Irving Park, Chicago, IL
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
she's so empowered with her tube top and her gun.
and her tiny, tiny angel wings.
Star Coffee, Chicago, IL
Star Coffee, Chicago, IL
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
effective advertising since '48.
This sign, which I pass on my way to work, says, "Girls Work Near Home, Key Personnel." It's clearly been there for decades, and it's strange to see. This sort of sign isn't legal anymore, right? From the EEOC's website-
Job Advertisements
It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law.
Hey, look at that. Progress. I'm now going to find clerical advertisements that implicitly target female employees. And then I'm gonna sue everyone.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
It's really a lot of work to put stickers on things. I lose the stickers. I can't find a marker.
I'll start sticking stickers again soon, but in the meantime, does someone want to explain to me why we never talk about sexism as a civil rights issue? Or maybe you do--but I don't. When I google "sexism as a civil rights issue," I get mostly A) results about sexism within the civil rights movement, and B) some discussions of the intersection of race and gender from the perspectives of black women.
That's not enough. This is part of the reason discussions of gender get marginalized as belonging to "feminists." Maybe if we start conceptualizing discrimination based on gender as a civil rights issue, we'll be more prone to tie issues of gender to issues of race and class and their respective struggles and triumphs.
That's not enough. This is part of the reason discussions of gender get marginalized as belonging to "feminists." Maybe if we start conceptualizing discrimination based on gender as a civil rights issue, we'll be more prone to tie issues of gender to issues of race and class and their respective struggles and triumphs.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The sort of misguided talk everyone's posting on facebook.
I'm not going to lie, this talk sort of freaks me out. But then again, what doesn't freak me out? Certainly not business clothes, business speak, conferences, or watching a clip on facebook of a facebook executive talking about her experiences at facebook.
Anywaysssss,
1. Focusing on what individual women should do differently as a means of engendering structural change: bad idea.
2. Interestingly ambivalent to start this talk admitting to and asking the female audience to admit to "luck" before going on to say that women have got to learn to stop attributing their success to external factors, as is making clear you don't want to assign blame to women and then going on to tell them they've got to stop being distracted by thoughts of marriage and children.
1 & 2: Related.
That is all.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
a little Sunday theorizing
Dear friends,
I've been thinking of this blog more as therapy than as protest, mostly because protest would require that those against whom I'm protesting actually read it. And I'm more or less indifferent as to whether or not they do, because, well, who are they?...I think they are almost literally the entire world, and this is too large of a group for me to manage or even think about (notice the subtitle of this blog is something like "you could put them on almost everything"). After all, this little blog was built through exasperation. It's a shelter.
But let's consider audience for a moment. Isn't it within my rights to choose as my audience fellow dissenters? Were I to attempt to widely publicize this blog, why should I prioritize changing the minds of those who make these signs over rallying those who protest--or wish they had more politically powerful means of protesting--against them?
Does it even make sense to direct my words to individuals, groups, and organizations that use images of women to exchange products and power among one another while silencing or ignoring the women whose images they exploit? And with how many different individuals must I begin anew an argument directed against the same inanely sexist position? Well, well, well. I don't have the energy for that. It. is. so. boring.
Perhaps, too, there is a difference between raising consciousness and protesting: personally, I can't very well stage a protest against anything without feeling like a hypocrite (actually, to tell you the truth, almost any sort of participation in daily life, and most especially speaking, tends to make me feel like a hypocrite...), but I can raise consciousness about how pervasive sexism continues to be, all around us, in so many ways, all the time. I'm raising consciousness for myself and for my six or so friends who read this, I suppose, because even those particularly conscious of and attuned to sexism need this as long as dominant cultures continue to reiterate the normalcy of female degradation/non-agency on the daily. It just feels nice to sort of do something, to say, "Nope."
NOPE.
SORRY.
WRONG.
Ah, there is something extraordinarily therapeutic about this kind of repetition.
To put this another way: I am the kind of person who owns a gavel. It's a really good idea. You should get one.
