Imagine a World with Art instead of Ads

I dream of a world where advertising is avoidable.  This is my list of rules in my make-believe land of limited corporate power.

Each business is entitled to up to 4 signs which include text, which can be placed only on the building in which they are located. Signs shall not be more than 20 square feet each and shall not be more than 25 feet off the ground. Window posters & signs smaller than 6 square feet shall need not adhere to this requirement.

Businesses may have text-free murals & other art on their external walls if they choose.

Public space shall contain no commercial advertisements whatsoever (aside from store signage as outlined above). Non-commercial/advertorial art can be displayed & created on private property without restriction as long as it is not obscene, and in public space with approval.

Magazines, newsstands, and other periodicals which are handed out in public space (outside) may not have front-page advertisements.

Commercial advertisements are completely and totally banned from all government-owned buildings, including but not limited to: schools, courthouses bus stops & post offices (excepting advertisements for postal services).

Each neighborhood within the community shall have the option to form a neighborhood board to approve street art which is going into the public space of their neighborhood, in order to preserve the cultural integrity of the neighborhoods. Artists will be able to apply for space and/or supply grants and will be subject to approval by the neighborhood board.

Imagine a world where you did not have to see ads if you did not want to. Where if you wanted to know about a business you could go there or you could choose to open a paper which ran their ads or you could choose to google them or you could choose to turn on the TV and hear about them. Imagine walking through your city and instead of seeing hundreds of beer billboards seeing neighborhood murals?

I want this world. I want a world where I am not assaulted by advertising for the crime of walking out the door. I want a world where people know about the businesses around them and the neighborhoods around them. I want a world where coca-cola doesn't have the right to buy my landscape, my eyeballs, my life.

Subversive Princesses

I'm going to try to do a series on gifts for children this holiday season. This will be the first of a few, hopefully.

Here's the issue I want to tackle: sometimes the little girls in your life become princess obsessed. This can be worrisome, because you don't want them to grow up idolizing pretty faces who don't do much. But once they latch on, it can be tricky to get them interested in anything else.

So if you have a little girl you love who is determined that she is a “princess”, the best thing you can do is teach her that princesses and fashionable people can do all sorts of things!

Without further ado, here's my list of subversive princess toys:

The Secret Lives of Princesses by Philippe Lechermeier

Hey, books TOTALLY count as toys! There are a great number of subversive princess picture books, and I highly suggest checking them all out, but this is one of my favorites. It's really kind of a coffee table book, dense and beautiful. It's not meant to be read all at once, but flipped through. It contains beautiful art and beautiful stories about all different kinds of princesses. There's even a princess with a long beard. It's the best altogether image I can think of giving children that lets them know that princesses are whole and interesting people (and thus women are whole an interesting people... since they are taught from an early age that women are “princesses”).

Groovy Girls

  

Notall of these dolls are princesses, but they are all “fashion” dolls. They're a really nice alternative to Barbie. For one, these dolls wear no makeup, and have generically “child shaped” bodies. And generally speaking, the dolls themselves are pretty modest. Modesty should not, of course, be forced upon girls, but I think showing them that if you want you can be fashionable & modest is a good thing. So often they are pitted against one another. The other wonderful thing about this line is that each doll has a slightly different skin tone, and they run quite a gamut. Instead of having a “token” doll of color, Groovy Girls agknowledges that there is a whole array of living, breathing people who look different ways.

GoldieBlox & the Parade Float

 

GoldieBlox is a brand new company who became famous almost overnight when their kickstarter campaign went viral. I have some issues with the gender essentialist language used in marketing the toys (talking about girls “innate” verbal skills instead of their “ingrained” verbal skills), but the toy itself is really fantastic, so I'm going to let it slide. Goldie is a girl engineer who uses engineering to solve her problems. As kids read Goldie and her friend's stories, they play along, building simple machines to solve problems along with the book. It's a great way to get kids invested in engineering, and this kit is even themed around her princess-pageant-competing friend, Katinka!

Nancy B's Science Club

 

Now, Nancy B isn't a princess. But she is a woman.  And there might be just enough purple on this toy to get “girly girls” involved. Another product created by a female scientist, Nancy B's Science Club integrates traditionally “girly” things (keeping notebooks) and hard science.

End Note: if you don't have to get the “girlified” version of something in order to hold a girl's interest, don't, unless you have some other reason she'd like it better. Never buy the pink version of a toy JUST because she's a girl. There is no reason girls can't like green, blue, skulls and other “boy things”. This list is really only for those times you have a girl who rejects things outright that aren't “girly”. And of course, ALL of the items on this list are also perfectly good gifts for little boys, provided they are somewhat open-minded.

Government definition of “essential” programs shows America's skewed priorities

A shocking majority of the government agencies affected by the government shutdown can be broken down into two groups: cutting services for marginalized groups & cutting corporate oversight/enabling corporate crime.

While the cuts to marginalized groups are horrific and most likely to affect the people in their day-to-day lives, I feel that's been well covered.  Lots of people have talked about the impacts the shutdown will have on women, the poor, and everyone in general. So I'm going to focus on a broader, quieter, more sinister issue.

