I went swimsuit shopping today.  Having lived in a beach town for 5 years of my life, it was bizarre to think that this was my first swimsuit shopping experience since 2003.  But it was.

It was much harder than I hoped it would be.  In the car on the way home–with a new suit, I might add–I found myself in tears.  This is in many ways an embarrassing thing to admit.  I am a feminist.  I am a philosopher.  I know that the images of beauty we are bombarded with are capitalist productions, effective in transmitting the idea that we are tragically defective and unhappy in order to sell us goods and services that will, supposedly, fix the problems behind our defects and unhappiness.  I know that the imperative to be beautiful is a mechanism for keeping women in our place.  I know that my drive to compare myself to other women is internalized misogyny.

And yet.  I give myself back pain from struggling, in vain, to hold my stomach in to make a completely flat surface.  I think about returning to my old habit of sneaking diet pills when no one is looking.  And I stand in front of that dressing room mirror, hating what I see.

The fact that this sort of story is not an uncommon one is more depressing than I care to think about right now.  Instead, I want to share with you this picture (and wonderful post) from definatalie, who is fantastic:

Image via definatalie.com

She continues:

This war is personal and this war is being waged on you, from within your consciousness, and it seeks to inhibit your self expression and nullify your body. This war also works to nullify whole groups of apparently odd-looking people too: fat, old, tall, short, brown, and disabled (and more!) If you’re not white, able bodied and young, the overriding message being spruiked by the beauty, health and fashion industries is that you’re not good enough and that in order to be as beautiful as you can be you have to buy clothes and make up and diet pills and encourage all your friends to consume what you’re consuming.

I want to move beyond that internalized war and self-hate.  Some days I do better than others.  On the days I don’t, the shame is double-edged–because, as a feminist, I know just how privileged I am.  I am white, I am not fat, I am still under 30, I am cis-gendered, I am mostly able-bodied.  It feels whiny and self-indulgent to spend time thinking about the ways in which the beauty industry affects my body image.

But on the other hand, I think–when we are told, in a million ways every day, not only by television and magazines, but by our mothers and sisters and friends and teachers and mentors, “We are Unacceptable as we are,” and when the process of learning to speak to ourselves and to the people around us differently is so excruciatingly difficult, even after years or decades of trying–well, then I’m not sure that it’s such a small thing.

Image via BlogTO

Hi everyone!  Due to family visits and the need to clean my house in preparation for said visits  (related note: how can toasters get so disgusting?), I’ll be away from the blog for a couple of days.  To my fellow Ontarions, Happy Pride, and to the rest of you–talk amongst yourselves!

[Image: A fallen red maple leaf sits alone on a concrete background, reminiscent of the Canadian flag.]

Today is Canada Day.  I will celebrate the birthday of my adopted home in true Canadian fashion, with a hike in the woods and a trip to my city’s  festival in the park.  This particular Canada Day is a bittersweet one for many Canadians, I think–as the police misconduct and brutality of the G20 protests is still quite fresh, and Torontoans pick up the pieces of their aftermath.

Still, there is reason to celebrate the good in our home as we speak out against the bad.  But because I am still new to Canada–and because, as living here has taught me, I am thoroughly USAmerican in my assumptions and knowledge–I’ll direct you to others who have done a much better job at this than I could: Pilgrim Soul from The Pursuit of Harpyness and Renee at Womanist Musings (though, as awesome as she is, I can’t get on board with the Tim Horton’s love–sorry, Renee!  What’s the deal with the automatic cream-and-sugar anyway??).

Much love, Canada!  Thanks for the health care.

She writes to Politico,

In fact, I have never used the phrase “ick factor” in any of my three  books dealing with the emotion of disgust, or in any articles. I use  the term “projective disgust” to characterize the disgust that many  people feel when they imagine gay sex acts. What does that term mean, and to whom does it apply? The view I develop, on the basis of recent psychological research, is that projective disgust has its origin in a  discomfort with one’s own body and its messier animal aspects, including sexuality, and that, in a defense mechanism, disgust is then projected outward onto vulnerable groups who are characterized as hyperphysical and hypersexual. In this way, the uncomfortable people displace their discomfort onto others, who are then targeted for various forms of social discrimination.

Thus the people to whom the term “projective disgust” applies are the insecure and emotionally stunted people who campaign against equal rights for gays and lesbians, not gays and lesbians themselves.

Huckabee had previously claimed that, hey, it was totally cool for him to say that gay sex had an “ick factor” because other people said it first, including this one lady philosopher, who is famous and stuff.  While philosophers have been known to say particularly stupid things (so, FYI, simply citing one of them as a way of defending yourself against charges of bigotry is not generally what I would advocate as Plan A), and while it’s worth wondering how helpful (or, for that matter, respectful to people with developmental disabilities) it is to equate homophobia with being “emotionally stunted,” Nussbaum definitely does not hold the view that Huckabee–very publicly–attributes to her.  Her final word, then, is not surprising:

He owes me a public apology.

If you aren’t already aware of the story, Hastings wrote an article for Rolling Stone that contains quotes from Gen McChrystal and his staff criticizing – and, more significantly, belittling – the President, the Vice President, and several other members of the administration.  McChrystal has been called to Washington, where he is scheduled to meet with Obama on Wednesday.  According to NPR, the general’s job may be in danger, in part because of things he says in Hastings’ article.

Hastings, however, acts as though he’s surprised that the article caused such an uproar.  During the interview with Norris he quotes several belittling statements that a McChrystal aide made about Biden during a meeting.  Norris asks whether the aide was reprimanded for the comments, and Hastings’ reply is “Have you hung out with the military much?”  He goes on to say  - as many before him have done – that the men of the military are under so much stress that they need humor to diffuse the tension.  He implies that the insults flung at the President and his staff – while on record with a reporter – are part and parcel of that need for humor.  Boys will be boys, and the military will be the military.

Hastings seems surprised that the men are being held accountable for their words.  But isn’t it common knowledge that if you say bad things about your boss, and you get caught, your job is on the line?  Are there places in life where that isn’t true?  If so, please let me know where they are.

There’s a difference – a BIG difference – between using humor to diffuse tension and using “humor” to belittle an authority figure.  In addition, I question the effectiveness of this purportedly therapeutic strategy.  In the incident Hastings references, a top advisor to McChrystal refers to Joe Biden as “Joe Bite Me”.  Is that really so hilarious that it immediately relieves all of his pent-up anger and tension?  Really?

I’ll agree with Hastings that in any wartime scenario there’s going to be tension – between the soldiers themselves, between the military and the administration, between the military and the people.  But handling that tension via a bunch of on-the-record playground talk seems extraordinarily ineffective.

Additionally, the suggestion that members of the military ought to be held to a lesser standard of behavior than the general public is absurd.  The military has power; it has force.  Ideally, members of a group imbued with such power ought to be held to exceptionally high standards.  Because power + douchebaggery = danger.

Everyone in the media, listen up: The “boys will be boys” excuse is tired and worn out.  It is not now – nor has it EVER BEEN – a reasonable explanation for ANY behavior.  Falling back on this trope is just bad journalism.  It’s an excuse not to dig deeper.  It’s a quick fix that doesn’t give us any real information.  It’s insulting, and frankly it’s bad for society.  Let’s stop using it, okay?

TRANSCRIPT:

Well, I certainly hope that Judith Butler’s refusal to receive the Civil Courage Award will act as a catalyst for more discussion about the impact of racism, even within groups that are considered to be progressive. [applause] …Somehow, [the idea that] people from the Global South, people of color are more homophobic than white people—is a racist assumption.  [applause] When we consider the extent to which the ideological structures of homophobia, of transphobia, of heteropatriarchy are embedded in our institutions, the assumption that one group of people is going to be more homophobic than another group of people misses the mark.  It misses the mark because we not only have to address issues of attitudes; we have to address the institutions that perpetuate those attitudes and that inflict real violence on human beings.

…And I was going to say, in answer to the last question about the urgency of the late 60s, if had people not acted with that urgency, we would not perhaps have the expanded notion of social justice that we have,  wouldn’t perhaps have the vocabulary—and it’s always been a struggle over language, over vocabulary, and I’ve come to believe that ..that when we win victories in movement struggles, what we do is we change the whole terrain of struggle.  So we don’t simply add on: we don’t add on women to black people; we don’t add on LGBT people to women and to black people; we don’t add on trans people and so forth.  Each time we win a significant victory, it requires us to revisit the whole terrain of struggle.  And so therefore, we have to ask questions about the impact of racism in gay and lesbian movements, we have to ask questions about the impact of racism in the women’s movement, we have to ask questions about the impact of sexism or misogyny in black communities, and we have to ask questions about the influence of homophobia in black communities or communities of color.  This notion of intersecting or cross-hatched or overlaying categories of oppression is one that has come to us thanks to the work of women of color feminists. [applause]

UPDATE: For another articulation of the extent to which Butler’s refusal of the award depended upon the hard work of activists of color, check out this excellent piece at Bully Bloggers.

In Sexist Beatdown this week, Sady and Amanda deliver the best Ayn Rand satire ever.

La Macha at VivrLatin@ calls bullshit on the idea that it’s wrong to criticize U.S. immigration policy because things are sooo much worse in Mexico.

Philosopher/feminist/famous person Judith Butler publicly refuses to accept an hono(u)r from Berlin Pride in protest of the group’s racism/anti-Muslim sentiment.

Feministing has a helpful breakdown of the difference between the terms lesbian, bi, and queer (thanks Baruch and Roll!).

And finally, I’m now–fashionably late, of course–on twitter.  You can follow me @bullstonecraft, where I will update you on the blog, my gyno appointments, and other tweet-appropriate randomness (i.e., not an execution).