Devouring Films: Whip It

If you haven't seen Whip It yet, then I really don't know what to do with you. It's one of those films that I was really excited about for a really long time before it came out, and then it was released in about 5 cinemas and so I never saw it until it came out on DVD. Luckily for me, it's usually on TV about once a month or so (it used to be on Netflix, but apparently not anymore...) AND I'm usually watching TV when it's on so I watch parts of it all the time.

This happened the other week, and this time, I had a little bit of an epiphany. Whip It, in case you don't know, is the story of Bliss Cavendar (Ellen Page), a kind of shy, slightly awkward girl from Texas who, once she knows about it, wants to be a roller derby girl more than anything else in the whole world. While it's mostly a film about growing up and finding peace with your mother and being a best friend and being a better person, it's really the whole roller derby thing that's the best thing. And I love it.

My revelation, though, came when I realised that, for Bliss, her extra-curricular activities have the option of taking one of two paths. The choice her mother wants to make for her is that of the beauty queen- she forces encourages her to take part in beauty pageants which really don't fulfil Bliss in any way. The choice she wants to make for herself, of course, is roller derby- a (kinda) death defying sport where women roller skate around a track, trying to overtake each other and getting kind of battered in the process. It. Looks. Awesome. You know, in case that wasn't clear.

So. My thing is this. Other than that it's Bliss's own choice to participate in roller derby, and she's really only going along with the beauty pageant thing to please her mother, it seems to me that roller derby has about a million other advantages over beauty pageants.* I'm not entirely sure what beauty pageants teach young women other than how to be passive, look nice, and compete with other girls over who is the most physically attractive, as if that's how people should be evaluated. It seems to me that roller derby teaches actual lessons- how women should work together, how action is better than passivity, how sport can actually be kind of awesome. AND they manage to do all of this and still look pretty awesome, but that's absolutely a secondary factor.

The thing about this isn't so much that I think roller derby is a better way to spend ones time than beauty pageants, but more that, in terms of this movie, I think this is literally what they're saying. It's not really an important plot point for Bliss's 'other option' to be beauty pageants, but that's what it is, and this film is practically screaming 'THERE IS ANOTHER WAY. Or, in fact, there are probably many other ways but we're going to look at roller derby because LOOK HOW AWESOME IT IS.' So you've kind of got a mini-critique of beauty pageants tied up with all of the other awesome stuff there is to see in this film. OR I've seen it too many times and thought too much about it.

In conclusion: I'd really like to be a roller derby girl. I can make this happen, correct?

*Can you even believe that I don't think beauty pageants are cool? How out of character for me!
Beauty Queen vs Roller derby champ. Discuss.

Sunday Sundries: This isn't going to be about feminism only it sort of is

Greetings, from chilly, chilly England!

Things seem to have taken a turn for the winter here of late, which makes sense since it's basically the end of November, but still. I will not have it. In a weirdly insulting turn of events, Tumblr just told me my browser was outdated when I went to find the above gif, and wow. That's not cool, Tumblr.

Anyway, stuff. It's Sunday! I... haven't really done anything this week. SHOCKER, I know, but there you go. I have to have some standards of consistency. Mostly I've been spending the week either complaining that I'm too hot or too cold, mostly because I've usually been too hot or too cold (I know). This is mainly down to the fact that I live and work in places that have insufficient central heating, so I have to rely on heaters that make me too hot, but you can't turn them off because FREEZING and goddamn, I hate winter already.

So, instead of ranting on about how I'm always either too hot or too cold lately and it's making me GROUCHY, I'm going to talk about a thing like I used to do sometimes, and then you can tell me things you think about it, if you want. I know, it's a good plan, I like it too.

