Posted under unhappy endings
Search Results for "breeder"
Thanks for your kind comments and e-mails–our family emergency has been resolved. I’m sure you’re wondering what on earth could keep me away from the Berkshire Conference 2011, especially considering that there won’t be another one until 2014! Well, friends–there isn’t a lot that would keep me away from it, but there’s something I haven’t told you about Famille Historiann before that might put this into perspective: Continue Reading »
I don’t quite reveal it all, but I’ve been invited to write recently for peer reviewed journals about the non-peer reviewed world-wide time-wasting blogosphere and my playground here, Historiann! I know, friends: Whodathunkit? And who really cares?
First of all, readers will find an answer to this question at least if they click on over to Common-place to read my contribution to this month’s “Common Reading” feature, which I’ve called “Silence Dogood Rides Again: Blogging the Frontiers of Early American History,” an essay on the long tradition of pseudonymity in early American history, pseudonymity on the world-wide non-peer reviewed internets, and my ambitions to join the local Roller Derby team. (For realz! I’ve got a great idea for a Roller Derby name, anyway, and that’s a good place to start. You’ll have to click on over to Common-place if you want to find it out!)
Here’s some flava:
My main interest in my blog is now the larger community of readers and commenters who connect me to a wider intellectual world and whom otherwise I’d never meet, work with, or encounter through any of the traditional networking strategies in academia. Forget what you’ve heard about supposedly cool Colorado college towns and so-called “liberal” academia—it’s lonelyout here for a Marxist feminist early Americanist who writes eastern history. My (lightly) pseudonymous identity as a cowgirl probably plays a large part of my success in bringing folks together on the blog. I don’t want to burst your bubble, amigas, but Historiann is a lot more fun than I am—she doesn’t have any family or work responsibilities outside of writing about whatever she wants to write about, and acting as a welcoming host for guests who want to join online conversations about history, the academic workplace, feminism, contemporary politics, and the interesting intersections I find therein. Who knew that there would be 2,000-3,000 people a day interested in reading about my idiosyncratic and not necessarily interconnected interests? My playful pseudonymous identity helps pull it all together. (And, I think a lot of you eastern “Dudes” are pretty easy marks!) Continue Reading »
Busy day here at the ranch! I thought I’d throw you few curves to help keep your day interesting:
- Roxie’s World brings us the heartwarming story of a non-gay pro-gay little boy in Arkansas named Will Phillips who refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance at school until there truly is “liberty and justice for all” in these United States. (Some of you may also want to weigh in on the pressing question raised by the insult this little boy hears now at school: what is the proper spelling of “gaywad?” Is it “gaywad,” “gay wad,” or “gay-wad?”)
- There’s a fun new gay blog I’ve found called Down and Out in Denver. Actually, the blog proprietors Alastair and Blake hate Denver, which is why they started a blog to complain about the lack of urbane gay funky goodness there. Continue Reading »
I always really liked them–one of my favorite bands evah! Oh, how I wish I were a Breeder! But, I never got around to it–and now sadly, I think it might be too late! With all of the college and grad school and job- and tenure-seeking in my teens, 20s, and 30s, I never made it a priority to have guitar or drum lessons. Of course, at the time, I wasn’t that interested in having them–and I always thought there would be plenty of time if I changed my mind. (Plus, I never really liked couch surfing or smoky bars or staying up late all that much anyway. Not to mention drugs.) But now that I’ve entered my 40s, I’m wondering: has my life been wasted as a professional historian? Wouldn’t my life’s work have so much more meaning if I had gone the Breeder route?
Dig that flashback to 1993: “I’m just looking for one divine hammer–I’d bang it all day!” Continue Reading »
Squadratomagico (in a recent e-mail exchange) reminded me recently of an article in The Atlantic magazine last spring that may shed some light on this patriarchal equilibrium thingy we’ve been puzzling on for the last six months or so. (This post may have some interesting connections to some of the conversations going on over at Reassigned Time with Dr. Crazy this week, at least for the heterosexualists and breeder types.) Hanna Rosin wrote (very bravely, I think) about what appears to be the very shaky evidence that breast milk is the Holy Grail of All Health and Wellness for babies, and about her very fraught experience with it herself. After two babies, she had had enough!
One afternoon at the playground last summer, shortly after the birth of my third child, I made the mistake of idly musing about breast-feeding to a group of new mothers I’d just met. This time around, I said, I was considering cutting it off after a month or so. At this remark, the air of insta-friendship we had established cooled into an icy politeness, and the mothers shortly wandered away to chase little Emma or Liam onto the slide. Just to be perverse, over the next few weeks I tried this experiment again several more times. The reaction was always the same: circles were redrawn such that I ended up in the class of mom who, in a pinch, might feed her baby mashed-up Chicken McNuggets.