Finally, just to be clear, I'm also not really in the business of making people feel good about themselves for believing that they believe in and are operating according to egalitarian principles. Because I'm not sure that's even possible. I'd rather alienate that erroneous belief and make these such ones uncomfortable, even if I risk their hypothetical readership, since again, I'm not writing with them in mind (not that I don't appreciate their readership).
And so, anyway, I've been reading what sociologists have to say about the construction of social problems for my social policy class, and I've begin to see this blog as what Malcolm Spector and John Kitsuse called (in 1987) a "claims-making activity." It's interesting to think of this blog as a claim, not, let me emphasize, against men, or against heterosexual men, or against white, heterosexual men, but against gender oppression perpetuated by all sorts of people and groups. Albeit a weak one. But it's something, right? Oh, I love the space of the Internet.
Here are some excerpts (emphases and parenthetical expressions mine):
----
"If we conceived of social problems as claims-making activities (as opposed to objective social conditions)...we can easily locate such activities and the people who engage in them in any community or society. We could find the people who write to their congressmen, petition their city council, sign petitions, stage protests, make complaints to local administrative agencies, and so on. One common and seemingly sensible question that comes to mind is: Why do these people do these things? What causes people to complain, protest, demand change, join organizations, and lead movements?"
"When such questions are raised, attention is almost invariably directed toward the individual and social characteristics of those involved and the differences between those who do and those who do not participate in those activities. What background characteristics produce people who join groups, demand change, and engage in protest? When groups or movements are considered the focus of analysis, the characteristics of leaders are often presented."
"To study claims-making activities by drawing samples of participants to find individual and social characteristics that predict participation in those activities deflects attention away from the organization of claims-making itself...."
"A claim is a demand that one party makes upon another....claimants construct notions about the causes of the conditions they find onerous, assign blame, and locate officials responsible for rectifying the conditions. Alternatively, claimants may decide that no one is in charge of doing something about the condition, and that may become the substance of their complaints. Consequently, they may seek out those they think are in charge of creating and assigning such responsibility. Third, they may ask who benefits from the condition in question and look for vested interests--groups that actively perpetuate and profit from it or support it for personal pleasure or convenience. These options, not necessarily mutually exclusive, may lead to different strategies about how the claim should be phrased and to whom it should be directed."
---
Yeah. In this case, I might send emails that I then post to this blog and that serve as claims to particular individuals or organizations, and when I put a sticker on, say, someone's face, that's sort of a claim to that person--but for the most part, I'm literally reversing the meaning of the sign by making it into my own sign of sexism-consciousness so that I turn their claim into my claim, so BOOYA. Must get larger stickers...
I'm also a fan of this:
"The establishment of an agency authorized to deal with certain conditions generates dissatisfactions among populations about conditions that previously were unseen or routinely accommodated. That is, the awareness of availability of services leads to definitions of--and activity about--conditions as troublesome or disruptive."
So..you're saying that my eventual feminist watch dog agency/community center for creative writing, the arts, and entrepreneurship run by adolescent girls is going to incite boatloads more anger and dissatisfaction? Fantastic news.
I've been thinking of this blog more as therapy than as protest, mostly because protest would require that those against whom I'm protesting actually read it. And I'm more or less indifferent as to whether or not they do, because, well, who are they?...I think they are almost literally the entire world, and this is too large of a group for me to manage or even think about (notice the subtitle of this blog is something like "you could put them on almost everything"). After all, this little blog was built through exasperation. It's a shelter.
But let's consider audience for a moment. Isn't it within my rights to choose as my audience fellow dissenters? Were I to attempt to widely publicize this blog, why should I prioritize changing the minds of those who make these signs over rallying those who protest--or wish they had more politically powerful means of protesting--against them?
Does it even make sense to direct my words to individuals, groups, and organizations that use images of women to exchange products and power among one another while silencing or ignoring the women whose images they exploit? And with how many different individuals must I begin anew an argument directed against the same inanely sexist position? Well, well, well. I don't have the energy for that. It. is. so. boring.
