Last night, I was in a candy shop in my neighborhood waiting for the owner of the store to cut some marshmallows for me when a woman walked in, dropped a bag on the counter (literally dropped, as in held it high in the air over the counter and then let go, letting it fall to the surface), and told the associate at the counter, “I have to return these. They’re disgusting. I tried them, and I almost vomited.” Keep reading »
What’s a brotest, you ask? Oh, you don’t ask, because you immediately get the idea? Let this red-Kool-Aid-swilling Reagansexual elaborate anyway:
“It derives from when we see evil in the world, and bros are sent to fix it.”
He’s referring to the People’s Climate March, by the way. Keep reading »
Hey guys? As a woman, and a feminist and a working person, I can honestly say I’ve never asked if I was going to “have it all.” But Anne Marie Slaughter’s Atlantic cover article about women’s continuing fight to win both the brass ring of family and work seems to have opened up this old chestnut of a debate, with women around the web asking how and when and if we can “have it all.” My response? Let’s shut this crappy concept down all together. The “can women have it all” question is reductive and frustrating — and it only serves to promote the idea that women are constantly going to be failing if they don’t somehow fulfill the work/family mandate.
After all, the construct of “having it all” perpetuates the myth that there is one ideal way to live, rather than understanding and allowing for multiple ideas of happiness. And in this “having it all” myth, a woman’s main responsibilities can be boiled down to feeding the capitalist mechanism (through working) and submitting to her essentialist role as a child-bearing female (having a family). Keep reading »