betray or destroy.

The other ambition is patient. Trusting and aware of the reality of gains and loses accepting them with truth and honour. Knowing that anything of value is earned, and not stolen. So that the ambition in and of itself will know that it can see it's own face in the mirror and has not lied, stolen, cheated or destroyed anything or anyone in order to sleep with peace and to live without conflict.

So then... this is all cryptic at best and it is so for many reasons. I will not expose anyone even though they destroyed my trust in them, and stole from me, yet conversely I will not expose the right and purity of the other, since the invisible life we do not see around us, is not always benevolent and for our benefit.

I really truly - by my nature - would love to give more information and explode on this page the things which I have discovered. As well as all of the information which I have seen inside my intuition over the last 2 weeks as the changes are now beginning. But, I also know - by my intuition - that to do so would activate that invisible evil which lurks and prowls to destroy all good things which proceed from God toward us.

So, as it is by my intuition that I have been guided thus far in these last few weeks, so again it is by my intuition that I write nothing here at this juncture.

My current faith and strength comes from the following though.

The realization that these last 8 months were only here to destroy me and is usual - I can not be destroyed. Simply because I serve the living God - remaining in truth, and honesty forever.

That it is because of these last 8 months that I have now been freed and awakened and angered enough to be driven to the point where I will not accept anymore evil in my life.

Not from others, and not by greed.  Ambition is not wrong, and a desire for self worth and better things is not wrong. It can not be wrong, since it is our dreams which give us our life.

It is the methods we use to achieve those dreams that define if we are good or evil.

Good will never lie.
Good will never cheat.
Good will never steal.
Good will never look down on anyone else.
Good will never judge those who have not esteemed to it's unrealized ambition.
Good will be honourable always.
Good does not look over it's shoulder willing to profit on any other.

Evil is the opposite of all that is good.

It is uncomplicated.

So if you strive, and desire to see your dreams then realize something. The second you decide to take a short cut to achieve it, you will find that you have no longer any morality towards lying, stealing, cheating, or whoring to get it, and all your ambitions from that point forward will be a blessing from evil - not from good.

And your spirit will begin to die.

There is one thing that God said once that came to me that made me think years ago.

Go into that place. And if they receive you as mine, then let your peace come onto them. If they do not, then wipe the dust from your feet - leave that place and let your peace return to you.

What is not told in that particular example - but which is shown in much of the rest is this: By wiping the dust from your feet you will forgive them their evil ambition toward your own cost. And God will see it, and they will receive the reward of their evil - brought about by their own evil (reap what you sow), and as the invisible world which we can not see has evil as well as good, and since evil desires to destroy everything - including that very individual whom evil was able to guide and trick, since evil hates all things, even by it's own creation. Whether in health. Whether in life. Whether in dreams or nightmares. Whether in any material thing.

I believe - as I've seen it with my own eyes, that the results of evil are not returned to the evildoer in the same manner. And I can give an abundance of examples which I've witnessed, but this blog is already too long :P

So, I will say it again because it is the only truth and the foundation and corner stone of my character and existence:

Be without fear in the face of my enemies,
Be brave and upright, that God may love me,
Speak the truth always, even if it leads to my death,
Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong.

That is my oath. That is my life choice.

"You know "that look" women get when they want sex? Me neither." - Steve Martin

"Having sex is like playing bridge. If you don't have a good partner, you'd better have a good hand." - Woody Allen

"Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night." - Rodney Dangerfield

"There are a number of mechanical devices which increase sexual arousal, particularly in women. Chief among these is the Mercedes-Benz 380SL." - Lynn Lavner

"Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist." - Matt Barry

"Sex at age 90 is like trying to shoot pool with a rope." - George Burns

"Sex is one of the nine reasons for reincarnation. The other eight are unimportant." - George Burns

"Women might be able to fake orgasms. But men can fake whole relationships." - Sharon Stone

"My girlfriend always laughs during sex - no matter what she's reading." - Steve Jobs (Founder, Apple Computers)

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson

"Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is." - Barbara Bush (Former US First Lady -- and you didn't think Barbara had a sense of humor)

"Ah, yes, divorce, from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet." - Robin Williams

"Women complain about premenstrual syndrome, but I think of it as the only time of the month that I can be myself." - Roseanne

"Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place." - Billy Crystal

"According to a new survey, women say they feel more comfortable undressing in front of men than they do undressing in front of other  women. They say that women are too judgmental, where, of course, men are just grateful." - Robert De Niro

"There's a new medical crisis. Doctors are reporting that many men are having allergic reactions to latex condoms. They say they cause severe swelling. So what's the problem?" - Dustin Hoffman

"There's very little advice in men's magazines, because men think, I  know what I'm doing. Just show me somebody naked." - Jerry Seinfeld

"Instead of getting married again, I'm going to find a woman I don't like and just give her a house." - Rod Stewart

"See, the problem is that God gives men a brain and a penis, and only  enough blood to run one at a time." - Robin Williams

Plastic surgeons are always making mountains out of molehills. - Dolly Parton

This is just too good not to share

1. The movie must have at least two women in it
2. who talk to each other
3. about something other than men.

She makes a good point. Movies that follow these three criteria usually have female characters who develop as the movie progresses. That's pretty exciting. Everyone likes a dynamic character. So I decided to go through my movies and see which ones followThe Bechdel Rule. Here's what I've come up with (in no particular order):

