Sweet baby deity (where my Carolyn Hax fans at?) this is tiresome. I'll never stop calling myself a feminist, but it's this kind of schoolyard-fight prose -- aggressively dismissive, broadly generalized, not at all sisterly or generous -- that makes me want to opt out of feminist discourse entirely. (Though not so much as to prevent me from commenting here, of course.) "Sandberg’s definition of feminism begins and ends with the notion that it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system. From this perspective, the structures of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged." Uh, no, that's not what Sandberg's definition of feminism is...at all. That's just the point A Hooks needed to get to your point B, which is all she's interested in talking about anyway -- her own, preexisting ideas.
Sandberg's copious research -- taken from actual scientific studies rather than feminist theorists, which Hooks complains about -- forces her to acknowledge that certain gender biases aren't going away anytime soon, such as the fact that both men and women respond negatively to a woman who doesn't "act nice." What she does with that information, which is to basically tell readers, 'Sorry, that's the research, so female workers still kind of need to play nice until they get enough power to not have to,' is the opposite of what Hooks seems to predicate her entire argument on. I'm not saying I agreed with everything in Lean In or that Sandberg doesn't deserve some criticism, but this is just beyond the pale. This is not constructive. Maybe I'm not understanding Hooks' brilliance because I'm unworthy of calling myself a real feminist, but seriously, who enjoys this?? Who out there gets anything from the spectacle of prominent feminists bitch-slapping each other in an endless cycle? Who comes away feeling inspired or proactive from this?
@Away Laughing I assume Yolo in this case stands for "You oughta like olives!"
By queenofbithynia on "Don’t worry, it’s no 'Sex and the City,' they say. As if that were a good thing."
I was starting to type something -- specifically, that even though SatC always starts to seem deceivingly fascinating and meaning-laden when I read critical essays about it, far removed from the actual bludgeoning boredom of trying to watch it, there is nothing unusual or noteworthy in any way about female characters functioning as symbols or allegorical figures; what is shocking and unheard of on television, even still, is for female characters to be written as specific individual human women, which Sex and the City had no interest in doing, above and beyond its major crime of never being funny, ever.
anyway, I started to do that but I typoed Sex in the Cty and got distracted by this theoretical racy teen nerd-camp spin-off that would be pretty amusing to maybe three people on earth.
All the people asking "when did this happen?"
'“Yeah,” she said as if it were obvious. “Vibrators, dildos, anal beads, handcuffs?”'
... just didn't happen.
My first thought was "but that's not the meaning of carpe diem!" *grumbles something about the misinterpretation of Horace's Odes and decontextualization of the final line of 1.11*
I once drunk-commented "YOLO" on an acquaintance's Facebook status and one of his friends wrote something about how OH she DESPISED the very SENTIMENT of "YOLO" and I didn't know if I should say, "Sorry, I was drunk!!! hahahah lololol YOLO" so I just said something like, "Congratulations, how wonderful."
Any Tufts alumnae out here on the 'Pin besides me? First they added the youtube supplement...
But really I imagine the people in charge of admissions justifying this question as follows: "Because, yolo."
Oh wow, the tags! KRAFTWERK KARDASHIAN!!
My money is on Khaleesi. Khaleesi Kardashian-West.