So here is the thing: How important do we think it is for a TV character to be like you to be able to relate to them? What I mean is this: there's a lot of talk (and I am usually the one doing it) about the lack of anyone who isn't a straight white male on tv. I mean, obviously basically every TV show has women in it (the same can't be said for non-white, or non-heterosexual people, sadly) but they're usually in less important, background roles, like in say Breaking Bad, or The Sopranos. New Girl is called New Girl, but there are now 4 main dude characters and two women. I mean, it's a fairly dire situation, when you look at it statistically.

If we put that aside just for a second (not because it's unimportant, but because I want to work with the characters we do have for a minute), I'm wondering: is it that important for a character to be like you in terms of your gender/race/sexuality for you to be able to relate to them? What I'm really saying is, I am basically Nick Miller, and I don't feel weird saying that because I'm not a white dude.

It would be kind of embarrassing for me to list all the ways in which I am Nick Miller, but will it be enough to say that I am Nick and he is me? No? Well, ok then- we're both underemployed, super poor, really grumpy, maybe a tiny bit lazy and, you know, we both fancy Zooey Deschanel. Whilst I am Nick Miller, I also love Nick Miller, which makes things slightly complicated in my head because apparently I love myself? But the point is, I relate to him more than any other character on New Girl, which makes his successes my successes, and his failures my failures. At least, you know, a bit, and it doesn't feel weird that I relate less to Jess who, presumably should be my role model and whatnot (to be fair, she is a much better role model than Nick Miller. Just sayin.)

And then, another character I relate to but also would marry is Luke from Gilmore Girls. And Gilmore Girls is a programme with plenty of female characters to consider myself most like, and yet it is the grumpy but kindly dude from the diner that I consider myself to be most like, even though I feel like I would get a lot more annoyed with Lorelei than he does because OMG you talk too much, woman. Maybe that's a thing- that I like grumpy characters who don't always have to talk, but always have a presence when they're onscreen (obviously, cause that's the way narratives work...) and that is the kind of thing that women characters are not encouraged to be.

So, in other words, maybe I have to relate to the dude characters cause the women aren't ever written in that way, which is a big lie on behalf of all TV cause hello! Here I am being all quiet and moody over here! Not, you know, perky and nice and generally go getting and excellent.

So, to bring this back to the start... does it matter that I relate to dude characters more than the girl ones sometimes? No. Not when the female characters are hardly ever written in a way I relate to, but maybe that's because I'm an unconventional girl. But does it matter that there isn't a vivid array of different female characters in every TV show (well, maybe not every TV show), as well as people of colour and gay people? It does. It really really does. There are only a handful of shows I can think of that even come close to balancing the male:female ratio, and even ones that do don't always show a wide array of different characteristics within their women characters- because guys, 'femaleness' is not a trait, and seriously, we come in just as many different character types and styles as dudes do. REFLECT THIS, PLEASE.

Actual lady character I do relate to.

Parks and Recreation (which I will endeavour to write a post about this week) is as close to being perfect in a male-female way as I could hope, AND it's basically one of the best comedy series I've ever watched. IT CAN BE DONE, and it can be done well. For reals.

So tell me- do you think this is an issue or am I just making a fuss out of nothing? (I'm not). And which TV characters do you relate to that are so like you, but also so not like you? It can't be weirder than Nick Miller, is all I'm saying.

Devouring Books: Rosemary's Baby by Ira Levin

*ADVERTISEMENT: I use Grammarly for english proofreading because every grammar error spawns a new devil baby and THAT MUST BE STOPPED.*

I read Rosemary's Baby almost immediately after reading The Stepford Wives, which, is not only the way I used to read pre-blogging (same author, ALL their books) but should definitely be taken as a ringing endorsement for Ira Levin. Whilst I felt like The Stepford Wives was maybe a bit... brief, and I knew too much about it for it to be really effective, I also got what Levin was trying to do and I liked it a lot. So, Rosemary's Baby it was!

