Bitch Blogs

Feminist Intersection: Ke$ha and the ongoing cultural appropriation and sexualization of Native women

Jessica Yee — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:46:34 -0400

I talked about this on Racialicious this week and I'd also like to talk about it here.

Photo courtesy of my friend Angel Bigstone

Several of you saw the ultra cultural appropriation performance of performances from Ke$ha on American Idol last Wednesday night - who decided in all her infinite wisdom to come out half-way through her "blah, blah, blah" song in a headdress and her version of "war paint" (I think).

It's obviously racist, ignorant, and beyond silly, but it's also an interesting statement (that I definitely won't give Ke$ha credit for knowing) about mainstream society's imagery of Native women. Not that it's her first time donning Native gear - apparently it's something she does on the regular with different pieces.

In 2008 I wrote about Juliette Lewis and her continued decision to "dress up like an Indian" with her band and what this means in her attempt to appear strong, raw, and yes even "savage" with her music. There are some particular intersections to address when we see women dressed up like this - and it has nothing to do with the fact that these people are of course getting our actual culture, traditions, and teachings all wrong.

Some folks in the Native community have said that it's good that at least they are interested in us while others, many of them women, have said that it's extremely insulting never mind the headdress and face makeup itself, but the song that Ke$ha was singing.

Case in point from my good friend Gloria Larocque:

Listen to the song for what she and the men for that matter, are saying in the song. She is suggesting that there doesn't need to be a whole lot of discussion to get her in the back seat of his car,in fact, too much blah blah blah wont' get her in the backseat at all. Throw in a headdress, she is making a targeted statement to Native American/First Nations women's sexual practices of getting into the back seat of any man who doesn't care for them (meaning they will sleep with anybody).

Now like I said I wouldn't give Ke$ha credit for knowing this – but it doesn't make it any less true in reality for Native women or any less of an offensive performance. And at what point does willful ignorance have no social responsibility attached to it? (particularly when you are a public figure?) I'm saying willful ignorance as well because it's not like Ke$ha or her entourage had no means to do some damn research before deciding that a headdress would be part of her American Idol number.

There is a whole bunch of wrong going on with Ke$ha, with Juliette Lewis, and since I'm on a roll I'll say it, Twilight and Avatar even, when we talk about the specifics of sexualization and how Native women are represented (anyone have any thoughts about Emily in Twilight: New Moon? And to quote Sandra Hale Shulman from News from Indian Country "would the Na’vi have been doomed if their women had been ugly and unsexual?")

I've also heard a lot of people in the Native community ask why these types of things are getting so much attention when we have real live issues within the community like no running water and extreme poverty going on that people aren't paying half as much attention to. But when millions of people are watching a supposed "reference" to your culture/ethnicity/race that is totally wrong - there is a bit of erasure of our people to address when they continually do it to the most insulting of extremes (sports mascots, anyone?)

What do you think?

Crip Drag No More?

Sara Reihani — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:39:04 -0400

Are you counting down the days until Glee returns for a second season (23!) or are you groaning at the mere mention of a show you hoped would be wiped from the national memory once American Idol came back on the air and satisfied the public urge to see young people engage in petty competition and sweaty vocal gymnastics?

Whichever camp you fall into, you may remember the amount of controversy surrounding Glee's use and attempted subversion of various stereotypes, which was covered in some detail by our very pithy Transcontinental Disability Choir guest blog back in November. Contributor s.e. smith wrote about the episode "Wheels", which is mainly about the wheelchair-using* character Artie, in the post "Glee-ful Appropriation" (I recommend reading the entire post):

It does nothing to advance the cause of people who live in marginalized bodies. Hiring an actress with Down Syndrome for a single throwaway guest role is not including actors with disabilities. Centering a disability plot around able bodied characters is not including people with disabilities. Continuing to use crip drag (and having the actor unabashedly say “this isn't something I can fake”) is not including people with disabilities. Painting accessibility as a hardship, a burden, and “special treatment” is also not including people with disabilities.

The use of "crip drag" was a particular source of contention among the disabled community (and the many fine commenters on Bitch blogs), but change may be on the way in Glee's second season. Actor Zack Weinstein went to Glee's open auditions and was hired to guest star in one episode. Weinstein has a spinal cord injury and is in a wheelchair; he plays a character who has a spinal cord injury and is in a wheelchair. In an open letter posted on the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation blog, Weinstein discusses his thoughts on crip drag and his reactions to Glee and the "Wheels" episode:

Some say that "Glee" should have tried harder to find a wheelchair using actor to play the part. Some say that if Kevin McHale was best for the part, then it shouldn't matter whether or not he's able to walk in real life. That's the side I fall on.