 

Cutting Corporate Oversight: What it Boils Down To:

• no audits
• few investigations into money laundering
• fewer product recalls (and if there are any, the USDA won't be calling the press)
• less mine & fishery oversight
• no FDIC investigations
• privacy & civil liberties investigations halted
• litigation slowed
• no investigations of any chemical spills
• no campaign finance investigations
• no anti-trust investigations

There's a serious pattern here, and it's an opportunity for corporate crime. Regulations exist for a reason, and quite a few of them have been enacted in the last few years.  And now the agencies in charge of enforcing those new protections are hobbled.

For instance, the FDIC insures the public against bank failures. There is an independent regulatory board assigned to make sure banks are acting in accordance with the law, seeing that insuring every account-holding individual is a big deal. This board is closed right now. Does that make a nice incentive for bank fraud?

Money laundering, tax evasion, and campaign finance fraud are the biggest and most common crimes of the 1%, and there will be little to no oversight over such crimes during the government shutdown. As such, these already insanely powerful individuals have a serious capitalist incentive to keep the shutdown going on as long as possible.

Anti-Trust litigation is already paltry in this country, but I highly doubt any good can come of getting rid of it. What happens exactly if a merger officially takes place during the shutdown? I would imagine it would be much harder to start an anti-trust investigation after the merger has already occurred. Usually mergers are stopped before they officially occur, which is much less messy.

Chemical spills won't be investigated until after the shutdown is over. If there is a spill, depending on how long the shutdown lasts, the company responsible will have some time to create a version of the facts that makes them seem less at fault.

Mines & fishing operations will receive limited oversight during the shutdown. As two ecologically dangerous industries, this is a big problem. Not to mention that mine safety for workers is another big issue.

And of course, active duty military, FBI, ATF, Bureau of Prisons, Border Patrol & DEA get to keep the VAST majority of their employees & operations.  Because things that are a matter of "national security" continue to run.  Things like keeping bases running in peaceful countries, staying at war with Afghanistan, spying programs, and "protecting our border" from people who want jobs are "essential".  Stopping pollution, providing jobs, caring for starving children, and ensuring corporations don't buy our elections?  Those are, of course, the "non-essential" portions of government.  

 And of course, everyone is going on and on about how both sides aren't willing to compromise.  So let me make myself abundantly clear.  I am not a fan of Obama.  Also this is 100% the Republicans fault.  Republicans don't seem to know the definition of the word "compromise".  I didn't vote for Obama in 2012.  I voted for Jill Stein and the Green Party and their Medicare-for-All plan.  And we lost.  And I wouldn't hold the government hostage to get my version of the best healthcare.  Thankfully, it looks like on this, the public is on my side.

And while imperfect, Obamacare is not too shabby.  I'd say it's definitely a step in the right direction.  I know quite a few people who are hungrily awaiting January 1st, when they can sign up for health insurance.  Because, aside from some Tea Party crazies, most of the uninsured really really want to be insured.  And a step in the right direction is a big deal.  It gives me a bit of hope that we're finally getting our act together on at least trying to get healthcare for our people.

And I have a very, very optimistic hope.  I hope this is the last nail in the GOP coffin.  I hope they crash and burn and become a tiny little fringe group with little power.  The Democrats are already well poised to become the new moderate right.  And then maybe, just maybe, there will be room for a new left.  A true left.  A Green Party or an Occupy Party or some other sort of People Powered Party.  Maybe it's time.  Maybe this will be our last showdown.  Maybe this will be our opening.

That's my kind of hope.

(for an agency-by-agency breakdown of services, click here)

Feminist Horror Films, Part 2

You all know how much I adore horror films, especially feminist horror films.  So here's a few more of my favorites!  Know any great feminist horror films I haven't covered? Let me know in the comments!

You can read Part 1 Here!

And, of course, no film can be 100% feminist and all of these films have their own issues that definitely deserve to be addressed.

______________________________________________________________________

Misery

My favorite thing about this film is that it features a non-sexualized female villian, a true rarity in film.  As a bonus, it also features a sweet and realistic elerly couple, including an older woman who still makes unabashed sexual passes at her husband.  It's adorable.  The story itself is about a famous author who gets in a car accident and is miraculously saved by his "Number One Fan", a kindly, plump middle-age nurse. The film is subtle and disturbing.   The tension builds slowly and the physical violence is minimal but brutal.  It's no surprise Kathy Bates won an Oscar for her performance. 

Trigger warnings: emotional & physical abuse

______________________________________________________________________

28 Days Later

Let's be clear here, this is simply one of the best zombie films ever written.  But even better, it has a strong, badass main character who is a woman of color!  People of color are often first-to-die characters with little substance, and Selena is none of these tropes.  This movie has been seen by almost everyone, so I'm not going to go into more detail other than OMIGAWD IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT SEE IT WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

Trigger warnings: rape

______________________________________________________________________

Compulsion

A film about a woman driven somewhat mad by her food fetish.  It's a little surreal and artsy, but if you don't expect it to make complete sense it it's really visually stunning (the film after all is from the perspective of a madwoman).  There is a subtle narrative about the nature of perfection.  The main character is a perfect chef and housewife with an obvious attraction to food.  She is everything she's ever been told makes a "perfect woman" and yet her husband is still unhappy with her. Even while it makes you uncomfortable it makes you hungry.  While the main character is sexualized, she's also self-actualized, and to be honest the food is more sexualized than her.