Perhaps, too, there is a difference between raising consciousness and protesting: personally, I can't very well stage a protest against anything without feeling like a hypocrite (actually, to tell you the truth, almost any sort of participation in daily life, and most especially speaking, tends to make me feel like a hypocrite...), but I can raise consciousness about how pervasive sexism continues to be, all around us, in so many ways, all the time. I'm raising consciousness for myself and for my six or so friends who read this, I suppose, because even those particularly conscious of and attuned to sexism need this as long as dominant cultures continue to reiterate the normalcy of female degradation/non-agency on the daily. It just feels nice to sort of do something, to say, "Nope."
NOPE.
SORRY.
WRONG.
Ah, there is something extraordinarily therapeutic about this kind of repetition.
To put this another way: I am the kind of person who owns a gavel. It's a really good idea. You should get one.
Finally, just to be clear, I'm also not really in the business of making people feel good about themselves for believing that they believe in and are operating according to egalitarian principles. Because I'm not sure that's even possible. I'd rather alienate that erroneous belief and make these such ones uncomfortable, even if I risk their hypothetical readership, since again, I'm not writing with them in mind (not that I don't appreciate their readership).
And so, anyway, I've been reading what sociologists have to say about the construction of social problems for my social policy class, and I've begin to see this blog as what Malcolm Spector and John Kitsuse called (in 1987) a "claims-making activity." It's interesting to think of this blog as a claim, not, let me emphasize, against men, or against heterosexual men, or against white, heterosexual men, but against gender oppression perpetuated by all sorts of people and groups. Albeit a weak one. But it's something, right? Oh, I love the space of the Internet.
Here are some excerpts (emphases and parenthetical expressions mine):
----
"If we conceived of social problems as claims-making activities (as opposed to objective social conditions)...we can easily locate such activities and the people who engage in them in any community or society. We could find the people who write to their congressmen, petition their city council, sign petitions, stage protests, make complaints to local administrative agencies, and so on. One common and seemingly sensible question that comes to mind is: Why do these people do these things? What causes people to complain, protest, demand change, join organizations, and lead movements?"
"When such questions are raised, attention is almost invariably directed toward the individual and social characteristics of those involved and the differences between those who do and those who do not participate in those activities. What background characteristics produce people who join groups, demand change, and engage in protest? When groups or movements are considered the focus of analysis, the characteristics of leaders are often presented."
"To study claims-making activities by drawing samples of participants to find individual and social characteristics that predict participation in those activities deflects attention away from the organization of claims-making itself...."
"A claim is a demand that one party makes upon another....claimants construct notions about the causes of the conditions they find onerous, assign blame, and locate officials responsible for rectifying the conditions. Alternatively, claimants may decide that no one is in charge of doing something about the condition, and that may become the substance of their complaints. Consequently, they may seek out those they think are in charge of creating and assigning such responsibility. Third, they may ask who benefits from the condition in question and look for vested interests--groups that actively perpetuate and profit from it or support it for personal pleasure or convenience. These options, not necessarily mutually exclusive, may lead to different strategies about how the claim should be phrased and to whom it should be directed."
---
Yeah. In this case, I might send emails that I then post to this blog and that serve as claims to particular individuals or organizations, and when I put a sticker on, say, someone's face, that's sort of a claim to that person--but for the most part, I'm literally reversing the meaning of the sign by making it into my own sign of sexism-consciousness so that I turn their claim into my claim, so BOOYA. Must get larger stickers...
I'm also a fan of this:
"The establishment of an agency authorized to deal with certain conditions generates dissatisfactions among populations about conditions that previously were unseen or routinely accommodated. That is, the awareness of availability of services leads to definitions of--and activity about--conditions as troublesome or disruptive."
So..you're saying that my eventual feminist watch dog agency/community center for creative writing, the arts, and entrepreneurship run by adolescent girls is going to incite boatloads more anger and dissatisfaction? Fantastic news.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
A little lesson in student advertising.
A lame one:
A hilarious one:
Mmkay, thanks.
University of Chicago Law School, Hyde Park, Chicago
Friday, January 7, 2011
A 15-pt list on how to be a woman from my roommate's helpful bible college professor. Yep. He made a list.