I know for a fact that the producers did audition actors who use wheelchairs. I'm friends with one of those actors. Toby has a great voice but he looks too old for the part even by Hollywood standards. As long as actors with disabilities are given the opportunity to audition and are as seriously considered as able-bodied actors, I have no problem. The best actor should get the role.

...The important thing is that people like me are being written into popular shows like "Glee". They didn't base the character on me, I ended up being a good representation of the character they created.

Zack Weinstein

One can't know the true motivations of a show's casting decisions. The Glee producers could have had the critical reactions of the "Wheels" episode in mind when they hired Weinstein... or they could have not. There's really no way to know if their intention in hiring Weinstein was to appease the disabled community that spoke out against the use of crip drag, to take a step in the right direction by including more disabled actors in their program because of the issues raised by the "Wheels" episode, or simply because they just thought Weinstein was best for the part.

What do you think? Does Weinstein's story and perspective change your opinion of Glee's treatment of disabled characters?

For more on feminism and ableism, check out the Transcontinental Disability Choir guest blog and/or Feminist With Disabilities For A Way Forward.

*Ed.'s note: This language was changed from wheelchair-bound to wheelchair-using, because, as s.e. notes in the comments section, wheelchair-bound is not an appropriate term.

Raising Trouble: The Pink and Blue Project

Liza Featherstone — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:34:10 -0400

Check this website out right now. (Thanks to feminist blogger Jen Moore, who posted this on Facebook.) Artist JeongMee Yoon was inspired to create “The Pink and Blue Project” when her five-year-old daughter only wanted to wear pink, and to play with pink objects. The photos are overwhelming to look at, because of the volume of objects and intensity of color, and the way the individual children are eclipsed.

The relationship between color and gender is established early (even though it is completely culturally manufactured – as JeongMee Yoon notes, in 1914, an American newspaper advised mothers to “use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.” Around World War II, she says, the colors switched.). When my child was a baby, I noticed that people – total strangers -- would get angry if he were dressed in colors that didn’t appropriately signal his gender. Really angry! The way you might feel if you saw someone hitting a kid in the produce aisle. It no longer takes a village to enforce this idiocy upon me: earlier this year, Ivan – age four - announced that “pink and purple are girl colors.” By then, it had been years since I'd dressed him in any color more daring than yellow or red.

Pink seems more compelling to girls than blue is to boys, though. In fact, the way contemporary girl children are drenched in pink – and their passion for it -- seems remarkable. Anyone have any idea what it’s all about?

I Can Has Feminizm?

Kelsey Wallace — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:30:08 -0400

File it under "Where have you been for the past 26 years?," and cross-reference it with "How on earth do you have a career in news?" (you have files for both of those, don't you?): Glenn Beck came out this week as being decidedly against Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA". Apparently, the song doesn't send the patriotic message he's always thought it did. Really, Glenn Beck? That song came out in 1984. You have had plenty of time to listen to the lyrics whilst hosting your tea parties and singing along at douche rallies (Sorry, Boss, but I think they play your music at their rallies). Well, we're pretty astounded by your incredible lyric-deducing abilities, and so is this kitteh:

Remember, if you have an idea for a feminizt LOL, you can make your own at I Can Has Cheezburger and send it our way! kbaifornao.

Raising Trouble: Is My Four-year-old a Budding Hate Criminal?

Liza Featherstone — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:49:56 -0400

“I want to shoot Iggy*,” Ivan often tells me. He and his friends want to shoot Iggy, he says, because “we don’t like princesses.” Iggy is a boy in my son’s preschool class who wears dresses to school – often bringing several, as he may want a new look by midday -- and likes to play princess with the girls.

Why does my son have violent fantasies about this kid? It’s disturbing, to say the least, though his teacher assures me that he never bullies anyone in real life.

Ivan, age four, used to have an expansive view of his gender options. He would tell me he wanted to be a mommy when he grew up, but “a mommy who cooks and drives.” (I don’t do much of either -- his dad does both.) Later he decided he wanted to be “a daddy like Tommy,” a butch lesbian friend with a daughter close to his age.