• The First Wives Club -- three women talk about their friends and loneliness and money... and men.
• Hocus Pocus -- three women talk about staying alive forever and enchantments they'll use.
• Bend it Like Beckham -- two women talk about sports and family.
• Chocolat -- two or three women talk about chocolate and family
• Funny Face -- I was a little iffy with this one. One woman talks to other women about fashion, but as the others aren't really participating in the conversation, it doesn't feel quite right to include it on the list.
• Notting Hill -- Julia Roberts talks with Hugh Grant's ex lover about her job at some point, I think.
• To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar -- the three main characters talk about becoming queens. They identify as feminine. That's all that counts.
• Miss Congeniality -- the contestants talk about food and fashion and pageants stuff.
• Bring it on -- cheerleading. All cheerleading.
• Wizard of Oz -- Glenda and Dorothy talk about going home. Does that count?
• Sister Act -- pretty obvious here.
• Sister Act II -- uh, the same.
• Twister -- Seth says the two women in this movie talk about something at some point, but I don't remember any real conversations between them. Then again, I haven't watched this movie in a while.
• The Princess Diaries -- lots of talk about family and royalty and education and fun stuff.

This is by no means a comprehensive list, just the movies we have in our house. You can probably tell that we don't buy ourselves new movies too often. Either that, or the ones we buy don't match The Bechdel Rule. I honestly thought we'd have less movies that fit. Maybe there's some sort of other factor at work here, like the idea that I try to buy movies that feature interesting women, so naturally we have movies that fit the criteria. I guess I'd need to go through the movies of someone who doesn't identify as a feminist. how exactly would that work out? Just walk up to someone's door and ask, "excuse me, do you call yourself a feminist? Can I take a look at what movies you own? Thanks!"

I'd love it for you to add movies to this list, specifically movies that I should own or rent. We rent a lot here. I don't exactly have the motivation to go through our Netflix queue. Although now that you mention it....

• Labyrinth -- Sarah yells at talks to her step-mom in the beginning about babysitting.
• Strictly Ballroom -- dance talk

That's about it. We rent a lot of Highlander.

81.      Hunter-conquerors appreciate tantalizing, challenging, and hard-to-capture prey. This motivates men to investigate a woman intensively instead of just for sex.

82.      Men now exploit the superior tactic developed by women, being vague and unavailable. Modern women fall prey to the ingenuity of their sex.

83.      When women sour on their marriage, they turn against men. When men sour on their marriage, they turn against marriage.

84.      What makes sex cheap? The same thing that makes anything cheap—oversupply. Women are in charge, until they make a man ‘purchase’ exclusive rights through marriage.

85.      Postmodern retro thinking has young women mimicking teen boys.

[Previous fortitudinals appear in posts 260, 255, 250, 245, 240, 234, 228, 213, 203, 199, 186, 182, and 176.]

The Riddle of Gender: Science, Activism, and Transgender Rights is a supremely interesting collection of essays. I picked it up at the UNCG library, whose HQ section does not disappoint. It's been hard to put it down. The history of what we now refer to as transsexual identity has a very compelling one.

For instance, I learned in one of the essays that the reason sexual reassignment surgery was against the law for so long had to do with an English law from the 16th century. This law, adopted by the States and existing into the 20th century, was called a 'mayhem' statute. It prevented doctors from lawfully amputating anything from a man that might disallow him from becoming a soldier if drafted. The wicked irony there speaks for itself. Especially in the gorgeous form of ex-G.I. Christine Jorgensen, who had to have her SRS done in Denmark partly due to this law. The military is so trans-friendly, don't ya know.

Anyway, y'all should read this. My one issue is that it could have included more transman writers, but overall it provides a comprehensive look at the strange constructions we call male and female.

Plimpton is a wonderful actress. A devout "Law & Order" fan, I caught her 2006 Emmy-nominated portrayal of a desperately brilliant young woman who fails to capture the love of her even more brilliant, murder-investigating father. I've seen re-runs of the "Criminal Intent" episode many times and I still get caught up in Plimpton's character.

The other actresses in "Top Girls" are also "top drawer." There's Mary Beth Hurt and Marisa Tomei—each playing multiple characters—as well as several lesser-known actresses (to me) who hold down multiple character parts of their own. Elizabeth Marvel plays Marlene, the tough, Margaret Thatcher-era central character (the play was written in the early '80s).

"Top Girls" opens with a dinner gathering of remarkable women plucked from myth, literature and history. Though separated in "real life," Caryl Churchill imagines them as friends who come to celebrate Marlene's recent promotion within her employment agency.

Marvel plays Marlene as a shallow character whose only focus is work. She has no ability to empathize with others or to reflect on her personal history and behavior. I think the playwright wants us to believe that this truncation of character is mostly a consequence of competing professionally in the hard scrabble, Reagan/Thatcher-era business world that Marlene inhabits. However, I attribute Marlene's one-dimensionality to nothing more than her own character (or lack thereof). That became a major problem for me as the play moved forward, where, it seems, we are suppose to sympathize with (or grieve?) the personal sacrifices Marlene has made to advance her career. These include breaking faith with her sister, Joyce (played beautifully by Marisa Thomei), and negating the biological connection with her now teenage daughter, Angie (played by Martha Plimpton), who has been raised as Joyce's daughter. If that weren't enough, Marlene has also divested herself of her working class roots in favor of an upwardly mobile, professional persona. She's all cigarettes and sharp angles.