I knew a little bit about Rosemary's Baby before I read it, but not nearly as much as I knew about The Stepford Wives, so it had that going for it from the outset. The things I knew (which I won't tell you about because what if you don't know?!) are sort of the big twist of the story, BUT there were still enough details and things I didn't know, like the twist at the end (it's a very twisty book) that made it completely worth reading, and completely excellent to read.

The story goes like this: Rosemary and her husband Guy are looking for somewhere new to live, and have actually agreed to live in one place when an apartment in a beautiful yet possibly cursed building which, of course, they can't resist. Upon moving into the apartment whose previous inhabitant died after being in a looooong (and obviously creepy) coma, Rosemary makes friends with a girl living next door with the old (and dare I add again, creepy) couple next door, and her apparent suicide kicks into motion a chain of horrifying events that could make a reader very very uneasy about a number of different things.

Because, here we go, things Rosemary's Baby has made me uneasy about:

• Trusting old people: They could be out to get you in ways I won't describe but let's just say it has something to do with religion. Of course.
• Moving out: So, of the few books I've read since leaving home, at least two of them (this, and The Stepford Wives, funnily enough) have involved characters leaving the safety of where they lived before for a new location where strange and terrible things start to happen. THANKS FOR THAT, IRA. Waiting for something weird to happen any day now.
• Having a baby: Yeahhh, that's kind of the whole deal with this one. I think there are a lot of interesting links to be made between the way women are treated when they're pregnant, and the ultimate badness that happens in this book. There's a real sense in which women are not allowed to think for themselves whilst pregnant, and whilst normally doing whatever doctors tell you to do is probably fine, what if it isn't? And also, what if bad things are happening and there are conspiracies and aghhhhhh *hyperventilates*. Basically, this book makes having a baby seem terrifying in quite a few ways, not just the obvious.

Speaking of that feminist thing*, Rosemary's Baby not only speaks out against women having no control over their bodies whilst pregnant (something which STILL happens today) but also makes it clear just how difficult womanhood was in the sixties. Rosemary is from the Midwest and doesn't speak to her family, which leaves her with Guy and Hutch, a father figure who mysteriously falls into a long coma somewhere in the middle of all the drama, leaving Rosemary with only Guy, who we can't be sure can be trusted. Somewhere else in the middle of all this is a marital rape (sort of- by which I mean, it's sort of marital, but it's definitely rape), which Guy tries to explain away by basically saying that he wanted to do it so it's fine. Thankfully, narrative-wise, it's not brushed over and Rosemary DOES have bad feelings about it, BUT it's also very clear that she has nowhere else to turn, and there's not much she can do other than go back to the husband that raped her (again, sort of.) It's very frustrating, but also thought provoking and, you know, I think we need that.

Other than thought provoking though, this book is just very very effective at making you feel uneasy and troubled and all of those other good things. I couldn't even tell you how Levin does it, but I guess it's something to do with the normal, everyday things that any of us could be doing, being combined with some occurrences that are very strange, scary even, that we then have to agree could also happen to us because the other things are so realistic too. I can see exactly why it was so popular in the sixties and was made into a film right away (or so the last season of Mad Men told me) because it's just so... gripping and scary but in a completely normal setting. Very effective stuff.

So, come one, come all! Read Rosemary's Baby for the thrills and chills, stay for the feminist discourse. Or... You could probably just read it for what it is (a pretty great horror novel) and skip all that boring stuff** because it's pretty fantastic either way. Just... Maybe don't read it tonight, ok? Because I feel like Halloween is the night when unease can turn to, you know terror. Especially if you're pregnant...

*'Oh, is that what we were doing?' I hear you cry! Yes. Yes it was. It always is, even when it seems like it's not.

**By boring stuff, I obviously mean the stuff that MAKES ME GO ON EVERY DAY. You know, the usual.

"An old unresolved confusion gathered like asthma in Denise. She felt a need to get away and cook."

So what, we're on week ninety billion of The Corrections readalong now?