But since the beginning of this school year, masculinity has been a source of constant confusion and distress. After a classmate told my son that boys don’t play with dolls, Ivan took to beating his baby doll –he’d always been quite nurturing with her, tucking her into bed and tending to her when she was sick -- yelling at her to “Shut Up!” and sometimes even reporting that he’d killed her.

None of this drama seems to afflict Ivan’s friend Lee, a girl who wears Batman shirts and likes to play Transformers, Star Wars and other “bad guy” games with the boys. All the girls want to be her friend, but she’s just not that into their (largely pink-hued) activities.
Apparently, Ivan’s life mirrors that of many other boys today. A recent study by University of Illinois sociologist Barbara Risman found that while girls have made substantial progress in being able to transcend gender stereotypes – playing sports, no longer pretending to be dumb – boys, she says:

have gained fewer freedoms to explore their individual interests and talents from the gender revolution. Boys are still reluctant to admit to enjoying any activity, from gymnastics to dancing to knitting -- or even reading books -- that smacks of something girls do. And they now seem to be subjected to the same kind of teasing about supposedly ‘gender inappropriate’ activities or interests than girls used to face 45 years ago. Today it is young boys who are afraid of showing off how smart they are and who feel they have to pretend to be interested in certain activities and not others for fear of being taunted as ‘gay.’

Before anyone accuses me – or the author of the study – of minimizing pressures on girls, let me assure you that Risman did mention that girls face increasing pressure to be “sexy” at younger ages – a problem that many other experts have also observed. But it is interesting that the pressure on boys to conform to gender norms may be even more intense than the pressure on girls.

Boys like Iggy can face teasing and even violence when they’re older. But, at the moment, Iggy seems a lot more secure in his gender identity – and confident about himself -- than most boys. He exuberantly shows off his new ring to me: “Look, isn’t it beautiful?” If you tell him he looks pretty, he agrees: “I know.”

We should certainly be making the world safer for kids like Iggy. But I’m just as concerned about how children who are not obvious gender rebels learn not to be limited by stereotypes. Which is a rather primly P.C. way of saying, I don’t want my sweet little kid to think he has to be a violent thug just because he has a penis.

His immediate social world is a good place to start. Ivan talks about Iggy a lot. I tell him there is no reason a boy can't be a princess. I also say, You don’t have to be friends with everyone in your life, but you do have to respect everyone. Then again, maybe there are games that bad guys and princesses can play together, I venture with absurd relativism. Maybe there are things they both like to do.

But sometimes the suggestions that sound silliest coming out of one’s grown-up mouth are the most convincing. A few days later, Ivan tells me, “If Iggy came to my house, I would show him Princess Leia!”

“Would you like Iggy to come to your house?” (If it seems like a dizzying leap from homicidal ideation to playdate planning, that is because you are not four years old.)
Ivan looks uncertain. But he’s entertaining the idea.

*It seems ethical to change all names of children other than my own.

The Biotic Woman: What the Hell is a Femivore?

Brittany Shoot — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:39:14 -0400

I mentioned over the weekend that I was a little too miffed after reading the terribly myopic piece in the New York Times Magazine last weekend, "The Femivore's Dilemma," to write about it then. The internets move quickly, but I figure a few days late is better than never. Since my time here is quickly drawing to a close, I figured I’d revisit the piece because it really deserves some ecofeminist deconstruction.

First, the obvious: "femivore" is a dumb word. Why? Because it implies a diet of women. The suffix vorous is defined as "feeding on a specified food." As I read it in this case, that would be female humans. Did anyone bother to consider that implication? I don’t find it funny word play, particularly since the article largely centered, without irony, on the idea that humans can continue slaughtering female animals and consuming them and their babies. FWIW, Feminist Philosophers also thought the term was problematic.

I don’t even care that Peggy Orenstein calls the article’s subjects “chicks with chicks,” you know? I get it, or I wouldn’t be writing for a mag/blog called Bitch. But Orenstein says some outright classist crap in roundup of the women who choose to build chicken coops, such as this gem:

Given how conscious (not to say obsessive) everyone has become about the source of their food — who these days can’t wax poetic about compost? — it also confers instant legitimacy.