But I digress... Let's go back to the first scene of "Top Girls," in the restaurant, with our mythical-literary-historical characters gathered 'round a long table to celebrate Marlene's promotion. Here's the good news: Martha Plimpton's Pope Joan is a knockout. Plimpton plays her as an earthy, theological heavy-hitter with a wicked sense of humor. Marisa Tomei plays the fearless Isabella Bird, an irritatingly upbeat 19th century author and adventurer whose only significant relationships appear to have been with—she has no use for people, especially men. Then there's Jennifer Ikeda's Lady Nijo, a concubine who regales the table with her loves, losses and travails within the tight constrictions of 13th century Japanese society. Mary Catherine Garrison's Patient Griselda, who first appeared in Chaucer's "Clerks Tale," is "patient" because she accepts with equanimity the kidnapping and apparent killing of her children, shortly after each of their births, by a titled husband who enjoys testing her unwavering devotion to him.... Uh, pass the dinner rolls.

As the evening progresses and the women loosen up with liberal amounts of liquor, an odd woman at one end of the table finally stands up and holds forth. Dull Gret is played by Ana Reeder (who also plays Angie's young friend, Nell, brilliantly, in subsequent scenes). Dull Gret, the focal point of Pieter Brueghel the Elder's painting, Dulle Griet (and a character of Flemish folklore, as I later learned) had arrived earlier at table in full fighting gear, including sword, breast plate and helmet. In Brueghel the Elder's painting she leads her townspeople into battle against a nasty bunch of farting "little devils," sending them all into a pit in Hell. With the exception of Pope Joan's dialog, Gret's speech (you can't really call it dialog) contains some of the best (and most imaginative) writing in the first act.

So here they are, these remarkable women, together, eating and drinking and toasting Marlene's promotion...and here we come to the first big problem with this particular production of "Top Girls" (who knows how the play would read if it were staged in another way). Marlene comes across as the least important character at the table. She's almost incidental. Save for the waitress (played by Mary Beth Hurt), I hardly noticed her on stage. When the play moves on to Marlene's (and Angie's) story in the second and third acts, it comes as a big surprise to me!

But that isn't the only problem I experienced with Manhattan Theatre Club's "Top Girls." The characters is this production were almost unintelligibly. I could only grasp bits of their dialog/monologues, and then only after a long period of adjustment to the range of regional and cultural language peculiarities. Tomei's Isabella Bird was the worst. Her character sounded very authentic but I couldn't understand a word she said. What's the point of an accurate accent if you can't comprehend the words?

The problem was compounded by the layered dialog. Perhaps the characters' voices were meant to be heard as musical instruments are—in relation to one another. If that was the intention, it failed. The overlapping and competing voices nearly canceled each other (and irritated the hell out of me). A couple of the actresses' voices just didn't carry well. Lady Nijo and Patient Griselda were almost impossible to hear. The only character I could understand without straining was Pope Joan. Even Dull Gret, a blunt instrument in the language department, was hard to hear. When I joined the long line to the ladies' bathroom during the first intermission, all I heard was, "Did you understand that?" "What were they saying?" "What did she say?"

Unfortunately, the play's unintelligibleness (is that a word?) isn't the worst of its problems. "Top Girls" lacks relevancy in this, the beginning of the 21st century. The play feels dated, even parochial; it's back there in the 1980s with the big shoulder pads and the designer man-suits. Churchill's feminist concerns would not be framed in the same way today. Feminist dialogs have become more nuanced, more inclusive, more sensual and more flexible since the 1980s. Western European and American women now live in a world of multiple perspectives on what constitutes the full expression of womanhood.

Are the prejudices against women gone? No. We need look no further than the news coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign to see that. Have the violations and transgressions against women vanished? No. Women continue to be mutilated, raped, murdered, forcible married or sold into sexual slavery in countries around the world. What has changed is this: women choose their battles and exert their influence in the context of the culture and country they live in. It's no longer, "How do I get to the top of a man's world?" It's, "How do I raise my community out of poverty?" and "How do I bring supportive health care to the pregnant women in my village?" It's "What can I bring, as a woman, to the religious and political conflicts in my region of the world?"

In Churchill's "Top Girls" the women talk at cross-purposes, cancel each other out and speak only of themselves. If I were writing the play today, Lady Nijo, Patient Griselda, Pope Joan and the rest would listen, argue and debate each other. If the play were written today, Marlene's shallowness would be seen for what it is—a myopic self-involvement that truncates her humanity, as well as her womanhood.

The woman, identified only as Fazia M., is a 32-year-old Moroccan who has been living in France since 2000. She speaks French and has had three children, all of whom have acquired French citizenship.

Under the laws prevailing at the time of her citizenship application, a spouse had the right to acquire nationality provided he or she had been married for two years and had a good level of French. However, the authorities could reject the application on the grounds of "lack of integration" into French life.

Fazia M. was rejected on these grounds after she attended several interviews, dressed in the burqa, with the social services and police, which are normal steps in the process.

She and her husband volunteered the information that they were Salafists - members of an ultra-strict Saudi-inspired branch of Islam - and that the husband had asked her to wear the burqa and that she accepted "submission" to him, Le Monde reported.

Fazia M. appealed to the State Council, arguing that she had been denied the right to freedom of religious expression. The court rejected her suit, saying she had "adopted a radical practice of religion that is incompatible with the essential values of the French community, notably on the principle of equality of the sexes".

"According to her own statements, Faiza M. leads a virtually reclusive life, cut off from French society," explained Emmanuelle Prada-Bordenave, a government lawyer. "She has no idea about secularism or the right to vote. She lives in total submission to the men of her family."

The Minister for Higher Education, Valerie Pecresse, saluted the State Council's ruling, saying "the principle of sexual equality is not up for negotiation" in France. "Beyond the issue of wearing a burqa is the fact that this woman was not going to vote and ... had no independent life other than trips that she made escorted by her husband. This isn't the French Republic, I believe."