I think this will come to be known as, at least in my brain, the week I gave up on The Corrections with my soul. My eyes and my brain will still be reading it, but my soul is pretty sure that there's no hope for it ever getting, you know, actually good. Or of any characters being great. Or of anything happening that I remotely care about. I just... don't.

I got really bored this week, was the thing. For the last two weeks, I've been pretty much going 'ewwwwww' or 'OMG I hate you' or 'WTF, talking poo?!' but this week I just couldn't summon up the energy to care about anything that even happened. I had high hopes for Denise's life story, but that pretty much boiled down to 'she has an older dude complex because she lost her virginity to an old dude, and also she's probably a lesbian.' Which, I'm sure could have been interesting and complex if the whole time I was reading I wasn't thinking 'I bet this is how Franzen gets himself off...'

I know.

As to whether I still like Denise or not... I don't know. I know I don't hate her (she's not even interesting enough to hate) but she definitely has some loose morals going on, and Franzen's included stuff like this: "There was never much satisfaction for Denise in competing with girls" which makes me haaaaaaaate him because OMG obviously girls who are really good at things don't like competing with girls because ALL OTHER GIRLS (except his character) are bad at things. But Denise is good at things because she comes from his brain and he's a man (in fact, he's Jonathan fucking Franzen) so that's ok. 

THIS IS NOT HOW WE OPERATE, SHUT YOUR DISGUSTING SEXIST MOUTH I HATE YOU.

Let's see, what else, what else? Well, I'd love to have gone on Denise's food journey across Europe because HOW AWESOME DOES THAT SOUND (minus, you know, the proposition from the married man at the end, WHY DO ALL THE MARRIED MEN WANT TO CHEAT ON THEIR WIVES?!) and also I kind of want to be the head chef at my own restaurant? Minus the shagging the owner's wife, of course. Important question- is Brian even allowed to fire Denise for having sex with his wife? Because... it kind of seems like he isn't? I want to bring the Citizen's Advice Bureau into this. 

I don't know, other things probably happened, but I stopped caring about 50 pages in? Oh, wait, Alfred is alive somehow! I completely predict a change of character in the last section, where he nearly died so he's all grateful to be alive. Has to happen. And Chip came back! I'm sure we were all really glad about that, am I right? I really really skimmed the Lithuania stuff, but I did pick up on a couple of things:

"If his sister was on her way out as a lesbian... then she could definitely now use the support of her Foucaultian older brother, but Chip wasn't ready to go home yet, and so he assumed that his memory had deceived him and that her phrase had referred to something else." 

Oh really Chip? You're going to do whatever you want instead of being there for another human being? HOW SURPRISING.

Also, this:

"Chip put his arms around his friend... He felt as if he were hugging himself, feeling his own primate shoulder blades, the scratch of his own woolen sweater."

As if we needed any more evidence that Chip is in love with himself.

Official theme song for this book. 

Devouring Films: Miss Representation

Miss Representation is a documentary that's been on my radar for the longest time- I actually get email updates from the organisation that either came from or made the film (I'm a little sketchy on the details, and I also don't even remember signing up for them, but there you go) that are essentially 'this terrible thing happened for women' or 'look at this awesome thing that happened for women'.

Needless to say, I get a lot of emails like this.

Anyway. So I'd never actually seen the documentary because I don't think it's out on DVD and it's been difficult to find online until, lo and behold, it appeared on Netflix one day! A few million episodes of Parks and Recreation and Extreme Couponing later, I finally watched it and I. Got. So. Angry.

At just, everything. At how, if you're a woman, you're only allowed to be on TV if you're really thin and really beautiful. At how, if you're a woman and you want to be a politician, instead of getting to share your ideas on how the world should be, you're really just opening yourself up to a discussion about your looks, style, and personality. At how, even though this documentary got so many powerful and successful women (Condeleezza Rice, Katie Couric, Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi, Gloria Steinem) to talk about their experiences (not one of which was without sexism), you'd be hard pressed to think of many more women in the media who would even be qualified to talk about things like this because women are not valued in the media. At least not as creators of news, but definitely as objects of it.