I don’t know about folks reading this, but I know exactly zero people who can "wax poetic about compost." I’m a freaking vegan, surely among people who are more conscious/obsessive about certain food attributes and environmental issues, and I don’t know anyone who has time for that! Money is time, and I’m short on both. One reason I can afford to be vegan is that I do it on the cheap: beans, legumes, surplus root veggies, rice by the five-pound bag, and olive oil by the five-liter tin. Sometimes—rarely—I grow my own herbs because at least all it takes is a packet of seeds and some dirt. Figuring out where your food comes from takes time and money, but when you remove certain questionable items from your meal plan, you do inevitably opt out of buying those eggs from battery hens, for example. I think that’s legitimate, since we’re throwing around value words.

Reclamation—especially the “feminist” kind (you can decide what that word means to you in this context)—comes around quickly. We all know this. But Orenstein’s article fails to consider just how bizarre this sort of can look from another perspective—say, an older one. Do any of y’all have grandmas who can’t quite figure out why young feminists romanticize canning or knitting? My grams, Charlotte and Bernice, are 85, and 92 next month, respectively, and frankly, they’re bewildered why hip young gals want to crochet for kicks. Bernice—the 92-year-old one—got her Master’s degree decades ago, put my grandpa through graduate school by teaching, and though she eventually stayed home with her own kids, I think she’d honestly be appalled if I chose to be a homemaker. For what it’s worth, I have several close friends who are stay-at-home spouses/parents—and I work from home, which some people seem to misunderstand and equate with being unemployed or a house spouse—so I don’t have scorn for whatever choice works for you. What does bother me is the implication that something we found oppressive seventy-five or even fifty years ago is now suddenly empowering. Context shifts, no doubt, but aren’t we sort of screwing up our own progress by going back and forth on these things?

My pal Shannon/Vegan Burnout has a next level deconstruction of this and claims Ima do one her one better. I think not.

To frame the choice between working a soulless 9-to-5 or building a backyard chicken coop and learning to can tomatoes as the only feminist options is reductive and insulting.

Well said, Shannon. Go read her thoughts too because she breaks this crap down so well. Then tell me why you think urban homesteading is awesome, stupid, or the best option we have right now.

Further reading:

I’m a femivore, and I’m having a dilemma, Rurally Screwed

Please disseminate widely about backyard birds, Eastern Shore Sanctuary Blog

Reproductive Writes: Sexed Up: An Interview with Leonore Tiefer

Holly Grigg-Spall — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:27:06 -0400

Leonore Tiefer is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the New York University School of Medicine and Albert Einstein College of Medicine with an international reputation as a lecturer, author, activist and theorist in the field of sexuality. She has written widely about the medicalization of female sexuality and heads up the New View Campaign, which is a grassroots network challenging the distorted and oversimplified understanding of sexuality promoted by the pharmaceutical industry as a means to profit. In this interview she talks about her work and the race to produce a 'female Viagra.'

What is the objective of the New View Campaign?

The campaign began ten years ago to protest and challenge the medicalization of women's sexuality that came about after the approval of Viagra and the subsequent rapid incursion of the pharmaceutical industry on sex research, sex education and professional education. We are focused on the pharmaceutical industry, its advertising and direct-to-consumer advertising. Our main activities at this time are the listserv, our annual public demonstrations, and we give presentations across the world – my last talk was at the Lewis & Clark symposium – The Science Of Gender And Sex.

How do you see the pharmaceutical industry working to medicalize women's sexuality?

The pharmaceutical industry is infiltrating the professional venues wherein disorders are defined and studied. The industry also influences journalists to promote a view of female sexuality that is biased towards a high, inappropriate standard of normality and an enlarged standard of disorder.

There has been publicity recently around the preliminary definitions of sexual disorders that will be included in the DSM 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), which is the Psychiatric Association's classification textbook. These decisions about what counts as a sexual disorder are formed by people who are unduly influenced by publications and research that have been commandeered or hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry. They are not interested in de-medicalized texts or anthropological perspectives. The questionnaires used for research are very superficial and narrow, omitting more than they include. The way they are written, everyone would understand themselves as having a disorder.

What is the 'norm' for female sexuality which the pharmaceutical industry is promoting?

There is a very narrow, uniform standard that says nothing about change over the lifetime, change in relationships, or variation due to mood or what's happening in your life. The norms are very rigid. Desire, arousal, orgasm - if you don't have those in regular, routine fashion you are considered to have a disorder. In the way people write about this topic there's too much gender polarization. I don't subscribe to men and women having different sexualities – I don't think there is a uniform sexuality for women or men, there are many variations.