Trigger warnings: anorexia/bulimia

______________________________________________________________________

Let the Right One In

Now this one is a bit tricky (but also wonderful) because it technically doesn't have a "female" main character.  However, it is a beautiful film about strength, love, sexuality, life, death and the reality of children's lives.  It's a vampire love story that's as different from Twilight as you can get.  The story is brutal, and the book is much more brutal, but it's ultimately heartwarming and sweet.

There are no serious trigger warnings for the film, but trigger warnings for the book: rape, castration, pedophilia

______________________________________________________________________

Cabin in the Woods

Cabin in the Woods was a surprising blockbuster hit due mostly to Joss Whedon's sudden emergence on the "mainstream" cinematic scene with the (totally fun but highly problematic) Avengers.  Cabin is a complete and beautiful deconstruction of the horror genre, start to finish, top to bottom.  It questions everything about the genre, from the male gaze to the Virgin/Whore dichotomy, eventually asking the viewer why we enjoy watching death and destruction so much.  It's a hard film to describe without giving it away, but it's really quite phenomenal.

______________________________________________________________________

Pan's Labyrinth

You could argue that this isn't really a horror film, but is actually a period piece, or a fantasy, or a war drama.  Honestly, it's all of these things.  But it's also the story of a little girl with exceptional strength and bravery in the face of trauma.  There are many interpretations to the film.  The fantasy world may just be how she deals with the horrifying circumstances around her (this film is very graphic and violent and disturbing, don't let the fantastical-ness fool you).  Her mother is cast quite simply as the victim, which is unfortunate, but it's still an interesting story of life and coping in times of war.

Trigger warnings: domestic abuse, emotional abuse, images which may trigger PTSD

______________________________________________________________________

Scream

Much has been written about the groundbreaking nature of the Scream franchise in terms of feminism.  It plays with the genre, and features the first female protagonist in a horror film who has sex and lives.  This is important because usually horror films "punish" characters (particularly women) for indulging in "bad" behavior.  Scream subverts, entertains and twists tropes through it's whole run.

______________________________________________________________________

Martyrs

Pictured: one of the least terrifying & brutal scenes

I didn't include this last time for the same reason I nearly didn't include The Loved Ones.  Let me make this abundantly clear: I do not recommend this movie.  I don't.  It's a beautiful piece of filmmaking with a brilliant payoff at the end and it's STILL. NOT. WORTH. IT.  It starts off as a standard gritty revenge film.  But there's a twist halfway through the makes everything change dramatically.  The rest of the films on this list I totally recommend watching, but not this one.  Let's be clear, the happiest scene in this movie for me was an innocent character getting shot in the head.  That was the high point.  So that's my deal.  Only the truly hardcore will ignore my warning, and that's the way it ought be.  For the rest of you, just don't.  Look up the full synopsis if you want.  But don't watch it.

Please.

Trigger warnings: too many to count, though there is no rape

______________________________________________________________________

Coming next time: Hard Candy, Monster, Rosemary's Baby, The Descent and more!

A letter to my future child(ren)

I hope when I am older I don't go through some sort of brain-warp and decide to hide this from you. But I figure it's better to get it out now, when you're still theoretical, so that my mind is still clear.

I don't know how many of you there are. I don't know if I'll actually get to have you (I mean, I want you, but still, shit happens). I don't know if you're girls or boys or genderqueer. I have no clue who you'll be attracted to, or if you'll experience sexual attraction at all. Please note, if you're asexual you're still AWESOME. And when I say your sexuality is important, I mean that your self-identity and self-love are important. If you don't express that through your genitals nothing is wrong with you! I just want to make that abundantly clear before we begin.

Now, for a moment, I'm going to ignore all the “what if”s as much as I can and speak from the heart.

If you're getting this letter now, it means you're probably exhibiting signs of sexuality in some way. Either you're attempting to appear “sexy” for the first time, you're going through puberty, or I awkwardly caught you masturbating (if I did, I SWEAR I didn't mean to! I don't know future me yet, but I'm 100% sure she feels really bad for intruding on your privacy if this happened). Maybe you're going on your first date. And I realize that future me is probably pretty awkward about all this. I mean, think about it, how would you feel about seeing someone who in your mind will always be “wittle baby” looking or acting sexy for the first time? But please, don't mistake my awkwardness with judgment or distrust.

Your sexuality is not bad. It is an important part of you that you control and it's okay to enjoy it responsibly. It's a decision you make with another person to engage in sexual activity. And like trying any new thing, you should probably think about it first and decide if it's something you really want. Evaluate your reasons for wanting it. And of course, always make sure the person you're about to have sex with (or kiss, or do anything sexual with) also wants to do it. If you're ever, ever in question about whether your sexual partner wants to do a particular activity, be sure to ask them. And respect their answer. Even if it dissapoints you. Even if they were super into it last time. You may feel hurt that they don't want to have sex with you again, and that's okay. But do not use it as an excuse to pressure them. And I hope you choose not to be with people who pressure you.

