Dogged Blog

I come not to praise Hillary Clinton but to call a pig a pig

I'm a lesbian, a feminist, and I was a women's studies major at UC Berkeley in the 80s, and I really can't stand Hillary Clinton.

This has nothing to do with Barack Obama; before I supported him, I supported John Edwards and oh yeah, I couldn't stand Hillary Clinton.

And I'm getting fed up with two things:

• The constant refrain that everyone who can't stand Hillary Clinton is a sexist and/or dislikes her because she's a woman;
• The constant use of sexist, even misogynistic, language to denigrate Hillary Clinton.

Don't get me wrong. I really really dislike her. This isn't an attack disguised as tepid praise. There is no praise. This has nothing to do with her.

It's you guys. The testosterone-poisoned ones on the boy blogs. Yeah, you. I knew there was a reason I yanked your blogs off my blogroll after the 2004 election, and it's because you can really be fucking pigs.

The thing is, you were fucking pigs before Hillary Clinton ran for president, and you'll probably continue to be fucking pigs when her campaign is over. So I'll call you on it now, and I'll call you on it then. Knock it off. It's unprogressive, it's offensive, and it's juvenile.

As for the other side of the equation, if you don't respect the fact that I have legitimate reasons to dislike someone unrelated to her gender -- a gender that actually would normally predispose me to like someone more, not less, see "lesbian, feminist, former women's studies major," kthnx -- then you have no respect for me, my judgment, my ethical center, or my mind.

Hillary Clinton has earned my enmity fair and square. She earned it with her sense of entitlement, with her W-esque defensiveness when challenged or contradicted, and with her badly-run campaign. On a political level, she's the product of the DLC-driven, Republican-lite, pro-corporate, "I'll beat you at your own game" arm of the Democratic Party, which is the whole  reason  I spent most of my adult years checking "decline to state" on my voter registration. The Democrats have mostly been too conservative, too beholden to big business, for me.

But the boys who call her "Hillary" while always, always calling Obama "Obama"? The ones who get all wide-eyed and defend calling her "bitch" and insisting it's not a sexist use of the word? The endless, pervasive confounding of her with former President Clinton, as though they're joined not at the hip but at the cerebral cortex, because heaven knows a little wife can't have a thought of her own? And at the even uglier crap I try to forget because it just makes me too angry to even write coherently?

Stop. Just stop.

Can you really not find enough reasons to oppose her candidacy without dipping into the seething vat of misogyny? That's really, truly pathetic.

BREAKING: hair update

For the first time since the pet food recall was announced in March, Christie Keith, girl reporter, is taking a few hours away from her computer and going to get her hair cut.

This action, scheduled for Tuesday, July 3, at 11 AM Pacific Time,  is the direct result of seeing this otherwise quite lovely photo of herself and a "good friend," taken on Castro St. on Pride Sunday, ruined by the fact that her hair pretty much completely covered her face.

That is all.

Goodbye, Ann Richards

I really liked her.

She rode a motorcycle.

She said what she thought.

She gave a speech that no one will ever forget.

She died of cancer last night.

From the Houston Chronicle:

Richards said she never missed being in public office. She grinned when asked what she might have done differently had she known she would be a one-term governor.

"Oh," she said, "I would probably have raised more hell."

She made up for it after.

The Power of Two

I blogged a while ago about my pre-interview nervousness, and mentioned I'd interviewed Fox News' Ellen Ratner and her partner Cholene Espinoza, author of an excellent new book on Hurricane Katrina, Through the Eye of the Storm.

They were terrific to interview, and afterellen.com just published it this morning:

Ratner advises anyone with a cause to promote in the media to always be prepared for tough questions. What tough question would Ratner like to ask, and of whom?                
She answers: “I'd like to ask Bush and, really, all elected officials, the question I asked Tom DeLay, right in front of dozens of reporters: Did he have any gay family members or staffers? Did he know any gay people at all?”

The Power of Two

Also, I reviewed the film Saint of 9/11 for AfterElton.com.

BlogHer: What I Don't Mean

Something I learned at BlogHer: "Heteronormative," a really bizarre word I've never heard before this conference and one I'm staring at right now, seriously wondering if I want to use... heteronormative.

It's being used to describe the atmosphere of the conference, a perception on the parts of those of us who aren't heteronormative - which seems not just to mean "heterosexual," but to encompass anyone who colors outside the lines in their personal, sexual, and family lives. In other words, partnered women with children are the norm, and the rest of us are not the norm.

In clicking around on posts tagged "BlogHer" on Technorati, I've seen a fair amount of discussion about the conference being "heteronormative," ranging from whether or not it was (and sorry, if you ARE heteronormative, your subjective experience isn't sufficient basis for you to say it wasn't), to what could have been done to prevent it, and what can be done in the future.

One defensive remark comment I've seen made is that a panel on lesbian bloggers isn't the answer. This is where I start to get frustrated.

