On The AARP Pie
Reading Hairpin commenters angsting about their age makes me really want to start wearing plastic hair-kerchiefs around or something. Good lord you all are young.
@Miss Maszkerádi Well to be fair I also don't reject the Christian reading at all. They can coexist!
And Rossetti was of course famously from an Italian family and a very very high church Anglican but you can't really say she is doing the same thing as Crashaw or Bernini, in that this isn't a devotional poem and also engages a whole lot of fairy tale elements. Mentally inhabiting the physicality of sisterly love as a religious act would be pretty heretical! It's not the same thing as imagining getting orgasms from Jesus, at all. So if you read it ONLY as redemption through sisterly love and just completely bracket all the sexual elements you're kind of ignoring large swaths of the poem and making it much neater than it is. If it's a Christian redemption poem (it is!) it is a profoundly weird Christian redemption poem with sex cropping up in the wrong places (and I am fine with that reading).
I am not fine saying that it's just a plain old Christian redemption narrative, nothing to see here, shut up about the sex, Christina said it was for children.
@Miss Maszkerádi OK wait, "kiss me, lick me, suck my juices" isn't even the slightest bit homoerotic? I mean, it's reductive to say THEY ARE LESBIANS but hell yeah that poem is about sex. Forbidden fruit? Hairy goblin men who ruin you and make you almost die?
@Miss Maszkerádi That's a pretty standard feminist reading though.
@Mayor of Butt City OK, but then a really awesome last sentence.
You should just read the last sentence.
@Better to Eat You With OK, but I only have the article here and that's what I'm responding to.
@harebell Yeah, I am not saying she didn't experience what she did or that she isn't right that we have that kind of shitty systemically sexist culture. I'm just saying the argument has been and could be a lot better focused. This is the kind of article that's going to get a lot of stupid mansplainers going "But that one thing isn't really sexist so you're just poking around for stuff to be mad about." And there are some benefits to a less constrained, more freely sexual kind of shop talk too that work in women's favor, so it's all the more important to think about exactly how this all works in a careful way.
I don't know, I feel like that article had some valid points but was mixing up a number of phenomena. Calling someone a chick doesn't have the same resonance it did in the 60s: it's part of a general vaguely stupid but not especially sexist habit of juvenile informality that's considered friendly right now, and even very politely spoken people seem to refer to their brethren as "dudes" unironically as well.
The casual hatefulness and openly checking women out in front of other women as if it doesn't even need to be hidden is clearly gross and sexist, and I agree that the stupid dick jokes in meetings is a bonding ritual that makes it challenging for women to adopt a stance that doesn't either make them complicit or put them outside the group. The calling a reminder "scolding" could be gender-based, could be stupid-millenial-based. The part about labelling the survey response an "alpha" activity sounds misguided but could have been ironic. I don't see that all these things hang together into a picture of Sexism Today necessarily although they're all annoying and worthy of comment.
I think maybe a better controlled argument about "How the informality of current speech in professional environments often reveals/enforces sexism and serves women badly" could be made.
@districter Even the meaty places usually have something for vegetarians. Check out Toro Bravo, Tabla, Gruner, Aviary, Cocotte, Little Bird, and less expensively the many many carts everywhere.
@Danzig! I resemble these remarks.