Links of Great Interest: WOOO PROCHOICE!


From Jenn:

This is what marketing blogger, Holly Buchanan, had to say about International Women’s Day. I like it because Buchanan is not a feminist blogger. She’s a marketer who writes about the how and why of marketing to women. But she gets it. She gets that we have not come as far as we need to, that women are still being marginalized, that we need better solidarity and that misogyny still exists. It’s normal to see that on a feminist blog. It’s deeply exciting to me to see it elsewhere.


Farealsy? Young straight men thinking feminists are lesbians? And that calling a woman a lesbian’s an insult? :clutches pearl: I AM SHOCKED.

Also: Republicans lie.

In more LOVERLY news: This poem, “How To Make Love to a Transperson” is quite sweet.

The Adjustment Bureau may suck. You know what? I’d really like to see Dean Koontz’ Lightning on the big screen — killer heroine, interesting discussion of the lives you’re “supposed” to lead, and an extended discussion of editing in time travel. (Sidenote: I’m looking for resources on Koontz and ableism — any suggestions?)

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. Another take on women and co-parenting.

Oh, LKH. HAHA the husband shows the wife or girlfriend the comic. The Lashers react.

A little girl can’t go home because her family fears violence after her assault. INCENSED AT THE REPORTING OF THIS? Tell the NYT to apologize for victim-blaming.

Sometimes mentoring requires honesty.

From MC:

Here’s an 18-year-old interview with Gates McFadden (Star Trek) on
the importance of female role models and why white supremacists can go
fuck themselves:


  1. says


    Thanks for the shout out and thanks for all your great work at the Hathor Legacy.

    As in the film industry, the ad industry is still largely run by men. And there are still FAR too many negative and stereotyped images of women in ads (especially moms).

    I’m out to change that. The powerful weapon I have on my side is the almighty dollar. The campaigns and customer experience I help create drive more sales. When I get push back from guys who don’t like the creative, it almost always turns out they don’t like it because it doesn’t appeal to them personally. I can then point out, politely, that they are not the target audience. I can also run a test of their ad vs. mine and show that my ad performs better.

    Here’s the interesting thing – They’re getting it. Once men become aware of the science- our brain differences and communication style differences, our design preferences, they start to have more awareness of the ads they are creating. With more awareness comes more understanding. With more understanding comes better ads with more postiive images of women – which actually drive more sales.

    I think the film industry is WAY behind the ad industry. But if there is a way to tie dollars to more interesting and prominent female characters, that’s a great way to get their attention.

    • says

      Holly, I’m so excited you responded! Thanks for all your hard work – I’ve been reading your sites for years.

      When I get push back from guys who don’t like the creative, it almost always turns out they don’t like it because it doesn’t appeal to them personally. I can then point out, politely, that they are not the target audience. I can also run a test of their ad vs. mine and show that my ad performs better.

      That’s fascinating – it certainly explains a lot. As an aside, I’ve also had a lot of men react to my lack of interest in a particular ad campaign as indicating there is something wrong with me – as opposed to indicating I’m not the target audience, the ad was ignoring my existence, etc. When one slim demographic’s been in charge so long, as is the case in both advertising and film, I guess they tend to forget theirs is not the only perspective that a rational, intelligent person might have. (And that’s a big part of why I started this site – to make it easy for anyone to see just how a collection of women dissatisfied with the media (and, unexpectedly, a lot of men, too) are thinking about what we see.)

      I agree that film is way behind the ad industry. In fact, they’re far behind in many ways these days, and if they don’t catch up and embrace the changes that are happening around them, they’ll get left behind. I guess one way or another, progress will occur!

  2. says

    Oh, Lightning.

    There was a point in Dean Koontz’s career where he seemed really cool: Lightning, TickTock, Strangers, Seize the Night*. Then he got religion and decided that the problem with everything was These Kids Today, with their free love and their postmodernism and their questioning the Catholic Church. And every heroine ever became either a) Saintly Virgin or b) Tough but Broken Girl Who’s Traumatized Because She Once Saw a Penis. I miss Semi-Classic Koontz.

    *Sole Survivor is sort of midway. Like, there’s a lot of Why Modern Life Sucks, but it wasn’t too obtrusive when I read it last–admittedly, some time ago–and the plot was cool and creepy. Annnnd made me afraid of flying, despite the basic improbability of that particular cause for a plane crash.

      • says

        Oh, I like mysticism okay. It’s the reactionary politics that bug me. (Also, I hate both the Trauma Girl and the Total Virgin archetypes, which doesn’t help.) I still own Strangers and Ticktock, but dude’s on my OSC Do Not Buy This New List. ‘Cause apparently he gives money to Romney. Gaaah.