How to be a Lady
1. God-fearing. Everything begins here. "Charm is deceitful and beauty is in vain, but only the woman who fears the Lord shall be praised" (Prov. 31:30). Her respect for, and fear of, God, shapes her character, olds her condult, and guides her relations with others.
2. High moral standards. A woman's fear of God leads her to live as heaven prescribes. She adops the lofty moral standard erected in Scripture and refuses to deviate from it. "I have no turned aside from your ordinances" (Psalm 119:102).
3. Modest dress. Quite a bit can be discerned about a woman by her manner of dress. "Women are to adorn themselves with proper clothing, odestly and discreetly" (1 Tim. 3:9). An immodestly dressed feale certainly attracts men, but the wrong kind of men. A Christian man certainly notices a woman who appropriately covers herself. She attracts the right kind of men. And they respect her.
4. Inner beauty. A woman's external beauty lasts only about 20-25 years, then fades. Her real beauty is inward and oral in nature. "Strength and dignity are her clothing" (Prov. 31:25). Such moral virtues grow and flourish as she matures, so that she becomes a finer person while growing older.
5. Feminine reserve. A prudent lady conveys to a man that she is not easily had-- that she cannot get into a relationship with him, without divine consent. And if the Lord ever withdraws that consent, then she exits the relationship. God has ade men hunters; they are aggressive and want to take the initiative and do the pursuing. A wise woman knows this. "If you draw me after yourself," the Shulamite told Solomon, "then we will run together" (Canticles 1:4). Men are turned off by aggressive females. The Lord has her heart in his hand, and he will give it to the man of his choice.
6. Is a helper. Her chief responsibility in a relationship with a man is to be his helper--assist him in walking with and serving the Lord. "It is not good for man to be alone; I will give him a helper" (Gen. 2:18). Without her input, he will have a difficult, if not impossible, time becoming the man heaven wants him to be. She is a stepping-stone to him, not a stumbling stone.
7. Domestically industrious. THe ideal lady is anything but lazy. "She does not eat the bread of idleness" (Prov. 31:27b) but is diligent in her responsibilities. "A worker at home" (Titus 2:5). Married, home becomes her main sphere of activity, and she is skillful in managing its affairs and "looking well to the ways of her household" (Prov. 31:27a).
8. Concerned for the needy. While her husband and children are her primary concerns, she is not too busy to assist those outside the home in need. "She extends her hand to the poor and stretches out her hands to the needy" (Prov. 31:20). Christian ladies "labor hard in the Lord's service" (Rom. 16:12, like thosse mentioned in this verse).
9. Respectful of others. She "has regard for all people, fears God, and honors the king" (1 Pet. 2:17). Recognizing the iage of God in others, the lady holds the in proper estee. If married, she is "submissive to her own husband" (Eph. 5:22).
10. Confident in the Lord. The godly female eagerly anticipates coming days. "She is not afraid of the snow for her household, for all her household are clothed with scarlet...She smiles at the future" (Prov. 31:21, 25b). She does not fear bad news, for her "heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord" (Psal 112:7). She looks forward to what lies ahead.
11. Trustworthy. Others can safely confide in her, pouring out their heart seeking her counsel. If married, "her husband trusts in her" (Prov. 31:11a). He is certain that she will do him good and not evil. Consequently, "he will have no lack of gain" (Prov. 31:11b).
12. Wise. This woman has something worthwhile to say, "She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness in on her tongue" (Prov. 31:26). She imparts sound advice to help guide others in their affairs, trails, opportunities, relationships, etc.
13. Gentle and quiet. The imprudent and worldly feale can be loud and "boisterous" (Prov. 9:13). But the prudent woman "has the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God" (1 Pet. 3:4). Because she is not talkative, whenever she does talk, people tune in and listen. She "wisely restrains her lips" (Prov 10:19)..
14. Devoted to Christ. What attracts a man to a woman more than all else is her being completely given over to Christ. "Besides you, Lord, I desire nothing on earth" (Psalm 73:25). He realizes that she, having Christ, does not need him.
15. She is priceless. Regarding the godly lady, "her worth is far above jewels" (Prov. 31:10b). She will be a good friend, fruitful servant and "excellent wife" (Prov. 31:10a).
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)