Because you NEVER have to have sex with anyone, for any reason, if you don't want to. By the same coin, no one ever owes you sex either. Sex is an activity that people can choose to enjoy together. And it can be beautiful. And wonderful. And fun. And intimate. And silly. And bad (yup, even with a partner you like!). If you don't enjoy it, I hope you speak up to your partner. You are allowed to stop if you're not into it. You can try something else. You can just decide you don't like it. Those are always your choices. Your partner always has the same right as well. Sex is best with communication. Talk. Believe me, if you choose to have sex, talking about it will make it better. Even if it's super awkward at first.

I am always here if you want to talk about sex & sexuality. No judgment. And if I get judgy, tell me that I'm being judgy and that my past self would tell me to stop. As long as you're not coercing someone into having sex with you or sleeping with someone significantly younger than you, I'll probably be okay. Really. Even if I make that surprised or uncomfortable momface.

And if you're uncomfortable talking to me about it, it's okay. I understand. Talking to parents about sex is super awkward. I (23-year old me) am still learning how to talk about it with my parents (Yup, grandma and I talk about sex. Sit on THAT for a moment.) You can choose to talk about it or not. With me or with your peers. And if the person you're talking to is trying to make you ashamed of your sexual preferences or choices, I'd encourage you to stop talking to them about it. 'Cause they seem un-nice.

I encourage you to explore your sexuality with yourself before you explore it with other people. You can choose to follow this advice or not, but many people find it helpful. The safest sex you can have is with yourself, after all! Exactly 0% STD & pregnancy risk with solo masturbation! If you want a sex toy or lube or something and feel comfortable asking for one, I'll buy it for you. Really (if it's quite expensive I may make you pay for it, but I'll help you obtain it. This letter is not a blank check, devious child of mine!). I want you to be safe & happy.

You're probably going to have sex. You're probably going to do it when you're under 18 (I did, at 17). And I want you to be able to enjoy it. Not everyone has my view of sexuality. A lot of people have a lot of pretty messed up ideas about it actually. Maybe, by now, this is better. Maybe it isn't.

You will probably have fights and breakups and bad times just like everyone else. You may even choose to have sex with someone I really dislike. And I will try my best to respect that those are your choices. It is your body. It is your life. But don't expect me to be quiet about it if I don't approve of your choices in mates. Because I care about you, and if I think you're dating someone who isn't good enough for you or is a bad match I'll try to talk you out of it. 'Cause I'm human. I do it to my friends too. And if I genuinely think your health and safety are at risk I reserve the right to step in. But no matter what, I always love you. Even if you make choices I really disagree with.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sex. Having sex does not make you good or bad. It does not make you “cool” or “lame” (or whatever terms you fancy futuristic theoretical children use for socially-acceptable & socially-unacceptable). You can choose to have it, or choose not to. Those things do not affect your worth as a human being at all. They do not affect the worth of your peers either, no matter what anyone tells you.

Whether you've never kissed someone or have slept with 20, that does not affect your value as a person. You may decide to be promiscuous. You may decide sex is so special to you that you only want to do it with your life partner. You could decide you're not into it at all. But that is your choice. And it does not affect one bit how much I love you. Or how much I respect you. I want you to be happy and healthy and fulfilled. And your sexuality will never ever change that.

Much love,

Mom

Why do I do this?

I get questioned a lot on why I devote so much time to this whole feminism thing.  It's rough.  And it's depressing.  Recently someone asked why I post so much negative stuff on facebook.  I get accused of "preaching to the choir" a lot, or participating in an "internet circlejerk".  And I can see the point there.  I can see how it would look that way.  So this post is about why I do "this", with "this" meaning "challenge the oppression systemic in our society" or alternately "talk about a lot of boring depressing shit none of us can do anything about".  I'm punctuating this with feminist memes because feminists in general (less so me) get accused of "not having a sense of humor".

Reason #1: Sometimes You CAN Do Something

A few things I post about regularly are action oriented.  Meaning you can help. Keeping people up to date on anti-reproductive-rights groups is genuinely helpful in slowing those groups down.  Signing petitions, writing letters to senators, attending protests, and informing friends actually does help.  Abortion restrictions keep getting passed, true, but I genuinely think if feminists weren't making a huge fuss over it they'd be much worse already.  (Unrelated note: I'm trying to stop using the term "women's issues" in reference to reproductive rights issues, as not all people who need birth control & abortion services are women)

Reason #2: Lurkers Learn a Lot

Sure, sometimes I'm preaching to the choir... but sometimes I'm not.  The people who don't have fully formed opinions on these issues aren't likely to comment.  But they read.  They absorb.  They learn.  I am shocked again and again as I get occasional private messages from facebook friends I don't see often saying "I really appreciate what you post on facebook".  It took years of lurking for my opinions to coalesce into the radical feminist* I am today.

