"I’m not interested in teaching books by women. Virginia Woolf is the only writer that interests me as a woman writer, so I do teach one of her short stories. But once again, when I was given this job I said I would only teach the people that I truly, truly love. Unfortunately, none of those happen to be Chinese, or women. Except for Virginia Woolf. And when I tried to teach Virginia Woolf, she’s too sophisticated, even for a third-year class. Usually at the beginning of the semester a hand shoots up and someone asks why there aren’t any women writers in the course. I say I don’t love women writers enough to teach them, if you want women writers go down the hall. What I teach is guys. Serious heterosexual guys. F. Scott Fitzgerald, Chekhov, Tolstoy. Real guy-guys. Henry Miller. Philip Roth."
1. You’re a white heterosexual Western male who is into literature written by white heterosexual Western males? ALERT THE PRESS.
2. How much literature have you read that were written by women or Chinese people in the first place? How much or often did you explore in those directions?
As a Chinese-American woman who overtly prefers female writers and would put the ratio of female-male authors she’s read in her life to like, 1:4 as a rough estimate, and can count the number of Asian writers she’s read throughout her life on one hand, I can probably guess that the answer is: not very many.
A few weeks ago, I was browsing the J. Crew website. The main page showed a picture of J. Crew’s creative director Jenna Lyons and her son in which they were painting his nails pink. The photo caption read, "Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon." I aww’d. I thought it was a completely adorable and natural photo, and I was so impressed that she had not only embraced her young son’s love of a color deemed "girly" by our society but even advertised it to the world. This is the photo:
Some Fox News psychologists apparently threw their gender correct hands up in horror. Here is an absolutely logical excerpt from one of their articles:
Increasingly, girls show none of the reticence they once did to engage in early sexual relationships with boys. That may be a good thing from the standpoint of gender equality, but it could be a bad thing since there is no longer the same typically “feminine” brake on such behavior. Girls beat up other girls on YouTube. Young men primp and preen until their abdomens are washboards and their hair is perfect. And while that may seem like no big deal, it will be a very big deal if it turns out that neither gender is very comfortable anymore nurturing children above all else, and neither gender is motivated to rank creating a family above having great sex forever and neither gender is motivated to protect the nation by marching into combat against other men and risking their lives.
I don’t think it’s really necessary for me to point out how hilariously…..outdated and kind of mentally challenged this type of attitude is. It’s almost adorable in a listening-to-your-grandmother-spew-racist-statements way. And it’s offensive to both genders to boot! Way to go.
But apparently, there is some kind of poster out there that already responds to this colossally exasperating shit, which will save me from tiredly typing out an obvious rebuttal to this quack.
“For every girl who is tired of acting weak when she is strong, there is a boy tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable. For every boy who is burdened with the constant expectation of knowing everything, there is a girl tired of people not trusting her intelligence. For every girl who is tired of being called over-sensitive, there is a boy who fears to be gentle, to weep. For every boy for whom competition is the only way to prove his masculinity, there is a girl who is called unfeminine when she competes. For every girl who throws out her E-Z-Bake oven, there is a boy who wishes to find one. For every boy struggling not to let advertising dictate his desires, there is a girl facing the ad industry’s attacks on her self-esteem. For every girl who takes a step toward her liberation, there is a boy who finds the way to freedom a little easier.”
Gender norms, in all forms, are destructive.
Oh, and FYI; the tradition of girls wearing pink and boys wearing blue is a 20th century color-gender construction. Before the 1940s, Pink was considered appropriate for boys. #fail
You might have lost the best actor ever seen, the next president, to one who found the cure for cancer, the one who would have revolutionized the whole world, the one who’d invented the time machine, the next Steve Jobs, but, now we’ll never know.
Just think about it. What you do now, has no repeat. You can’t undo this.
Or you might have lost someone who would have died anyway (a common incentive for abortions), your own life, or you might have lost a felon, a criminal, a bum, or a drug addict. And you know where these typically come from? Neglectful or abusive families. Families who never wanted to have children or didn’t have the means or capacity to take care of them.
Most people who are anti-choice don’t realize that naturally loving and caring parents are scarce resources, not a birthright. I’m guessing that your mother wanted to have you, and she wanted to or at least was willing to care of you, and give you everything she had in her power to provide. So naturally, you think that all women secretly desire to be good mothers.
I don’t pity these unborn geniuses (which, BY THE WAY, do not pop out of vaginas like predetermined lottery tickets. Fail #2). I pity all the children born who suffered needlessly, the children who never received love from parents who resented their births.
I pity the writer of this comment on a NYtimes abortion piece: “My mother wanted to abort me, but relatives forced her to change her mind. For all the psychological scarring she’s left on me, I think it would have been better if she had gone through with it.”
Put yourself in some fucking different shoes.
Got into an argument with an old middle school peer who idolizes Bill O’Reilly (wtf, for real, I know). I said that Bill O’Reilly doesn’t even know that ocean waves are caused by the moon, and he said, “so what? That doesn’t have anything to do with his political opinions” or of the like.
OH. In that moment, I wanted so, so badly to just verbally abuse him with a string of insults like “asshat”, “moron”, “wouldn’t recognize logic if it punched you in the face” and just call it a day.
Politics are influenced by life. Science IS life. Therefore, science influences every single itty-bitty part of our political system, down to the tiniest minute detail. You are CRAZY if you think that science can ever be separated from politics. They are inextricable, more so than anything else on this planet.
So when a person doesn’t know basic fifth grade science, then that person isn’t qualified to give their opinion on life. That includes the political process. So, to all “political people”, please take a biology or environmental science class. Take a sociology class. Take a European history class. Take a Greek philosophy class and actually understand the philosophy of a democracy instead of tossing the word about meaninglessly. Knowledge is not an elitist flaw.
Oh, and after I told him something similar of the sort, he blocked me from his Facebook wall.
Two seniors at my college wrote an open letter to the Columbia Daily Spectator voicing their disapproval of this year’s Commencement Day speaker, Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook. They claim that choosing her doesn’t correspond to our values or educational ideals, or something, because she works in business. HOW OUTRAGEOUS IS THAT? Generalized attitude towards businesspeople aside, they completely ignored her visionary abilities, her innovation, and her indispensable roles in two of the most important creations of this age - Google and Facebook - and revealed their complete miscomprehension of what a liberal-arts education is intended for. They also managed to top their own hypocrisy by promoting their open letter….via Facebook. #facepalm