Feminist associations applauded the ruling, as did the mainstream press. But commentators also said the affair revealed the huge disconnect between radical Muslims and French society and raised the question about what to do next, if it is accepted that the burqa is an instrument of oppression.

"The burqa constitutes an unacceptable violation of sexual equality, it is a headlong attack on the dignity of women, a complete step back to the Middle Ages," said a leading rightwing MP, Jacques Myard, who said he would press for the garment to be outlawed in public.

Other voices, sensing both a legal minefield and a rallying point for disaffected Muslims, are against.

We spent three and a half months in the southern Spanish town of Vejer de la Fronterra. Women there wore the cobijada, a black gown which covered all but the eyes, until it was outlawed during the civil war in the late 1930s. That ruling had nothing to do with freeing women, it was made because men were disguising themselves in cobijadas and concealing weapons under them.

The French decision wasn't about security, it was about women's equality.

The husband was French and the court was not telling him he could not practise his religion; but it was saying that it was not going to condone the subservient position of women under that religion.

Some would say that freedom of religion includes the freedom to be subservient, but I don't think you can make a free choice to be submissive. Rather than trampling over this couple's freedom of religious expression, the Court has made a stand for the country's values of equality and liberty.

Sometimes I HATE magazines. Granted, I didn't get to sleep until after 5:30 this morning and only got about 2 hours of sleep, so maybe that's why I'm particularly peeved by this article. But I don't think that's it - tell me if I'm wrong. The part that cranks me up the most is that it's written by a woman! I got to the third sentence and wanted to scream. She totally bashes women and categorizes them into this petty "these specific phrases make us all swoon meanwhile these particular sayings will make us the devil incarnate. Oh and sorry we just randomly get mad at nothing" group. And some guys reading this article are going to take it at face value and think "hmm, good to know" because they assume she's right because she's a woman, therefore an authority on all other women. Well, she's stupid. There, I said it. I don't like this lady. (Sorry.)

A friend send me this link. He asked if any of this was true. My answer: OF COURSE NOT. Why do people feel the need to categorize ALL women into a group of people who all respond exactly the same way to all stimuli?? We are not Lemmings! We are all humans capable of reacting differently and making our own decisions and responding intelligently and logically. Some of the things under "forbidden phrases" wouldn't bother me in the least. Most of the things in her "magic word list" would rarely make that much of a positive difference to me, and sometimes those comments would make me angrier than some of the phrases in her other list. The only thing I agree with in this article is that word choice does make a difference regarding how people perceive you, your attitude, and your intentions.

I'm not saying there aren't certain things that guys really should avoid saying to girls. For instance, If you noticed your girlfriend is gorging herself with ice cream with the gallon sitting in her lap, you probably wouldn't want to ask her in a serious tone if she's going to eat all of it. Basically I think lists that make overly broad generalizations about how people should act and react to certain things are usually bogus. They should all be taken with a grain of salt. Women get the same thing in Cosmo and all those other magazines I refuse to read unless I'm bored to tears in a waiting room somewhere.

I’ve always been a pick-you- gyno –out-of the-yellow-pages kind of girl, since all I needed was the birthcontrol prescription, and the gyno was the gatekeeper of the goods. At my University Health Center, the kind nurse- practitioners understood this truth and happily forked over the birthcontrol prescriptions and answered any questions I had.

After, I graduated and moved to DC, it was time to go to a grown-up gyno, and I simply called a few random ones and picked the one that had appointments available. Low and behold, I stumbled on Doctor Constance Bohon, who decided to discuss my fertility and the way its being destroyed by my fat, issues I did not ask anything about. When she brought up her “concerns” I told he that I appreciate the information; however, I was comfortable with my body. The Good Doctor, actually went to tell me that, it is a major problem that when I look in the mirror, I think ‘this is me” and I am ok with it. She knows some older women who are like that, but me at me young age, I can still change, thus I should not accept my body.

In the process of my short visit she also managed to mention that she has “friends” who do not accept pregnant patients who smoke tobacco… I am surprised the doctor accepts patients who are fat, but then, I guess it’s an economic necessity.

I also did a bit research to see what everyone else thought about Bohon, and following bit of medical wisdom was attributed to her by the Washington Post:

"In pregnancy, the uterus weighs a lot more, and jogging puts extra strain on the ligaments around it. So that can start to drag the uterus down"

The general guidelines of this topic seem to be, if you used to run, nothing wrong with continuing to run during pregnancy. Don't believe me, give it a google.  And, the uterus will just have to learn to catch up!

Thank you Doctor Bohon for your good advice.

As annoyed as I was at the time, I did not bother to write this post, I just went on with my life, until today, when I needed Capital Women’s Care (a practice of many gynos, one of whom is Bohon) to call in my birthcontrol prescription to a pharmacy in New York City, which they finally agreed to do, after I lost it and screamed at them in front of my entire office.

Thank Capital Women’s Care for the excellent care you provided today.

At the end of all that, I was not able to pick up my prescription after all, because the medical insurance will not cover it until tomorrow!

And what is the point of this rant?

We need some way of knowing which doctors are going to judge us, and which doctors will treat us? If only there was some kind of forum where we could trash gynos we hate and celebrate gynos well love… is there such a thing already, and I just don’t know about it?

Every day, I get up in the morning and shave my face.  I don't like shaving every day, but I do it anyway because that is what is expected me in my professional career.  Of course, I could decide not to work in this career.  I could be a bum, I could be an artist, I could choose to be self-employed.  But, the point is ... I chose to be in this career knowing that I would be expected to wake up every day and shave my fucking face.