How is a sexual disorder generally defined?

Disorders are presented as interferences of any sort to desire, arousal and orgasm. Interferences are called problems. If you don't have an orgasm or an erection - it's a problem. Not having an orgasm is a problem as opposed to the alternative, as opposed to the many ways a person can be sexual.

What happened when Viagra was approved, how did that impact the pharmaceutical industry?

It wasn't initially clear to Pfizer how the release of Viagra was going to work out. They thought it could be viewed as pornography to promote this drug, that journalists would not be able to write about it. But they met no resistance. It was front page news, people joked about it on television. They changed their marketing plan to fit, once they realized there would be no legal or media resistance to the advertising.

A 'female Viagra' drug, Flibanserin, is currently awaiting FDA approval. They have released the clinical trial information, but they have not released the measures used to make their assessments. So, they are saying that the drug was successful in producing the desired effect but not how they ascertained this success, by what measurements. If there was an increase in 'satisfactory' sexual experiences - then how was this measured and by what standards?

In the case of Intrinsa - the 'female Viagra' patch created by Proctor & Gamble - the FDA rejected it in 2004 with reservations as to not only how safe it was for women to use, but how effective it truly was. For Intrinsa, and for Viagra, the placebo has shown to be extremely effective in clinical trials. The placebo provides a 40% improvement. The drug itself showed an improvement higher than this, but not significantly. The pharmaceutical companies do not make direct comparison, because, as they say, they're not marketing the placebo.

What topics are being discussed currently on the New View Campaign Listserv?

Recent debates have centered on cosmetic genital surgery - labiaplasty and clitoral hood surgery. Another example of the push to create a single 'norm' when in reality there is so much diversity.

Bitchtapes: Cover to Cover

Kjerstin Johnson — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:39:55 -0400

Today you can wrap your work week up with an extra special *guest-deejayed Bitchtapes!* Misty, a Bitch mag reader and winner our subscription contest last month for a Bitch goody bag and a shot at Bitchtapes, has handpicked a great selection of covers side-by-side with their original. Here's Misty's mix in her own words:

My choices are 5 original songs and 5 covers (though as I created this playlist, I saw some songs that I thought were originals were not, so there may be versions of even these songs from way back when). As I have no talent for music, I have always found it interesting how one musician can put out a song and another artist takes it and really makes it their own. With instantly-recognizable classics, a musician must possess a self-confidence in their abilities to take a song that so many people relate to or love and put their mark on it. Though I wouldn't describe all these originals as timeless classics, I like how each of the covers are so much more than just repeated lyrics.

Night and Day
1. Fred Astaire
2. Red Norvo (DJ Logic Remix)

Sunshine of Your Love
3. Cream
4. Rockers Hi-Fi

Seven Nation Army
5. The White Stripes
6. Nostalgia 77

Little Wing
7. Jimi Hendrix
8. Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble

You Can Go Your Own Way
9. Fleetwood Mac
10. The Cranberries

Heather Cassils in Out: Kissin' Gaga and Pushing Envelopes

Kjerstin Johnson — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:36:16 -0400

While the blogosphere is still wrapping their head around the epic Telephone video, Out Magazine got a hold of Heather Cassils, whose prison-yard smooch with Gaga is one of the most talked about portions of the video. A long-time performance artist, Cassils went to the "Telephone" audition on a whim, and the kiss she and Gaga shared was completely unscripted. While her interactions with Gaga are worth a read, Cassils also speaks about her art ("I use the fact that the image is live to try to capture and transfix people, because people can walk away from a painting.") representation ("binaries are dangerous across the board"), about the co-option of queer identity for pop stars ("That's been going on since the dawn of time."):

And as a visual artist I think of the body as a sculpture of sorts. If you can manipulate it via exercise and diet and physically empower yourself and give yourself a body that has a certain masculinity to it -- that has a lot of power and you can insert that into mainstream images. People get really caught up on language, and when you're talking about these things people get kind of hysterical, but when you just present them with an image of something that's "other" or that they can't plot, I think that's really important -- and to offer up something in between that doesn't have binaries -- because it offers people more options.