So yeah, Miss Representation is about how women are represented (MISrepresented) in the media, and just how fucked up everything in the world is ever. The way I see it, it's like the women's movement happened, things got better for women legally and kind of socially and The-Men-Who-Run-Everything went 'shit! We can't let this happen!' and did everything they could to make women insecure, self-hating, body image OBSESSED and just generally made to feel as though they're not good enough for anything. This takes a few different forms, from airbrushing in every photo you see in a magazine so that some impossible standards of beauty are created, to abusing female politicians, mostly about the way they look, but also about the audacity of their decision to, you know, leave the kitchen, when obviously nobody wants to hear what they have to say. Because of their vaginas.

What it comes down to is this: The media has created an impossible, impossible situation for women where you have to be THE most beautiful creature in the whole world or nobody will like you, but at the same time, even when you are this most beautiful creature, you're not allowed to do anything because you're just a woman, and don't be silly, women don't have ideas or anything! It's not even just that though- it seems that, if women try to be or do anything that they're not expected to do, there's always some negative spin to be put on it- for example, I present you with this article about the fact that 3/5 of young doctors are female (How cool is that?!) and why that's a problem because you know the wimmins are just going to ruin everything with their lady bits and baby having.

AND it's not just that. Everywhere, everywhere, everywhere, women are UNDER represented on TV. There are so few TV shows that star women, and even less that are considered 'important' viewing, for the pure reason that TV shows and films starring men are supposed to appeal to both genders, whereas those starring women are only supposed to appeal to women. That is complete BULLSHIT, of course, and THEN so many movies that star women are really about men because, let's face it, all women really want to do is get married and have babies and that's IT. And it's the 'that's IT' bit that's really the problem because, you know, I think that is something that many many women do want, but what about everything else we want? Why is that never talked about and explored, and why doesn't anyone make movies about it, and why why why are we left with such shallow and flat and non-exploratory definitions of what women want and what motivates them and what else there is to life apart from men and babies?

I realise I kind of haven't talked about the documentary that much, but really the questions it raises from the evidence it gives are more important than the film itself. It's a good film- well made, well thought out arguments- it does almost completely focus on the US, but the US is fucked up enough to provide evidence for a whole documentary, and from that you can really apply it to other places (as I did to the UK, obviously) easily. It's going to make you really fucking angry, and you know what? You should be angry. You should stay angry. The way women are treated by the media isn't fair, it isn't right, and being angry about it, and voting with your remote control and NOT just letting it fade into the background of your thoughts is the only way to combat it.

This documentary has reminded me why I get so angry when people say that feminism isn't necessary anymore, and why I'll remain angry until I see as many women as men on my TV, in my government, in businesses, making movies and writing TV shows, and until those women are allowed to look exactly the way they want to look, not the way it works for the media to have them look to conform to some bullshit standards of beauty. Until, in other words, women get the same treatment as men by the media. I mean, come on. It's only fair, right?

Devouring Books: Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi

I have kind of decided, at this point, that Graphic-Novels-that-are-also-memoirs are my jam. I'm not sure what it is about them, but it could be the fact that you can finish them in a day and still feel like you've absorbed someone's entire life story (or, at least, the important bits) and, if you're really lucky, that you've learnt something about how people in different situations to you live AND you've learnt something about how those people actually aren't that different from you, at least not at their core. And that's something that's been true of Maus and of Fun Home (basically the other two graphic-novel-memoirs I've read) and it's also the case with Persepolis.*

So Persepolis is Marjane Satrapi's story- one of being born into an Iran that was fairly liberal, and then suddenly, almost without warning, living in one that becomes extremely extremely oppressive, in religious terms and especially for women, when she's about 10. This is where the book begins, and from there, it's basically what that was like, her thoughts on it, and her eventual emigration from Iran. And THAT'S just part one! Part two is equally as interesting, as it documents Satrapi's time abroad, but also what it's like to come back to a place that you know is as oppressive as Iran is.