OK, yeah, I was already frustrated. This is where my frustration starts to grow.

No one I spoke to, and certainly not me, suggested such a panel or complained about its absence. My specific complaint is that none, not ONE, of the presenters at BlogHer was identified as a lesbian in the panel descriptions, and that the panel on blogging and identity didn't include any panelist who identified as lesbian, nor did anyone (but me, from the audience) make mention of sexual identity.

My secondary complaint is more cultural, more touchy-feely: I find it hard to imagine any more heteronormative (OK, it's growing on me) event than BlogHer '06, and for a conference of women bloggers in the San Francisco Bay Area, you'd think that would have to take some doing, and not just happen by accident.

I simply expect BlogHer to be a bit more neutral in its presentation - neither heteronormative nor queer-identified. I want the panels to more or less represent bloggers - women of color, women interested in childrearing issues, women without interest in childrearing issues, women in technology, women in education, women in the arts and sciences, women of any and all sexual orientations and identifications - you know, all of us. Not in some scientifically calculated exact ratio and percentage, but simply to the point where no woman comes to the conference and says, "Huh?"

Oh yeah, and then I want not to have people think it's whiny to notice and mention when that doesn't happen.

BlogHer: Bringing the Sex and the Fluff, and Oh, Yeah, the Shoes

My favorite panel at BlogHer was the one on Sex Blogging. Because, if you must know, I'm all kinds of shallow.

Now, don't get me wrong. The panel actually discussed some pretty heavy issues, including the privacy of our sex partners, what happens if your boss or your hostile former husband find your smutty blog, freedom of expression, the fact that google is forever, and all kinds of  twists and turns on the road to writing successfully about body parts rubbing together in interesting ways.

Panelist Susie Bright said that a lot of bloggers won't put her on their blogroll because her site is too smutty (an egregious paraphrase on my part). And panelist Melissa Gira said that when women comment on "serious" blogs, we're seen as "bringing the sex" just by virtue of our gender.

I would expand on that to say we're also seen as "bringing the fluff," and a lot of criticism... including MINE... of last week's BlogHer conference was that it felt too fluffy. Too girly. Too "unimportant."

And, ummmm... well, a lot of the time, it did. And I wasn't thrilled with that. And then I came home and played on my private anonymous oh-so-sekrit LiveJournal. You thought this place was as silly as I get? Not hardly.

It turns out, I'm not really all that  good at compartmentalizing my life. I start out that way, but the lines get all fuzzy after a while and all the pieces of me start leaking into other pieces and the next thing you know, I'm just a big sloppy bowl of melted stuff and those compartments and fragments and divisions vanish.

That's probably why this blog is a mishmash of themes - dogs, politics, popular culture, media, music, and a tiny dollop of my personal life. It's not a journal. (Not even my LiveJournal is a journal; it's a playground.) I suppose in many ways I really am a pretty private person about... well, what's left? My innermost thoughts, I guess. But the fact that I'm obsessed with subtextual TV lesbians and imaginary gay boys? That I went away for the weekend and brought seven pairs of shoes? That I used to be a hairdresser? That I like dogs more than people? That I'm a lesbian, and yes, I do have actual sex? All that fluffy silly sexy stuff that the blogosphere doesn't seem to think meshes real well with incisive political analysis and a critique of modern culture?

I haven't done such a good job of keeping that from leaking in here. I'm seriously starting to wonder if there's any point in trying. Because being silly, fluffy, sexy, and frivolous doesn't impair your ability to also be angry, smart, and articulate. It really doesn't. And when push comes to shove, honestly, I'd give up my shoes for world peace and universal justice.

Well, maybe not my purple suede high heeled sandals.

And I put Susie on my blogroll. Deal.

BlogHer: Sequel to a Prequel, or, No, That's Not It

I've been following Technorati tags (which I learned how to put in a Typepad post at BlogHer, thank you tech goddesses at the Tagging session!) for BlogHer, and noticed a number of attendees have only just today started to write about their impressions of the conference. So I'm not alone in wanting to let things process.

I've seen a few comments suggesting those of us who didn't have the best experience at BlogHer last weekend might have been put off by "cliques." I didn't feel that at all - I didn't notice any cliques and actually thought almost everyone was extraordinarily friendly and personally inclusive.

I've also seen myself quoted in a number of blogs, sometimes with attribution and sometimes not, and sometimes quoted out of context or inaccurately. But that's the risk you take when you open your mouth. Which is, you know, something I do a lot.

I've also seen the "mommybloggers" reacting very hostiley to suggestions that the conference was too mommy-ish. I don't blame them. If lesbians were as much the focus of the conference as mommys were (and yeah, I get there is overlap in the two groups), I'd have loved it and hated anyone saying it made them feel left out.

But I still feel the conference was too mommyish. Culturally it was alienating, for me as a lesbian and for many heterosexual women who aren't mothers or even ARE mothers but aren't interested in "mommyblogging."