Nobody is telling you that you have to shave your hairy armpits.  If you don't want to shave your pits, don't shave them.  I don't give a fuck.  But, don't blame it on men because you have to shave your pites once or twice a week.

It's the same thing with high heels.  I'll admit, women look Goddamned good in high heels.  It doesn't matter if you are in blue jeans, or shots, or a bikini or just plain naked, women in high heels look good.  They are attractive, makes me want to do all kinds of things with them.  If you want to be attractive to people, if you want to be an object of desire, if you want to feel good about yourself, then it is you who chooses to do the things you need to do to look attractive.

I'll admit, shoes that hurt your feet suck.  It sucks the life energy out of you.  So, if high heels suck the life energy out of you then don't wear them.  Nobody's forcing you to wear them.

Same thing with movie stars and gay men.  I'm sure you've noticed the unnaturally hairless chested men.  I'm sure it feels pretty prickly to have your balls and chest shaved.  But, guys do it because they get better roles in movies and attract more men.  They have an interest in shaving their balls, movie roles and men.

Womanhood capitalized on male dominance instead of tearing it down. She supported Manhood’s dominance of society (what people do), while she took over dominance of the culture (why people do it).

Womanhood’s goal: One reliable man to help fulfill her dreams for nesting, nurturing, and nestling with loved ones. She sought stable marriage and family. She convinced Manhood to provide the wherewithal and do the hard labor. In return, she rewarded his husbanding and fathering.

She gained status and added personal stature by making herself very different and highly unique. She capitalized on gender differences and exploited the female nature. Her character was shaped around feminine mystique, female modesty, moral standards, marriage, monogamy, manners, virginity, virtual virginity, soft-heartedness inside and hard-headedness outside of marriage,  and whatever else would distinguish her from Manhood.

She taught daughters to mature first, love next, leave sex to marriage, and uplift manliness and masculinity as the way to fulfill female hopes and dreams.

In the process she earned Manhood’s unconditional respect for the female sex. The benefits grew through the decades. Womanhood changed cultural values and the social and domestic environments in such ways that the genders respected the opposite sex more than their own (e.g., my generation).

Womanhood developed American life into a family game. She emphasized separate but equal genders with cooperative rather than competing roles. In her eyes, good character and virtuous actions overwhelmed looks, interests, and words.

For over a century, Manhood was preoccupied on the job with technological and economic advancements. He dominated workplace and society. Gradually adopting wifely-inspired and family-friendly values, however, Manhood gradually yielded dominance of home and culture.

Family dominance was a toss up, but mostly it had the appearance of husband as head, wife as neck, and children as no more than adult-hopefuls. Womanhood accepted and parlayed this truism: Perceptions are reality, and whatever appears to be, is.

Manhood bought into the lifelong married life sought by Womanhood. Family responsibility guided husbands in the workplace and society. With laws, wealth, and leadership, husbands shaped America to his wife’s vision of family-centeredness.

Mutual respect grew as husbands implemented feminine values in society. Husbands in the workplace made America more family friendly. The beginning of the end, however, arose in the 1960s.

[More on old school America appears in posts 263, 238, 218, and 204 below. Scroll down or search by the number with dot and space following it.]

In New Jersey recently, a man was arrested for having pornography openly displayed in his car. According to NBC10:

New Jersey State Police arrested a 47-year-old man, whose allegedly display of a topless Barbie doll and explicit porn magazines inside his car caused a stir at a Garden State Parkway rest area.
Robert Martin, of Dennis Township, N.J., had women's underwear on a platter, in addition to the naked doll on the dashboard of his car, investigators said.
New Jersey State Police arrested Martin early Wednesday morning and charged him with maintaining a public nuisance. They arrested him after he parked the car at the service plaza. He's done that for months, in order to catch a ride to his job at a boat yard in Atlantic City.

As it turns out, a woman who works at the rest area said visitors have been complaining for sometime now about Martin's car, so she checked it out herself and decided to call the police. She stated:

"Very explicit pornography. It was a mixture of pornography, a Bible, cross, it was all laid out perfectly. Nobody should have to really be exposed to that."

At first I brushed this story off as one of those "weird news" stories that the press likes embed within more serious news stories. But it then triggered my memory about a story from a few years ago.
Back in 2005, the Harvard University campus was awash in a fresh layer of snow after a winter storm. Some of the male students became bored and decided to venture outside and create a giant snowman. After thinking about it, the men decided that a snowman was too boring and unchallenging, so they decided a greater challenge and eye-catching creation - and extremely funny one - would be a giant snow penis. That's a nine foot penis!

It turns out, a giant snow penis is not a great idea. Seems it greatly offended some people on campus. Not other male students, and not the average female student. Think Larry Summers.
Right! The feminists.

Two female students took great offense to the frigid, menacing phallic symbol, and after fetching a couple of shovels (Spade shovels? Another phallic symbol?), perniciously swung away until the massive threat was obliterated.
According to the two female students:

"The unwanted image of an erect penis is an implied threat; it means that we, as women, must be subject to erect penises whether we like it or not."

One of Harvard's women's studies professors chimed in reminding society of the ominous, oppressive, and destructive penis laced environment that surrounds women. She stated:

"The snow penis follows a long line of public phallic symbols, including the Washington Monument and missiles."

Missiles are intentional phallic symbols? And here I thought they were shaped that way due to the physics involved with aerodynamics and propulsion.
It's now obvious to me why feminists choose gender studies instead of math and sciences as their majors in college.
(Side note: Also, does this mean men should register their anatomy as a deadly weapon? If this is true, this simple act may diminish the number of men from suffering a mid-life crisis. Who needs corvettes and young women to raise one's self-esteem when being able to carrying a federal I.D card with a picture of one's anatomy describing it as "deadly" will do the trick!)