And it's pretty awesome. There's so much insight into social and religious issues alongside Satrapi's life story that it's clear that these are issues she's thought about deeply and has a lot to say about, and it's really a pleasure to read. I know I laughed out loud a few times, and, since I read it on my epic holiday to Didcot, I insisted that Frances keep it and read it right away (which she has. And I think her mum has too. And also this review is going to be faaaairly non-specific because she still has it.)

Here's an example of one of the issues that Satrapi covers, which I remember because it's also the kind of thing I think about a lot and I am really interested by. The thought is this: part of the oppression of women in Iran is making them wear the kind of clothing that covers up every single part of their body, hair and legs and, you know, all the parts. Whilst I'm totally open to the idea of this being a powerful act in a place where dressing like this is a woman's choice**, when it's the rule of an entire country for all women, I'm not so much down with it. The point that Satrapi makes is this- making women cover themselves up at all times is not only oppressive to women, it's oppressive to men too- the idea behind it is that it's for the women's own protection as men can't control themselves if they saw a woman in, I don't know, jeans or whatever and seriously, isn't that so insulting?

(Seriously, this is why every man who isn't a rapist should speak out against victim blaming and all sorts of other bad things that go on when rape is involved because OH MY GOD if you're saying 'she shouldn't have drunk so much' or 'she shouldn't have worn such provocative clothes' then the thing you're not saying is 'because men can't be expected to control themselves' and how insulting is it to be treated like a being with only primitive instincts? Like I say, this is something I've thought about a lot.)

Anyway! So that kind of thing made me really open up to this book and made me want to know more about Satrapi's life because, you know, this is a woman I can really see eye to eye with despite our wildly different backgrounds (like, seriously. Crazy different.) If there was one thing I would say about it, it's that whilst I was completely captivated by Satrapi's story (and not just because, ooh, pictures!) I was also aware that her's wasn't the typical experience of women in Iran, and hey, how about one of those stories, please? This isn't a criticism of Persepolis at all, more of a cry for more graphic novels, from a wider range of women and, you know, MOAR LADIES STORIES PLEASE.

Obviously you should definitely read this since it ranks up in the heights of Maus (which is one of my favourite books of any kind ever) and Fun Home, and because feminism and religious skepticism and this little gem?

You definitely want to read this. And HEY if you already have can we talk about feminism and religion and things in the comments please? Or, actually, can we just do that anyway? Of COURSE we can!

*Obviously. Otherwise why would I have brought it up?

**If going out wearing hardly any clothes is an act of freedom, then why can't going out covering everything up be? 

Devouring Books: Little Men by Louisa May Alcott

"No person, no matter how vivid an imagination he may have, can invent anything half so droll as the freaks and fancies that originate in the lively brains of little people."

I have read Little Women (or, if you're American, the first part of Little Women) approximately a million times, but until I was nearly 21 (and prompted by the SHOCK of seeing the second half of the movie where Christian Bale is Laurie) I hadn't even read Good Wives (or, if you're American, the second part of Little Women). Considering how much I love Little Women (and that, by the way, is A LOT) this was kind of ridiculous in itself, and even more ridiculous is that I've owned the third part of this saga for a long time now, and I didn't read it until the other week. I don't even want to go into how my brain works, but the obvious answer is: Not well.

Anyway. It has been read now, and the verdict? Kind of... Mixed. Here's the thing- when I DID finally read Good Wives (ugh, that title...), even though I disagree with a lot of the things that happened in it (I'm never going to be OK with Laurie and Amy. I'm just not) it was so lovely to read because here were some characters I knew really well, and they were doing things again and figuring stuff out and OBVIOUSLY DOING WITCHCRAFT TO GET LAURIE TO MARRY THEM, and basically it's a gay old time, and even though I'm never going to love that half of Little Women as much as the first half because I read it too late, it's still good.