    • says

      Yeah, every Koontz book since Seize the Night has been a gigantic disappointment. Lightning kicks serious ass, though. And don’t read anything before 1983 (Phantoms)…most of those were fairly crap, too.

      Y’know, after looking over his bibliography, I think Lightning is actually my favorite Koontz book…either that or (despite the title) Dark Rivers of the Heart. Watchers, Strangers, and Hideaway were all pretty good, though.

      Anyway, major agreement that Lightning would make an awesome film, handled properly. Afraid I don’t have any help for you on the ableism issue.

      Also, that poem is beautiful. And while I don’t want to detract from the meaning it has for transpersons (and it’s clearly written speaking to their situation), it has a more broad meaning in terms of how we view love and sex related to our bodies.

      • says

        I remember The Bad Place as having the Magical Down’s Syndrome Guy. Also as being ON CRACK.

        And yeah. Strangers, Lightning, Seize the Night. Good times. And the guy writes some villains who creep me out, so there’s that. I just…Odd Thomas and his Saintly Traumatized Girlfriend. Cannot. DEAL.

  3. The Other Anne says

    I saw Adjustment Bureau a few days ago. It suffered from the “only western white men matter” trope and the “only one woman exists in all the world” trope and the “mostly old white men control the entire world” sort of thing. It made absolutely no sense as a movie. The only redeaming factor to me was that Matt Damon and Emily Blunt were great. I really really wished it hadn’t sucked.

    The bureau itself is SOOOOO FUCKING ASININE. It’s multiRACIAL, but apparently it can’t have any women. At all. Like, at all. And then the adjusters claim responsibility for the renaissance and the supposed not-bad-things-happening between “the dark ages” and 1910. Which means that a) their agenda is to further white, western imperialism and world domination as culture and color, b) they didn’t give a fucking shit about any indigenous person in the Americas, because apparently that genocide was probs in the plan since it was in their era of control, c) they are unjustifiably arrogant because they blame humans for the big issues of the dark ages and the 1900’s but fail to account for all the shit that happened in between. Seriously, there wasn’t some great era of peace and awesome before 1900. There was genocide of two continents. Two. Ninety million people pre Columbus. That’s a lot of people to think it’s okay to just let die. And what, none of them mattered in this great world plan?

    You know what, fuck this movie. ARGH.

    P.S. great links!

  4. Katherine says

    Pity about the comments on the “opposite of being a tiger mom” article. Never mind how the kids turn out, if you don’t parent the way the rest of the world thinks you should then you are ‘selfish’. It even says in the article that if a man opts out of parenting the rest of the world goes ‘meh’ but if a woman does it she is the worst mother ever, abandoning her kids for her own selfish reasons, should never have had kids blah blah blah. The article predicted the comments but the commenters still don’t get it. -_-

    • Maria says

      I know, right? Call me crazy, but it seems like being the best parent you can in the best way you can should not be considered selfish. Some people just aren’t cut out for parenting.

      • says

        People are so ignorant about child psychology, and they need to STFU until they’ve bothered to get some education.

        There’s absolutely nothing wrong with stay at home parents, but they are not necessary to kids’ well-being. ESPECIALLY if the stay at home parent isn’t happy in that role. Kids look to their parents not only to support them, but to be role models and show them HOW TO BE HAPPY. How can an unfulfilled, stressed out person show them that? They can’t.

        Also, people don’t get the psychology of selfishness. It’s never the roles we choose in life that make us selfish – selfishness is a character trait. Some SAHMs are total narcissists, as are some well-employed dads. It is entirely possible to give your kids an unselfish loving parent whose support they never doubt without being there all the time.

        That’s how kids have survived dads going off to war, dads working such long hours they never see them, dads having to go live in other towns for months or years because the mines closed down and they’re desperately chasing what jobs remain. You think dads aren’t important to kids? Sure they are. But no one ever thought their importance meant they had to be there 24/7.

        It’s all exactly the same with moms. To say otherwise is just ignorance, sexism or both.

        • Anemone says

          Jennifer, research indicates kids do need to be at home with the primary caregiver (either parent will do, so long as there is a healthy attachment) full time to at least age 2.5 and part time for some time after that. It’s pathetic how little support little kids and their parents get, and it would probably pay for itself fairly quickly in increased resilience/mental health later on.

          Attachment theory is research far too few people are familiar with, considering how important it is.

          • says

            I am fairly familiar with it, but there are some competing theories of how to get a healthy attachment right. Your scenario is one, but I prefer the idea of breaking down the “nuclear” family in favor of the more community-oriented multi-generational families of two centuries ago. Kids need multiple adults to turn to – esp. if they have the bad luck to be born to someone who doesn’t want them or resents them or is narcissistic, in which case no healthy attachment is possible.