My first impression of these two stories is that the men involved did not think through the potential impact their actions would have on others. While I don't see either action as harmless, I do not find it extremely threatening as the women in the stories allege.
Some will say "boys will be boys", and to a point I agree. But what happens when "girls are being girls"?
I'm talking about public bachelorette parties.

I've spent many nights in crowded, public dance clubs, and every year, especially around this time, one can find young professional women entering clubs across the nation decorated profusely with penis shaped hats, wearing penis shaped noses, armed for serious drinking with their penis straws, and at least one woman (sometimes two) sporting a large inflatable penis under her arm. Usually the present club they enter is not the first club they have visited for the evening, nor will it be the last. For hours these women have been parading around the streets of some busy, populated, and active city dressed in similar, previously labeled, ominous, oppressive, misogynist attire, dancing individually and collectively with their giant penis in front of numerous strangers, drinking merrily from their penis straws as many strangers watch, and snapping numerous pictures of themselves enjoying their phallic induced evening for many future laughs and memories.
And yet by the end of the evening, not one woman (or man) will complain, become irate, or raise her voice about how offensive this embedded cultural display is to women. Nor will any woman raise her voice about the double standard men face; continuously shunning them for having the audacity to display the penis as an act of their own humor or enjoyment, while giving women a big "you go girl" for doing the same.

Probably the most disturbing aspect of stories like these is that the women doing the most complaining about men and phallic symbols are usually the same women who have (or will in the future) sucked an amaretto stone sour through a penis straw, grappled with an inflatable penis while dancing to "Get Jiggy Wit It" on a crowded stage, and walked the public streets for a few hours in their high heels and penis noses and did not give a damn if anybody was offended - all in the name of girl fun.
But OH MY GOD if the boys do it.

I guess girls will be girls.

Contact:

soltys.joe@gmail.com

http://jsoltys.wordpress.com

Photo Courtesy of: stockxchng.com

#1 The article begins by describing her visit to an elementary school, emphasizing the connection women are supposed to have with children.  She is hailed for the fact that she is visiting a charter school in Harlem.

#2 "She's ethereally slender, and today she wears a satiny taupe suit with her hair twisted into a curly up-do by the stylist who travels with her. She's been a candidate's wife for almost the entire course of her 28-year marriage. She looks perfect for the part," says the Post.  What makes her "perfect"?  She dresses well, conforms to beauty standards about being a thin, blonde, and has a stylist.  Notably, she is also a candidate's wife, not a woman who is active in her own right.

#3 According to the Post, "There's a slight self-consciousness in her manner -- some combination, perhaps, of guardedness and careful manners and the learned posture of a child dancer. It's there in the way she keeps her hands folded close to her body, as if she's pondering where they should go, or trying not to take up too much space."  So, the perfect First Lady must also be small and dainty.  The implication is that she is seen, but not necessarily heard.

#4 At the end of the first page, her beauty is invoked AGAIN as a member of her churched described her as "impeccably dressed" and "gorgeous." By now, there has been slight mention of her drug problem, but mostly readers are instructed to note that this is a beautiful woman, who stays out of the way, and plays the rules (doing well in school, but largely sticking to feminine activities).

#5 The article moves on to tell of the McCains' courtship, notably eliminating any mention that McCain's first wife had been horribly disfigured in a car accident while McCain was at war and any contribution that might have had on his leaving her and any mention of the fact that Cindy and John started dating before his divorce.

#6 Cindy McCain is described like this: "Friends recall that they were a study in opposites, with Cindy "always deferring to John," according to William Cohen, the former secretary of defense who was the best man at their wedding."  Again, we get a stereotypical notion of what a wife should do; defer to her husband.

#7 Just in case you didn't pick this up yet, the article then reminds that Cindy McCain is pretty: "She [John McCain's mother] describes Cindy as a seamless mother who has managed her four children's lives with seeming effortlessness, all while looking fantastic and wearing the most stylish clothes."

#8 Again, her role as a perfect wife is noted in the section called "Reticent,  but Resolute": "She has had years to perfect her role of candidate's wife as humanizer, the one who talks about afternoon barbecues at home and kids' games and who poses for pictures, smiling, just behind the shoulder of the husband. She has refused to become a Washington wife, however."  Though this section attempts to explain that she maintained some semblance of her own life by not moving to Washington and dealing with many of her problems on her own, it again puts her in the role of pretty woman, smiling next to her husband.

#9 It is also noted that Cindy's shy nature coincides with her desire to stay out of political discussions.  The Post explains, "She steers clear of policy. "Cindy doesn't want to say the wrong things on issues," says someone familiar with the campaign who asked not to be named in order to speak candidly. 'She has seemed to be always happy to give a speech . . . on the type of person her husband is.'"  This section feels like a direct shot at Hillary Clinton and potential First Ladies like her.  It is clear that the Washington Post feels a First Lady should not be involved in policy at all, but should be running around DC supporting her husband and maybe doing some volunteering.

#10 Page 3 of the article explains that Cindy McCain stood by her husband's side when allegations of his affair with a lobbyist surfaced early this year.  Let's not forget that, political wives should always stand by their husband's sides, no matter what they do.

#11 Page 3 also gets into some of the more unseemly details of McCain's life, her addiction to pain killers and her fear of flying.  Her ability to overcome both are described as evidence of her strength.  Her addiction and the lying that surrounded it are not criticized.  (Side note: Imagine if Michelle Obama had been addicted to some thing!  I'm sure the media would have depicted her as welfare, crack mother stereotype almost immediately).  She also got over her fear of flying by going to flight school and buying her own plane.  She must really understand the struggles common people face since she can afford to overcome her fears by paying for truly lavish planes and classes.

#12 The article then moves into a discussion of what McCain does while her husband is in DC or on the campaign trail.  Unsurprisingly, it sounds like she is a traditional wife!  Much of this discussion seems to center around her 4 children and it is implied she spent her time raising them when they were younger.  This part of the article also explains that she was under extreme stress of raising children, spinal surgery, and one of her husband's scandals that drove her to her painkiller addiction.  It is clear that the Post does not want to attribute any of this misbehavior to McCain herself, but would prefer to blame her tough situations.  Funny how it is OK to blame unfortunate circumstances for drug abuse when the person in question is white, upper class, and apparently just trying so damn hard to be a mom and hold her family together.  You definitely don't see that kind of sympathy when it is a poorer woman of color struggling from the stress of trying to hold her family together.

Here is the Post's explanation of her behavior: "'She told me many times that she wanted to be the perfect wife and mother, and she wanted to be everything that John McCain wanted her to be,' Bayless says. 'And she pretty much was the perfect wife and mother, but, you know, she had to come to the realization that everything isn't perfect.' 'She wanted to be the best possible Mrs. John S. McCain as she could,' Joe McCain says. 'I think she honestly felt that she did not want to be one of his problems.''

13) This is how the article ends:

"At the June town-hall meeting in Philadelphia, while the senator talks, Cindy sits quietly and eyes the perimeter. She smooths her skirt down on her knees. She sees two guys with their hands up, wanting to ask a question, but her husband can't see them, so she keeps signaling him subtly with her finger. He never sees her.

Afterward, several women from the audience are in a rapture over Cindy McCain. She seems so classy, they say, and her hair is beautiful, and she's a mom with children in the service, and she understands sacrifice and worry. And this might sound sexist, says Valerie Gaydos, 40, a businesswoman from central Pennsylvania, but she likes the way Cindy seems so traditional, seems to support her man and her man's dreams.

'She's flawless, flawless,' Gaydos says."

Yup, totally flawless, except that she allows herself to be depicted as a trophy wife, she was addicted to painkillers and got away with nothing but community service, dated a married man, and seems to have no opinions or personality of her own.  But, she's pretty and she stays out of the way, so obviously that makes her the "perfect" First Lady.

Now, don't forget right now, you can go to a newsstand and buy this article about Cindy McCain, painting her as perfect no matter what or how stereotyped, AND you can get a New Yorker that depicts Michelle Obama as a terrorist.  Don't you feel great about the way the media covers women, especially feminist women!

The following was sent to me by aw in an email...  Read it and let me know what you think about Sophia's perspective.  I believe this editorial was originally from the Washington Post, but it is not clear from the message.

Black.  Female.  Accomplished.  Attacked

By Sophia A. Nelson
Sunday, July 20, 2008; B01

There she is -- no, not Miss America, but the Angela-Davis-Afro-wearing, machine-gun-toting, angry, unpatriotic Michelle Obama, greeting her husband with a fist bump instead of a kiss on the cheek.

It was supposed to be satire, but the caricature of Barack Obama and his wife that appeared on the cover of the New Yorker last week rightly caused a major flap. And among black professional women like me and many of my sisters in the Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, who happened to be gathered last week in Washington for our 100th anniversary celebration, the mischaracterization of Michelle hit the rawest of nerves.

Welcome to our world.

We've watched with a mixture of pride and trepidation as the wife of the first serious African American presidential contender has weathered recent campaign travails -- being called unpatriotic for a single offhand remark, dubbed a black radical because of something she wrote more than 20 years ago and plastered with the crowning stereotype: "angry black woman." And then being forced to undergo a politically mandated "makeover" to soften her image and make her more palatable to mainstream America.

Sad to say, but what Obama has undergone, though it's on a national stage and on a much more prominent scale, is nothing new to professional African American women. We endure this type of labeling all the time. We're endlessly familiar with the problem Michelle Obama is confronting -- being looked at, as black women, through a different lens from our white counterparts, who are portrayed as kinder, gentler souls who somehow deserve to be loved and valued more than we do. So many of us are hoping that Michelle -- as an elegant and elusive combination of successful career woman, supportive wife and loving mother -- can change that.

"Ain't I a woman?" Sojourner Truth famously asked 157 years ago. Her ringing question, demanding why black women weren't accorded the same privileges as their white counterparts, still sums up the African American woman's dilemma today: How are we viewed as women, and where do we fit into American life?

"Thanks to the hip-hop industry," one prominent black female journalist recently said to me, all black women are "deemed 'sexually promiscuous video vixens' not worthy of consideration. If other black women speak up, we're considered angry black women who complain. This society can't even see a woman like Michelle Obama. All it sees is a black woman and attaches stereotypes."

Black women have been mischaracterized and stereotyped since the days of slavery and minstrel shows. In more recent times, they've been portrayed onscreen and in popular culture as either sexually available bed wenches in such shows as the 2000 docudrama "Sally Hemings: An American Scandal," ignorant and foolish servants such as Prissy from "Gone With the Wind" or ever-smiling housekeepers, workhorses who never complain and never tire, like the popular figure of Aunt Jemima.