Reason #3: Sometimes Opinions Do Change

I used to be a "colorblind" pro-life evopsych libertarian.  Not something I'm particularly proud of, as you may have guessed.  But you know what?  My opinions changed.  And today, my views are still changing, altering, expanding.  I try to take in new points of view and weigh them against my current understanding.  I'm always trying to make my language more inclusive, and I try my hardest to really consider the situation when someone calls me out.  And I fail, all the time.  I get defensive and then later realize I was in the wrong.  When I can, I try to apologize for this.But I'm learning, changing.  My mind is being challenged to see things from new perspectives every day and I love it.  And if I can be that for just a half dozen people?  That's enough for me to keep on keepin' on.

Hey! I shared this on facebook! I'm not ALWAYS negative!

Reason #4: Feminists Mess Up Too

And when feminists mess up, they need to be called out, just like everyone else.  Case in point: fat-shaming is bad.  Saying "real women have curves" is also bad.  Shaming "sluts", presuming all Muslim women are Muslim because they're oppressed, and making fun of femininity are all things well-meaning feminists do sometimes.  But they're sexist, xenophobic, and racist things.  So even the "choir" needs some reminding sometimes.  And note, as above, that totally includes me too.

Reason #5: For The Kids

Sexism is so systematic in our language & culture.  I work in a toystore**.  And every day, from friends, family, and even feminists, I hear "well they just come out different".  My father (and I love him dearly) uses me as an example all the time.  When I was tiny I loved nurturing things.  I loved dresses.  I was not a natural at math.  This was not pushed on me by my parents.  I know that quite well.  But I also loved climbing trees.  I hated pink.  I had crushes on girls (by what... age 4?).  Mudfights were the best, even if it meant getting hosed down before coming inside.  My favorite TV shows were Johnny Quest & Scooby Doo.  So yes, sure, I was naturally nurturing.  But I was a host of things.  I'm not disputing that each individual child comes out different.  It's definitely clearly nature & nurture that make us who we are.  But that doesn't mean "girls and boys are just different, so don't worry about gender gaps".

There are so many little ways we can fight against language.  I never ask what gender a child is to help pick a present, I always ask what does this child like to do?  I try to compliment little girls on something other than their looks.  And I relentlessly bring up the oppression that exists in our society because we can make it better for future generations.

Read the full comic at Hark a Vagrant

Reason #6: Feminists Get a Bad Rap

Some days, I feel like there are more straw feminists than actual feminists.  And in some ways, it may be true, since straw feminists exist only in the minds of anti-feminists and they are many.  So I try to come in and say "I'm against circumcision!", "I'm against racism!", "Birth control for men would be AWESOME", "men can be raped & women can rape", just to dispel a few myths.  It can be exhausting having to say these things over and over again just to get to my point, but hey... at least every person who hears me hears an actual feminist... not the "feminist" Rush kept talking about.

Reason #7: You Should Be Angry

Some days, I'm a downer.  I know this.  I know this because it hurts me too to read an article about some horrific human rights violation on the other side of the world.  But you know what? I should be angry.  And you should too.  Because our anger is what keeps them at bay.  If no one were angry, things would be much, much worse.  So no, I'm not going to stop being a downer.  I'm going to raise hell.  And hope.

I'm just going to leave this here.

*I'm a trans-INCLUSIVE radical feminist... I refuse to let TERFs*** take the term "radical feminism" away from me.

** For those of you who know or ever find out what toystore... know that my beliefs as stated here are... ya know... mine.  Feminism subtly influences how I approach my job, but it is not something I discuss at work and my place of work is apolitical.

** TERF = Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist (translation: bigoted anti-trans jerkface)

I Don't Think We Need to Earn The Right to Life

I think I'm a socialist. I've been muddling over it all day (really, for several months, but especially today). Here's the reason why: we have a right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. There may be a qualifier on “happiness”, but there isn't one on “life”. We have a right to life. Period. Our ability or willingness to subscribe to society's idea of “earning a living” doesn't matter. It's a right. 

There's a question I'm sure most of you immediately thought: We can't just have people living off our backs can we? Sure we can. Do they deserve to die? To starve? To freeze? No. The only place in this country you're guaranteed basic food, housing, and healthcare is in prison. It's something we are only assured of earning via crime.

Everyone needs to have FREE: clean water, fresh food, housing, healthcare (medical, dental, vision, mental, alternative... all healthcare) and education (Preschool-PhD). Those are the basics. This is where each person should be in life if we've merely coasted and accepted the generosity of others. Why? Because with our basic needs met, our minds are free to find true education and inspiration. Who, with a belly full of organic produce, a good night's sleep, a healthy body and unlimited educational opportunities, is going to sit around and do nothing?

Each person on this planet has something to contribute to society. It seems lofty to say, and I will place a qualifier on it: not every person on this planet will contribute their something to society. However, I think in the vast majority of cases, people would, with basic needs met and ample free time, do things of value. Some of those things would have monetary value, and here I would still allow a free market to thrive. People would pay for jobs based on how much they valued them, and people would accept jobs they thought were worth it for the money. These were split between government-subsidized industries and collectives and luxuries markets. The vast majority of things would still be luxuries markets. Technology, junk food, automobiles, entertainment and many more would remain traditional “capitalist” businesses. They would hire workers and people would work in order to afford the many varied luxuries (anything from meat to diamond necklaces).