Cassils goes on to talk about strategies for folks when it comes to queering the system:

Gone are the days when if you're against the war you go and protest on the street. Protesting doesn't stop wars anymore. Going to your gay pride rally is nice -- it makes you feel good, but unfortunately we don't live in that era anymore. The only way you can create social change is to insert yourself into the machine.

Say what you will about "Telephone" (hey, not everyone wants to make a sandwich), but it's awesome that it's prompting these discussions. Check out the full interview!

Heather Cassils: Lady Gaga's Prison Yard Girlfriend [Out]

Douchebag Decree: DOUCHEBAG SHOWDOWN EDITION

Kelsey Wallace — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:20:18 -0400

Someone should make a bumper sticker that reads So many douchebags, so little time. I'd buy it. Every week when the Douchebag Decree comes around, there are too many douches and it's almost impossible to determine who deserves the honor most. This week, we have two very strong contenders, which is why we need YOU to vote for your (least) favorite in a DOUCHEBAG SHOWDOWN. Two douches enter, one douche leaves!

In one corner: Erick "Ugly feminists return to their kitchens" Erickson! The fightin' feminist-hater!

In the other corner: Margaret "Blogs are a guy thing" Wente! The super cybersexist!

Ladies and gentlemen, place yer bets! Here's some more info to help you decide, once and for all, which douche reigns supreme!

THE SHOWDOWN

Erick Erickson:
This Redstate.com editor in chief has just been hired as a CNN news contributor. He tea parties! He makes jokes about Obama only receiving the Nobel Prize because of "affirmative action"! And he tweets. Oh, does he tweet. Behold (via Alternet):

Here’s Erickson (@ewerickson on Twitter) on SuperBowl Sunday, upon finally viewing the much-anticipated Focus on the Family ad featuring Tim Tebow.

That last one is less vile than simply nonsensical, of course, but given that it was the Superbowl, my guess is that he’d had a few beers, hence the total lack of misogynist filter.

Then again, maybe not.

The next day:

Oh Erickson. Are you honestly going to be a part of "the most trusted name in news"? And do you really think a joke about feminists performing "post-birth abortions" is going to get laughs? GET IT? BECAUSE FEMINISTS CARE ABOUT A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE, WHICH ALSO MEANS THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM MURDERING SOMEONE WHO TWEETS SOMETHING THEY DON'T LIKE!

Erickson is clearly childish, ill-informed, and a straight-up douche. Also, he is living proof that have two nearly identical names doesn't increase your credibility (there go my plans to change my name to Wally Wallace). CNN, please fire this douchenozzle before he goes on the air and spews his racist, sexist, extremist bullshit all over the place.

VS.

Margaret Wente:
In an article in yesterday's Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente responds to the people who have asked her why she doesn't blog. Her answer?

The answer is pretty much the same as why I don't get a souped-up snowmobile and drive it straight up a mountain at 120 kilometres an hour into a well-known avalanche zone. It's more of a guy thing.

The gist of Wente's piece is that blogs are strictly dude territory, because the opinion-driven nature of blogging is akin to "peeing contests." Since women rarely hold peeing contests, apparently we can't blog, either. Wente qualifies her argument by saying that sure, women can form opinions, we just don't want to. We'd rather leave that up to the snowmobiling, pee-contest having men. As a female blogger with a buttload of opinions, clearly I beg to differ. I bet many of you do too.

After saying that she used to be shy but now she loves socializing at dinner parties (Yay for dinner parties! We women don't belong in the blogosphere, but we'll always have dinner parties!), Wente concludes her piece,

But blogging? No way. That's guy stuff. And they are welcome to it.

If this isn't ridiculous essentialism, I don't know what is (and yes, Wente is very likely pulling a sexist media stunt here, but my opinionated nature compels me to call her out on it. In the blogosphere, no less).

Wente might think men are welcome to rule the realm of blogs, but I'd like to officially welcome women to blogging (not that you women bloggers need my permission, you opinionated ladies, you). Women, you are welcome to it. And you, Wente, are asking for it.

THE VERDICT:
It's time to vote. Who deserves this week's Douchebag Decree? The contender who thinks feminists should go back to the kitchen because we're too ugly to date? Or the one who thinks women should stay out of the blogosphere because we have no experience with peeing contests? Both of these douches are trying to tell women what we should and shouldn't do, but only one of them can win the coveted DOUCHEBAG DECREE. Who will it be?

poll by twiigs.com