And the conference really was too marketing-oriented, but there are a lot of other folks blogging about that, and it's something I'm still mulling over.

The assumption of heterosexuality as the norm was overwhelming. There wasn't even a "Birds of a Feather" sign up sheet for lesbian/bi women. At a WOMEN'S BLOGGING CONFERENCE IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA? Huh?

At one session on our identities and if we feel a need to represent and advocate for them as bloggers, not one of the wonderful panelists was a lesbian. I certainly wouldn't want to see fewer women of color up there, but is there some shortage of lesbians of color who blog I'm not aware of?

Didn't think so.

At that same session, if I hadn't spoken about blogging as a lesbian, would it have come up? I don't think so - no one else addressed it afterward, although I did get applause when I finished speaking. And I started out asking if I was the only lesbian in the room, which got a lot of hands in the air. Also a good way to meet women. Which brings me to...

Fluff. This is a topic that came up a lot in the post-mortems. It has to do with women who blog about shoes and hair and makeup, stuff that as you know I'm really into, although I don't actually blog about them all that much. Certainly not at all in proportion to how important they are in my life. And yeah, I saw a lot of really cute shoes at this thing. Bite me.

I was careful when introducing myself to say that my blog is about politics and also about dogs, and also that I edit a music blog and write about TV and movies for AfterEllen.com/AfterElton.com. Because I'm all about owning up to my fluffier side. I even told a few people I blog about Xena: Warrior Princess from time to time. I didn't mention my obsession with Gabrielle's abdominal muscles, though, because I have an image to preserve.

So, no, it wasn't the fluff thing that bothered me.

Some commentaries worth watching:

Goodbye Grassroots BlogHer (sourduck)

It Was Good, It Was Bad, I Made an Ass of Myself (feministe)

Meanwhile I'm still thinking.

BlogHer Thoughts, the Prequel

I still haven't really gotten my BlogHer 06 impressions in any sort of coherent order yet. But one thing that keeps rolling around in my mind:

I felt that a lot of things that were discussed at this conference weren't "important." Note I said FELT, not THOUGHT. That was deliberate.

Because the question I have for myself is, as women, do we try to change what we think and talk about to match what the male-dominated culture thinks is important, or do we try to change the culture so that the things we find important become more valued?

And that's the kind of question that gets raised by a girl who went to UC Berkeley and majored in Women's Studies 20+ years ago.

AND YET.... that same girl really hated the pervasive focus on "mommy blogging," the bibs and fake flowers and "diet products" and female contraceptives in the swag bag, and felt alienated by it.

Still thinking.

BlogHer

I've been a bad blogger lately. People keep giving me money to write stuff for them and my poor little blog gets neglected.

And those of you who are writing me wistful or scolding notes nagging me to blog - OK, it sort of works.

Gina and I are going to BlogHer this coming weekend, a conference for women bloggers being held in San Jose. Maybe I'll come home and discover a way to cram 28 hours into each day totally revitalized and blog-crazy again. You don't know, it could happen.

As for the stuff I'm getting paid to write... oh let's see, it's been some movie reviews and an article about the SF Gay Film Fest and a review of a reality TV show (only for money would I watch something like that) and ummmm... oh yeah, a post about a new really horrible wonderful dance song that I sullied the uber-cool pages at club.kingsnake.com with.

I can't link to it because it's in print only, but the latest issue of Bark Magazine has several articles by me, mostly on the subject of obesity and fitness for dogs. They even let me get some truthiness out there.

I also wrote a brief summary of tick diseases in dogs for my regular column in CoastViews Magazine, a regional monthly I used to edit - and I will have that online one day soon, but it pales into nothingness next to the awesome Canine Tick Diseases website my friend Gil is working on - I'll link when it's ready, but it's going to be an phenomenal resource. Hurry, Gil!

And I'll try to be a better blogger from now on. I promise.

Sincerely,

Your friend Christie

Much Ado About the 'Do

Archived post from Big Gay Picture

I was kind of flabbergasted when I read on Pam's House Blend this morning that Rosie O'Donnell's contract with the View stipulates she can't cut her hair. They seem to want her to look as "glamorous as possible" when she joins its exalted ranks.

I happen to think that hair is extremely important and I'd be happy to pass a law that everyone in the country has to get their hairstyles approved by me. I'm not suggesting that the 'do doesn't matter. It do. Does. Whatever.

And I'm not saying Rosie can't be glamorous, either. Do we REMEMBER Exit to Eden? I know I do. If you don't, that's a shot from it up there. You're welcome.

What I'm saying is, if you get Rosie's mouth on your show, who CARES what her hair looks like? Who the hell watches Rosie for her HAIR? How do these people keep their shows on the air, anyway?

Honestly, I hardly ever watch TV. I have a job, I have dogs, I have profound political thoughts, I have a life. I have a sink full of unwashed dishes, if anyone wants to come over and do some light housekeeping.