In the vast majority of cases, people would spend at least some time working, in order to afford whatever luxuries they desired. In a few cases, people would choose to dedicate themselves to trades that aren't traditionally valuable (volunteering at the Humane Society or helping raise your grandchildren, for instance). And in a very, very few cases, people would languish.

There would be a few people who only worked enough to get TV service and booze. Some would just shut down and sleep all the time. However, as long as we ensure that work pays better than crime, they would contribute a few productive hours. But think about it a different way. In our current system these people would likely be “public nuisances”, the stereotypical “loud drunken homeless man”. If that man had food and a basic place to live and a couple hours a week easy work to afford to soak himself in alcohol... it would still be better than having him out on the street miserable himself and harassing all of you.

Perhaps it's my astounding naivete, but I also think we'd have far fewer addicts if clean drugs were readily available (for a reasonable luxury cost) and drug rehabilitation was free. People would also be less likely to become addicts if they didn't feel the need to drown their dire circumstances.

Alright, this is getting a little out of my league, but I'm going to try it anyway. What would this look like structurally? Firstly, the government would regularly seize unused and abandoned properties and turn them into free housing for those who needed it. With these would come public parks' conversions into giant bio-dynamic farm/gardens farms where people can pick up free local produce AND play sports and climb jungle gyms. Yes, this means meat would be a luxury. If you live in Seattle, Oranges a luxury; in Florida rice a luxury. But the goal would be for a sincere overabundance of food be produced. Everyone would be able to take as much as they wanted and there'd be leftovers and they'd all get tossed... into the giant composting system that supplies dirt to the neighborhood farm (did I mention all the free housing is getting composting toilets and rainwater catchment and locally-produced green energy?).

People would live in these places for free, guaranteed small but adequate, safe, and comfortable housing. Basic luxuries, such as private internet (there would be free computer labs in neighborhood community centers & libraries) or TVs, would be available. People would live in these places as long as they want, all their life, or only until they can afford the upgrade to a larger, paid apartment space (or even private home).

Taxes on earnings and profit would fund the non-profit systems of healthcare (medical, dental, vision, mental, alternative), basic housing, peace officers (not “police”), transportation, emergency response, education (including college), and conservation. These systems would benefit all people, especially those who run industry, and thus people would pay taxes for them. Private business, of course, would be allowed to develop alternative and “luxury” plans in all these industries, but the basic needs would be taken care of regardless of a human being's “economic value”.

As many systems as possible would be locally-based. Food, energy, housing and food should all be created mindful of the surrounding climate. Food will be varieties easy to grow in the region. Water will be collected as locally as possible. Housing would be built out of local materials. Energy harvested via wind, water, or sun. The systems would be interconnected, so that they might lean on each other in times of need, but generally would be self sufficient. Advertising, insurance, finance, and many other “industries” which do nothing but create “money” and waste time, would cease being a drain on society and would free up time and energy for humanity to put towards more positive (but less “profitable”) ways to spend time.

Teaching, writing, reading, learning, running, making friends, teaching the neighbor to swing dance... these are all things you do with free time which benefit you and benefit your community by proxy. They have no proven capitalist economic value, but that doesn't mean they lack value. So that's it. I think everyone has something to contribute. And I think that even if they don't care to share that contribution, they still have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How I Came to Terms with Being Pro-Choice

This is something I don't admit very often: I used to be pro-life*. Not in a big, scary, religious way. Not in a slut-shaming, hateful way. In a quiet “I won't kill a clam for food... why is killing a fetus okay?” way. The pro-life liberal is a rare beast, but I used to be one. I couldn't really understand how one can draw a line where what was a fetus becomes a “person” with “rights”. And even long after I accepted the difference between a pre-viability and post-viability fetus... I was still uncomfortable.

Why? I've been a vegetarian since I was 2**. The idea of killing a chicken can actually bring tears to my eyes. Did I ever think chickens deserved the same rights as humans? Never. But I was always uncomfortable with killing... with the death penalty, with animal testing, with war. I was pro-life in that I was against killing, pure and simple.

When I first became pro-choice I thought of abortion as a “necessary evil”, a right that wouldn't be needed if we achieved universal healthcare, birth control, education, maternity leave, childcare, and other social supports. I saw abortion as a symptom of our system, where having a child means losing education, jobs and familial supports and where feeding an unexpected child can be too difficult. And while those concerns are still valid, I know now that the right to an abortion needs to be inalienable and permanent.

And there's only one way I've figured out how to explain it. Someone, somewhere in the world today desperately needs a kidney transplant and I'm their match. I have a spare kidney. Going through surgery to donate it would have it's dangers and complications, but I'd have a very good chance of making it through. It would be traumatic, and painful, but I could give that person life. I could choose to get on the donor list, and maybe I should.

But would you force me to? Would you tell me that in order to give this man life I had to give my kidney, no matter how I felt about it? That it was my duty to give up my body to a complicated, traumatic procedure with marked health risks because otherwise I'd be “killing” someone else?

What if you said that in order to not have my body violated by this surgery I'd have to drive across the state, stare at a photograph of the man who needs the transplant, and then “think about it” for 24 hours? What if I had to pay $500 to get out of this transplant? What if I had people screaming “murderer” at me because I refused?

It doesn't actually matter if you think the fetus counts as a “human” or not. Forcing a person to put their body in danger & their life on hold to preserve the life of another is immoral in and of itself. It doesn't matter how they ended up pregnant. It matters that they don't want to damage their bodies (and potentially their lives) for a fetus, no matter what it's potential.

Would I have an abortion? No. Like I explained, the idea of killing a chicken makes me cry. But that's the point – I am pro-CHOICE. And I think that whether or not pregnant women choose to continue their pregnancies, they need to be fully supported in that decision. That's why I don't just believe in universally available & free abortion. I also believe in free childcare, mandatory maternity leave, and a food stamps program large enough to ensure no child ever goes hungry. I think adoption needs to lose it's stigma and foster care needs to be fixed and schools need to give world class educations to all students, not just those with wealthy home & school clubs.

But I also believe that the right to bodily autonomy is an absolute. And that means abortion needs to be a RIGHT. Forever.

* Disclaimer: I was 12-16 at the time... so cut me a little slack.

** Yes, really. I also began reading graphic anti-vivisection literature at age 6, had my “Angry Atheist” phase at age 8, began obsessively following election cycles at 11 and became a Pagan before my 13^th birthday. It's a weird thing.

Why Can't Two Parents Work Part Time?

 
There's a debate that's been going back and forth forever about stay at home parenting. Is it good?  Is it bad?  Is the influx of women into the workforce feminism's best accomplishment or the family's worst nightmare?  Or both?

Back in the day the norm, or at least the ideal, was for the woman to stay home and cook and clean and care for the family; the man went out and earned the money outside the home. Now the norm is for the man and the woman to work... and the woman to cook and clean and care for the family. Elizabeth Warren even wrote a book, The Two Income Trap, about how middle class dual-income families aren't getting their fair shake.  Do we (as a society - not individually) really need two incomes per family?

This graph shows how productivity has skyrocketed while wages have stagnated.  This increase in productivity has caused an overabundance of labor (why we're always trying to “create jobs”): there is more supply than demand. If the workforce shrunk significantly it would likely help the economy, as in many way's we're now too productive. As productivity increases you either have to increase demand or decrease the number of workers.  (Note: part of this is that Americans work too much... or at least, they work more than everyone else)

Let's take all that information and sit with it for a moment. What if we all saw that and decided it would be better NOT to have so many folks working (or at least not the crazy hours most of us do). That perhaps having a stay-at-home parent is a good idea, because caring for your kids yourself is good and also because the labor-market is oversupplied and it's contributing to how difficult it is to find work.  A lot of crazy conservatives have written about how women/feminism/"misandry"/selfish mothers have destroyed the economy, and they use many of these points (but they're jerks, so I'm not going to link to them... google it if you wish).

Stay with me here, because I'm not ready for that plan. While I think people who genuinely want to be stay-at-home parents should enjoy their stay-at-home lives, I don't think we as a society should pressure one parent into staying home... 'cause it's going to end up being the women. And besides, some people like their jobs.

That brings us to my plan. Why don't both parents work part time? It seems so simple, really. Instead of the old one-income model or the current two-income model, we switch to a two-part-time model? Imagine a world where people split their time... part time being caretakers, part time being breadwinners, part time doing whatever it is in life they love. Women wouldn't be forced back into the kitchen, men would get to spend time with their kids, and queer folk might get a little less of that awful “who's the man” question.

There are a lot of problems that we need to address first: a broken tax system, a lack of quality free education, getting ourselves a first world healthcare system, and ending penalties for part timers. Without these things the model I've just laid out won't work.

But what if we could do it? Quality time with kids, less stress on the workforce, more home-cooked meals, and happier workers all without blaming women or telling them it's all their fault just because they wanted to be treated like people.  A gender-neutral "American Dream".  As someone who comes from a generation that seeks work life balance, I see a big appeal to this.

Through all this, it is worth mentioning that I don't think everyone should get married and/or have kids. But given that our society is built around a two-parent with children model we should consider ways to make that model better.

What do you think? Is it worth moving to a model where both partners are part-time-homemakers & part-time-breadwinners?

Feminist Horror Films

You know, I thought about writing a "welcome to my blog" post, but that seemed lame.  So we're gonna' jump right into the fun stuff.

I love horror films. A lot. So much so that I had a gore 'n' horror themed birthday party. In February. In spite of the sexualized violence that's systematically portrayed in the horror genre, women have a lot more agency there that they don't in a lot of other genres like action thriller or romantic comedy. Even if they die, at least they fight. They plot, plan, scheme, and retaliate.  But sometimes there's a horror film that really takes the time to attack the anti-woman tropes of the film industry. While no movie can be 100% feminist and all of these films have their issues, I think they still deserve some love.  I've included trigger warnings for each film below each films' description so that you go in prepared.

 __________________________________________________________________ 

Ginger Snaps

  

This Canadian Body-Horror flick is one of my all-time favorites. It uses lycanthropy as an analogy for puberty. It's bloody and terrifying and littered with the dead bodies of household pets. One thing I find fascinating about this movie is that it contains the only onscreen portrayal of date-rape against a man I've ever seen in a film. All the women in this film are strong, complex, and have interesting character development. The protagonist, Bridgette, is not once sexualized in the whole film. That alone gives it a spot on this list.

Film Trigger Warnings: Suicide, Rape, Graphic Violence

Absentia

A Kickstarter funded film that delivers slow, creeping terror. There is almost no blood or gore, but that doesn't keep this film from twisting you up psychologically. It's about a woman who's husband disappeared without a trace years ago. Her sister comes to stay with her for moral support while she goes through the process of having her husband declared dead. Pregnant with another man's baby and trying to move on with her life, she starts having visions of her (late?) husband. It's a quiet film that has a very realistic feel, especially when it comes to the complex dynamics between the sisters.

Film Trigger Warnings: Drug Abuse, Homeless Abuse, Domestic Disturbance

The Caller

Another psychological horror film, this time centered around a young divorcee named Katy. She moves into a small apartment after her divorce and tries to start over, but keeps getting calls from an old woman she doesn't know. The problem? That old woman claims to be calling from the past. As she begins to entertain the caller, who seems to only need a friend, Katy finds herself drawn deeper into the old woman's grasp. A great film with a female protagonist AND antagonist.

Film Trigger Warnings: Psychological Abuse, Child Abuse

Teeth

A lot of people have written a lot of things about this film. It's been called the most and the least feminist film of all time by many people. However, I think it's still worth watching. Teeth, for those of you who don't know, is a film about Vagina Dentata. Specifically, a young evangelical girl named Dawn who just might have teeth up there. As she learns about the power, both positive and negative, of sexuality, she goes through a remarkable transformation. I'm not a big fan of the ending to this film, but it still has a lot of interesting scenes that break the traditional horror-movie mold.

Film Trigger Warnings: Rape, Sexual Torture, Sexual Assault, Graphic Violence, Assault by a Doctor

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane

Tried and true slasher terror with a feminist twist. There is very little I can say about this film without spoiling anything, but it's worth watching if you can handle the gore. While at first it seems like a standard “cabin in the woods” style horror film, it's a beautiful analysis of the Virgin/Whore complex that's so inundated in the horror industry. The film is aware of it's tropes and uses them to shocking advantage. It also has the scariest daylight scene I've ever seen grace a movie screen.

Film Trigger Warnings: Incredibly Graphic Violence, Peer Pressure, Torture

Mama

I may or may not get reamed for including this here, but I really liked the feminist messages of Mama. It's not Guillermo Del Toro's best film by a long shot, but it's definitely interesting. It follows two little girls whose father murders their mother and intends to kill them as well, but is stopped short by a supernatural creature. The girls grow up in the woods under the care of “Mama”, but are later found by their uncle, who brings them back into society. But it's ultimately a story about two little girls, a motherly monster, and their uncle's punk-rock girlfriend, Annabel, who didn't even want to be here today! While many have criticized the films maternal focus, I really liked the way Annabel cared for the children. She didn't turn into a super-mom, and she loved them on her own terms.

Film Trigger Warnings: Violence Against Children, Suicide

May

 So the only problem with May is that by telling you that it's a horror film I've already sort of spoiled it for you. So please, try to go see the film without reading up too much about it? Like, most of the posters for the film contain spoilers.  How lame is that?  It's about a lonely, socially awkward girl with a lazy eye named May. She had a horrific childhood where her only friend was a creepy doll in a glass case, and now she (surprise!) has trouble connecting with other people. All she wants is someone other than her very creepy doll to love her. She is sweet, quiet, and awkward, working in an animal hospital stitching together post-op cats & dogs all day.

Film Trigger Warnings: Sexualized Violence

The Loved Ones

I hesitated about whether or not I wanted to include this here, not because it isn't phenomenal, it is, but because it's so damn hard to watch. This is hands down the goriest, bloodiest and most triggering film on the list, but it's also absolutely amazing. The main characters are a disturbed goth boy named Brent and a girl with a crush on him, Lola. When Lola finds out he's going to prom with another girl, she kidnaps him and has her own torture “prom” at home. This is a torture-porn flick that manages to truly turn the tables. This is a film which not only doesn't shoot from the male gaze, it does the opposite. The male victim, even before his capture, is overtly sexualized. Throughout the film we cut back to the other kids, the ones at real prom. They make normal teenage life decisions and those scenes are really disarming and sweet. It's this cutting back and forth that keeps the viewer tuned in to how horrific the violence is. This film artfully prevents that “numb” feeling, leaving you squirming in your seat the whole way through.

Film Trigger Warnings: Graphic Violence, Sexual Violence, Incest, Torture, Suicide, Drug & Alcohol Abuse, Domestic Abuse, Contentious Consent, Self-Harm/Cutting, Depression

 __________________________________________________________________ 

So, what are YOUR favorite feminist horror films of all time?  Let me know!  I want to watch them!  I'm sure at some point I'll do a "part II" with even more feminist horror films as I find them.