Scandalous! What kind of mother are you, Hanna Rosin? Friends of mine have told me their stories of being terrorized by people they refer to as “the nursing Nazis,” who are beyond evangelical in their insistence that “breast is best,” and that “anyone can do it!” Continue Reading »
Simply perfect: Via Suburban Guerilla, botox may migrate from your wrinkles into your brain. But then, maybe that’s what cosmetic surgery advocates want–to turn all women into Stepford Wives! (Kind of like that 1994 Breeder’s song “No Aloha,” with the line, “Motherhood means mental freeze. Freezeheads. No aloha!”)
I always thought that it was simply perfect that Katherine Ross played the main character Joanna Eberhart in The Stepford Wives (the original and only decent 1975 version. That’s her on the left in a still from the movie.) Remember that she played Elaine Robinson in The Graduate (1967), and that movie ended with Ben and Elaine on the bus after she ran away from her wedding, both of them looking slightly confused and sad that after their grand gesture, they didn’t really know where they were going. Well, I guess we found out: next stop, Stepford! I suppose that was unsurprising, since the 1960s were much more about “liberations” that preserved male sexual access to women and male dominance. And, Ben was never really in love with Elaine–he was in love with the idea of being in love with her, and she was in love with the idea of royally pissing off her parents.
It’s interesting that in 1975, the male fantasy depicted in The Stepford Wives was one were the women were submissive and sexually available, and the movie’s position was explicitly feminist. (When Joanna gets suspicious about what’s going on with the women of Stepford, she enlists a sympathetic friend to help her join a Consciousness Raising group!) Children and their needs hardly factored into the movie. But, then, that’s actually accurate to my memory of the 1970s. Kids were left to raise each other in roving gangs of kickball or T-ball teams, or on bad weather days, we played Sonny & Cher or Donny & Marie in someone’s basement. Unlike today’s cosseted, bike-helmeted, car-seated, minivan-chauffeured, parentally-monitored little darlings, kids in my generation were the original latchkey kids, even if our mothers weren’t in the paid workforce.
If you’re interested in the 1970s, come to the Berkshire Conference, where we’ve got two sessions devoted to the 1970s, session 71, Queer Politics and American Identities in the 1970s and 1980s, and session 173, Towards a History of the 1970s in America: A Roundtable on Gender and Popular Culture, in addition to at least nine other individual papers on other panels. (Program details: just click here!)
Andrew Sullivan announced his support for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton (surprise!) because 1) Obama is younger than Clinton, and 2) Obama is a Christian. Seriously. He forgot to remind us that 3) Andrew Sullivan would rather stab his own eyeballs out with a dull pencil than endorse Hillary Clinton for anything! (Sorry, Sully–I just can’t forget or forgive your scurrilous accusation that after 9/11 I was the real enemy as a “decadent leftist” “fifth columnist” humanities prof, and so I suspect your problem with Clinton is just as fear-driven and irrational.) Although he is a plagiarist-enabling and fantasist-enabling turd, even Sullivan can’t convince himself that Obama is substantively better on the issues than Clinton because they’re so darn similar. Thus, he offers us the youth and Christianity argument–by that logic, then l’il Ralphie Reed should be his man.
Meanwhile, back in my world where people know facts ‘n’ stuff, and would lose their jobs if they worked only up to Sully’s shockingly low standards, Professorblackwoman has a nice post up at WOC Ph.D. comparing the two candidates’ records on GLBTQ issues, and it looks like a wash to me in terms of their policy positions. (IMHO, neither is particularly courageous in affirming that true equality means equal civil rights too.) Obama does not support gay marriage, while Clinton thinks its legality should be up to the states. Obama says he supports a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” while Clinton has suggested only modifying these (Bill Clinton-era) relics. Obama has a cute rainbow version of his very cool logo, but he also issued that unfortunate invitation to Donnie McClurkin, an anti-gay ex-gay gospel singer. (Pandagon notes though Obama addressed black homophobia with an African American majority audience last week, and was able to bring them along with him after some initial resistance.) My guess is that they’d probably appoint similar kinds of people to the federal bench and the Supreme Court.
Sully aside, Clinton seems to be winning more gay votes by a hefty margin–63% of the gay vote in California, and she’s working hard on reeling them in in Ohio, according to Professorblackwoman’s analysis. That also tracks with my informal observations–my gay friends support HRC much more faithfully than my breeder friends, which leads me to suspect that queers aren’t as threatened by Hillary’s pantsuits and unapologetic toughness the way straights are (men and women alike). Ambitious broads just push some people’s buttons, don’t they? Shout out to Roxie’s World and GayProf to weigh in on this one! Do you think HRC (this HRC, not that HRC) has more GLBTQ support, and if so, is it justified? Who do you think is the better candidate for GLBTQ issues?