Even in the 21st century, black women are still bombarded with media and Internet images that portray us as loud, aggressive, violent and often grossly obese and unattractive. Think of the movies "Norbit" or "Big Momma's House," or of the only two black female characters in "Enchanted," an overweight, aggressive traffic cop and an angry divorcée amid all the white princesses.

On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a smart, accomplished black professional woman portrayed on mainstream television or in the movies? If Claire Huxtable on "The Cosby Show" comes to mind, remember that she left the scene 16 years ago.

The reality is that in just a generation, many black women -- who were mostly domestics, schoolteachers or nurses in the post-slavery Jim Crow era -- have become astronauts, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, engineers and PhDs. You name it, and black women have achieved it. The most popular woman on daytime television is Oprah Winfrey.  Condoleezza Rice is secretary of state.

And yet my generation of African American women -- we're called, in fact, the Claire Huxtable generation -- hasn't managed to become successfully integrated into American popular culture. We're still looking for respect in the workplace, where, more than anything else, black women feel invisible. It's a term that comes up again and again. "In my profession, white men mentor young whites on how to succeed," a financial executive told me, but "they're either indifferent to or dogmatically document the mistakes black women make. Their indifference is the worst, because it means we're invisible."

As someone who recently left a large law firm to work in the corporate sector, I have to agree. I liked my firm, but I always felt that I had to sink or swim on my own. I didn't get the kind of mentoring that I saw white colleagues, male and female, getting all around me. The firm was actually one of the better ones when it came to diversity, and yet of 600 partners, only five were black women.

A 2007 American Bar Association report titled "Visible Invisibility" describes how black women in the legal profession face the "double burden" of being both black and female, meaning that they enjoy none of the advantages that black men gain from being male, or that white women gain from being white.

Invisibility isn't the only problem. I run an organization dedicated to supporting African American professional women and often run empowerment workshops at various conferences. At a recent such workshop, I asked the participants to list some words that would describe how they believe they're viewed in the workplace and the culture at large. These are the kinds of words that came back: "loud," "angry," "intimidating," "mean," "opinionated," "aggressive," "hard." All painful words. Yet asked to describe themselves, the same women offered gentler terms: "strong," "loving," "dependable," "compassionate."

Where does the disconnect come from? Possibly from the way black women have been forced into roles of strength for decades. "Black women are the original multitaskers of necessity," says one nonprofit executive. "We've perfected it because we've been doing it for so long. But people don't appreciate the skill it requires, and they don't recognize the toll it takes on us as human beings."

For all our success in the professional world, we have paid a significant price in our private and emotional lives. A life of preordained singleness (by chance, not by choice) is fast becoming the plight of alarming numbers of professional black women in America. The fact is that the more money and education a black woman has, the less likely she is to marry and have a family.

Consider these stunning statistics: As of 2007, according to the New York Times, 70 percent of professional black women were unmarried. Black women are five times more likely than white women to be single at age 40. In 2003, Newsweek reported that there are more black women than black men (24 percent to 17 percent) in the professional-managerial class. According to Department of Education statistics cited by the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, black women earn 67 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded to blacks, as well as 71 percent of all master's degrees and 65 percent of all doctoral degrees.

With all the challenges facing professional black women today, we hope that Michelle Obama will defy the negative stereotypes about us. And that, now that a strong professional black woman is center stage, she'll bring to light what we already know: that an accomplished black woman can be a loyal and supportive wife and a good mother and still fulfill her own dreams. The fact that her husband clearly adores Michelle is both refreshing and reassuring to many of us who long to find a good man who will love and appreciate us.

Recently, a friend who's a married professional mother of three girls wrote to me: "I think one of the most interesting things about Michelle Obama is that what she and her husband are doing is pretty revolutionary these days -- and I don't mean running for president. For a black man and woman in the U.S. to be happily married, with children, and working as partners to build a life -- let alone a life of service to others -- all while rearing their children together is downright revolutionary."

It's how so many black professional women feel. And our hope is that if Michelle Obama becomes first lady, the revolution will come to us at last.

snelson@iaskinc.org

Sophia A. Nelson is a corporate attorney and president of iask, Inc., an organization for African American professional women.

I was reading the new issue of Bust magazine last night, and they had a small article about an organization called Walk a Mile in Her Shoes. The group sets up one mile marches in different cities all over the country to raise awareness about sexual and domestic violence. What sets these marches apart from similiar efforts is that they have found a symbolic, humorous, and smart way to help people to open up a dialogue about a difficult subject. Each march is made up of men who wear high heel shoes for the entirety of the walk. This is obviously not physically easy for most of these men (since most have never walked in heels before, and are most likely wearing shoes that don't actually fit) and I think it is a really endearingly symbolic way to show support for the women in their lives.

Their website does not seem to have any marches listed for Portland yet, but if you could all keep your eyes peeled for a women's size 15 pair of modest pumps, let me know. I figure I should start looking now so I am ready when a walk does get set up in my city.

For more info: Walk a Mile in Her Shoes

Lembrança de Maria Gabriela Llansol

#5

De costas ___

ou de frente

sou mesmo

desejada,

numa

escrita

fina e

englobante;

___ pois  

vivo agora 

despida e

apaixonada,

permitindo

toda a

leitura

arrazante.

#6

Morro ___

agora no

exterior

da luz,

vendo o

cavalo

avançar

para ela;

___pois

sem estar

pregada

à cruz,

tenho uma

visão

brilhante

e bela.

#7

Iluminar ___

ou revelar

que sou

potente,

sentir

que tenho

testa de

pedra;

___pois

analisar o

fluxo eléctrico

na mente,

é não recuar

perante

a tortuosa

Fedra.

Lisboa, 2.09.2004.