            • Attackfish says

              This. My siblings and I were so incredibly lucky to have my maternal grandmother, and my mother’s brother and his kids, and a whole mess of assorted cousins around in the same town and for some of them, in the same neighborhood as we. My mom spent my young childhood getting her nursing degree and working the rest of the time while my dad worked full time, and I played at the house of whichever relative’s turn it was to host the kids. We traveled in packs of about thirty. I don’t remember any of it, because of the neurological problems I had, but my brother and my cousins say it was the best time of their lives.

            • Anemone says

              I wasn’t speaking out against extended families, which are great when you’ve got one. My point was that what children need depends on how old they are.

                • Anemone says

                  Attackfish, I was replying to Jennifer. Didn’t mean to confuse. Most people don’t remember the most intense attachment period because most people’s autobiographical memories start about the same time they’re ready to run off and play with other kids.

                  It sounds like fun. I was part of a pack of kids for a while, but they were neighbours and it didn’t last.

                  • Attackfish says

                    I wasn’t old enough to run and play with the other kids when this started. I was six months old, and just starting to wake up from a continuous sleep that we later found out came from the neurological problems. I guess my primary attachment figure was probably my brother, then, because he’s eleven years older than I, and he took me everywhere. Really, from the time each of us was weened, (or in my case, from the time I was willing to take a breastmilk bottle) we could expect not to be with our parents for any length of time. We always had all of our physical needs met, and there was always someone around to hold a crying baby, it just wasn’t the same person all the time. Most of the people with attachment problems were neglected by their primary caregiver, instead of having a huge circle of caregivers fulfilling the “primary” role.

                    • says

                      Just a couple of notes, mainly to Anemone, but certainly including Attackfish, too:

                      –Kids absolutely need someone to attach to at the age you’re talking about, but I’ve seen no convincing evidence that it needs to be just ONE person or that it needs to be a parent. I DO think they need one person they can for sure RELY on – and that means someone who helps them out as best they can without demanding anything in return.
                      –The problem I have with kids attaching to just one person is: that’s how narcissists gain the power to mold children into their personal punching bags or WOMD to launch on an unsuspecting world. So, because I don’t know of a way to ensure that every kid gets a primary caregiver who isn’t abusive, I would prefer that kids get an array of adult support/influence, as well as socialization with other kids. Then at least the unlucky ones have influences other than the person who’s systematically working to fill them with self-loathing and use them like a tool.

                      I guess what I’m trying to say is this: the scenario you described can result in kids with severe attachment disorders, if the primary caregiver is abusive/neglectful. Kids would probably actually be better off in an unstable environment where there’s always someone they can trust than in a stable one where they’re being victimized. The problem with, say, the foster system, is that the professionalism with which those young children are handled and nurtured prevents real emotional bonding. A single primary caregiver could be much better… or much worse.

    • Robin says

      Those comments made me so mad. The level of “How dare she” was just astonishing. Some mothers have to work, and other choose to work, and sometimes that means being far away from your kids. All the cliched 1950s rhetoric over there about men being the primary / sole breadwinner for a family with kids is not only sexist, it’s unrealistic. Even most two-parent households these days have to be two-income just to get by. (SEE The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class lecture by Elizabeth Warren.)

      My mom was lucky enough to be able to stay home with me and my older brother for the first few years of our lives, but even then she was doing some freelance proofreading / copy-editing for magazines from home to bring in some extra income. (Little kids are expensive.) When I started school, she chose to go back to work (and eventually school as well, to finish her long-overdue bachelor’s degree) because she simply wasn’t fulfilled as a housewife.

      And you know how that affected our childhoods? It was pretty good, actually. We learned how to look after ourselves for the short time between getting home from school and when our parents got home from work, which meant that we had some basic life skills when we started college. The extra income allowed us to pay for things like dance lessons and sports clubs and family vacations. As we got older and better able to take care of ourselves, she went from part-time to full-time employment, and eventually became the primary breadwinner for the family after our dad retired early for health reasons. Given our particular family, I can’t really imagine my mom leaving us kids to live primarily with our dad, but I don’t begrudge the mothers who feel that it’s the best course of action for them and their children.

      (Went a bit off topic in the middle there. Oops.)

    • Raeka says

      I kind of feel like it wasn’t a very well-written article .____. Like, it took me a couple paragraphs to work out that she meant ‘full-time parenting’ as ‘stay at home mom’, and not ‘mom who has a job and lives with her kids’. Also, it freakin’ OPENS with ‘I didn’t want to be mom’. Way to set the tone. And I’m left with the question of ‘if she doesn’t have custody of her kids, and her ex-husband has an erratic schedule, who IS home with the kids?’

      I mean, I do think that whatever life she’s set up for herself and her kids is just fine, but I don’t think it was explained very well at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *