A Yawn and a Hose

[A male friend wrote a review about a book; he asked me to read the review and let him know what I thought. In his review he cited these quotations from the book, which was written by a woman: 

"As symbols go, the phallus is a yawn. Tubes that point and shoot and there you have it." 

"A phallus doesn't give you much to play with, metaphorically, and it doesn't lend itself to multiple interpretations. A hose is a hose is a hose is a hose."

He didn't finish the book, finding the writing to be too underscored by misandry. Below is my response to him. I am sharing this here because I thought it was a good example of banter about feminism. The author's name, the book's title, nor the friend's name were used to maintain anonymity.]


I think perhaps you took the author's words a bit too close to heart. Perhaps, as a woman, after years of being told explicitly and implicitly that I must be inferior, it is easier for me to allow a sentence or two insulting the metaphoric value of my genitals to just meander past me, unacknowledged. But for a man, it makes sense that it would be a more difficult feat to not put up a fight with a criticism of your prized phallus--for while the man, generally speaking, tends to identify himself with and in some cases perhaps even define himself by his cock, the woman does not rely solely on her vagina to define or identify her womanhood. However, I generalize; I know that this may just be my humble opinion, because I know that at my unripe stage of life I have not quite been able to grasp the concept of gender. But I do blame that partially on the fact that there are such rigid definitions of "man" and "woman" served to us on rusty tin platters from every angle, that indeed force the man to think that he is naught without his penis and the woman to believe that her physical appeal is the be all and end all of her worth. I have de-conditioned myself of the latter part of that sentence, and I do not care if my hair makes me "look like a lesbian" or that I really should wear makeup, or put on a real bra, etcetera etcetera et-fucking-cetera. All of it is nonsense. But I digress ever so slightly. The woman is taught that she must scrutinize every part of herself and fix what is imperfect and make herself perfect, no matter the physical, emotional, or fiscal cost. The man, however, is taught only to scrutinize his penis, and yes, he may be poked fun at for its size or for inopportune erections, but there is really nothing to be done to "fix" these "imperfections." 

I wholeheartedly believe that, considering the enormous hardship it is to be a woman in today's society--hell, in any day's society--from having to concern oneself with one's appearance, and fearing that one may be raped simply for BEING on a street at a certain angle of the Earth's rotation around the Sun, and striving to be considered for the quality of her mind rather than the size of her breasts, and so on and on and on, the author has every right to be snarky from time to time.

I think, and correct me if am wrong, you abandoned the book far too soon after dubbing it misandrist (ha! this derivative of "misandry" isn't even considered a word! "Misogyny" finds its roots in the 17th century, while "misandry" only came into existence in the 1940s) at times, but if every woman abandoned everything that was misogynistic, she would be left with nothing but a white room and perhaps a few pillows and a box of raisins.

In Defense of Miley

I've sort of kept my mouth shut about all of the Miley Cyrus hubbub that was sparked by her VMA performance in August for fear of being misinformed. But much time has elapsed since then, and the media--and subsequently the public--will not let up on their relentlessly condescending and degrading barrage of insults towards Miley. 

Miley Cyrus represents the dilemma of the woman in today's society quite succinctly. You can either fit in, do what the majority tells you is "acceptable," never deviating from the beaten trail, and be called boring or be criticized for being just another girl. Or, you can do what you want to do, ignore the oppressive delineations of social acceptability, and de-objectify your body through a reverse-psychological tactic of commodification (example: Miley demystifies the eternally used and abused female form by treating it as no big deal, because it isn't. A nipple is just as much a part of the body as a nose or a finger), and be called a slut, skank, whore, tease, the list goes on and on. Essentially, you're not taken seriously if you take yourself seriously. The rest of the world takes you seriously ONLY if you take THEIR standards seriously. Herein lies the as-yet indomitable dichotomy between satisfying oneself and satisfying others. 

Let's start by breaking down the uncensored version of Robin Thicke's--that hypocritical and disgusting bastard--music video for his infamous song "Blurred Lines," which talks about lines which are definitely not blurred and are in fact quite clear. The video consists of three women wearing high heels and underwear, breasts bared, dancing around two fully-clothed men. I recommend taking a moment to watch the video right now. 

Once you've done that (or not, your choice--even a few seconds will sum up the ensuing four minutes), keep scrolling. I took some screenshots while watching the video that exemplify the nauseatingly pro-rape message.

He's holding her down, she's naked, he's clothed...Does he really want his name hash-tagged over that image?

Someone has low self-esteem...

That's a mini STOP sign. See that word, right there? STOP.

If we can all stop retching and look at the Jezebel article that juxtaposes Thicke's lyrics with rapist's comments to their victims, I think we can conclude that "Blurred Lines" is one of the most offensive songs in mainstream media in at least the last decade, if not the history of forever (disclaimer: I have no data to back that up).

But here's the real catch: the song that Miley sang and danced to that put her in the media spotlight and heralded her advent into the spot of the "token punk slut" or something ridiculous like that was--you guessed it--"BLURRED LINES" BY ROBIN THICKE. Did Thicke get any shit for it? Absolutely not. He was grinding on her just as much as she was grinding on him. That's it, the golden example of female oppression. Congratulations, world. You have succeeded in perpetuating one of the most pervasive evils of modern culture.

Earlier this month, Barbara Walters debuted her "10 Most Fascinating People of 2013" list, and Miley was on the list. Walters' interview with Miley showed just how demonized she has become. Miley said that she wore a Marc Jacobs dress to an event recently and was called boring because she wouldn't get naked, yet when she bares her body in a bra and underwear, she's labeled a naughty slut.

A few days ago Miley posted a short preview on her Instagram of a new music video that's debuting on December 26th for her song "Adore You." In the clip, Miley is wearing a bra and underwear and is touching herself. So of course, the media pounced on her, calling her "provocative" and "racy," and patronizing her for showing "self-admiration." In this case, self-admiration is just a fancy word for masturbation, which according to The World is a deadly sin for females but is perfectly acceptable for males, the same way male nudity is deified and female nudity is completely taboo. Prime example: Dylan Sprouse posted Instagram photos of him straight-up grabbing his penis and it got little press; there have been no parodies made, no global uprising of anti-Dylan backlash, NOTHING. He can put up a few Tweets and a blog post on Tumblr and have it all blow over, being forgiven by his faithful fans within moments. But Miley performs a deeply personal and heartfelt song while sitting naked on a wrecking ball (neither her breasts nor her crotch were actually displayed but rather tactfully covered by her arms or legs depending on the shot and camera angle), and she gets months, maybe even years worth of shit for it. No amount of apologies or Tweets or anything will make anyone think differently about her.

There's also the issue that when a woman chooses to portray herself as a sexual being the way Miley does, it's sinful and tasteless, but when a model in a bra and underwear is placed on a billboard in Times Square with the words "Victoria's Secret" smacked on next to her, it's called an advertisement and is a lucrative business. No one thinks twice about how overtly sexual the Victoria's Secret models are. And even if it is their choice to be modeling the undergarments, they are not doing it for themselves; they are doing it for a broad audience. When sex is handed to us, relinquished to us, surrendered to us, we take it wholeheartedly. But when sex is shown to us and we can't have it, we shame it into a state of scandal.

The truth of the matter is, Miley Cyrus grew up in the spotlight. If you're a teenager right now, think about how difficult it is to simply exist. And then think about doing that with the entire world watching. And if you're an adult, all you have to do is think the same way, only retrospectively. People go through phases, they undergo transformations, they reinvent themselves from the inside out--IT IS NOT A SIN, IT IS NOT MISGUIDED, IT IS NOT A SIGN OF BEING "TROUBLED" OR "NEEDING HELP." It is a natural process that each and every freaking one of us either has gone through or will go through, and to completely dehumanize Miley in this way is further testament to our world's (but especially this country's) insensitivity and outright aversion to noncomformity, healthy sexuality, and, to put it bluntly, females.

Have anything to say? Post it in the comments!!