Little Men is good in it's own way, too, but... It was disappointing. I think that Alcott was basically like 'OK, well, I'm done with the girls now, so let's move on to the next generation' and that's what she does. And I understand her doing that, in terms of wanting to tell the stories of the next generation, but... I'm old now. I'm very, very old, and I almost... don't want to read the stories of 10(ish) year old boys? And, when I'm finally reading the third in a series of four books that I started when I was about 12, it's reasonable to expect the author to focus on the characters that I want her to, and to ignore doing something new with different characters, right?

So. Disappointing in a it's-not-Little-Women way? Yes. But actively terrible? Not at all! Alcott is still fine at writing, and her boys are interesting and fun, and have their flaws and whatnot and it's fairly fun and, let's face it, easy to read about them. Their little adventures do call to mind the ones Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy had in Little Women, and just, Alcott's really good at creating characters who are likeable but not perfect and just, generally, like real little boys.

But. I've read some reviews of Little Women by people who didn't read it when they were 12 (and from then on) and I've always been perplexed as to why they're so negative- talking about things like the moralising that's rammed down your throat and the gentle brand of sexism that comes from being a woman in the 19th century and believing that the entire POINT of your being is to marry a man and be his support. And, whilst I can't see that in Little Women unless I look REALLY HARD, it's all over the place in Little Men, mostly with the fact that Jo (who is the only one of the sisters with a main part in this book- Amy and Meg make maybe two appearances each) doesn't seem to do anything any more except be a mother to a load of boys.

This is Jo, we're talking about. Jo, who is about the least maternal person ever, and who is a writer for fucks sake! She runs a school with her husband (who is a genuine Professor, to be fair) and she can't even teach a creative writing class? Or just an English Lit in general class? No, Jo's apparently just content to sit back and let Professor Bhaer do that kind of work while she teaches the only girls in the school HOW TO COOK, and it's seen as some kind of progress for her character because she's finally learnt how to be a proper woman. COME ON, Louisa, what are you doing to me?!

Ahem. Apparently I'm angrier at this book than I realised, and I need to take into account society's values and blah blah blah, but from a modern woman's perspective... Yeah. This IS bullshit. But, like I've said, it's nice. It's nice as long as you ignore everything you used to know about Jo (which, frankly, you might as well) and if I'd read it along with Little Women when I was 12, I doubt I'd have such a problem with it now. But I do. And that's probably a good thing.

All that being said, I kind of still want to read Jo's Boys for the sake of, I don't know, completeness or something, so I guess you can pretty much take all my criticism with a pinch of salt that lovely Mother Jo will get you to add to a pie crust or something. But I'm still pissed off.

Sunday Sundries: Ms, Miss, or Mrs?

Happy Sunday blogettes! I have very little life happenings to report this week, having had the first 3 days of the week off work to recover from the ILLNESS THAT TRIED TO KILL ME, so that involved basically just laying around and watching tv (managed to finish Season 3 of The Wire though, so that's good!) and then I did go back to work and it totally tired me out so then both of those nights I kind of... laid around and watched tv.

I'll be more interesting next week, honest!

Ok, now I'm going to make a point about a thing that I've been thinking about for... about as long as I've been at my job. And, well, for longer than that, really, but it's been really pissing me off for about 4 months now, so. Obviously I'm not going to tell you ALL about my job because it's top secret and blah blah blah, and also because it's not that smart to talk about work on the internet, but basically I listen to phone calls and score them according to guidelines and blah blah blah (Don't get jealous- it really is that boring).

Anyway. Part of the whole process is that whoever is conducting the call needs to get the caller's name because, you know, common courtesy and all that. And when it comes to women callers, the assumption is almost ALWAYS that they're a Mrs. Even when they've given their first and last names, with no title, still it is assumed that they're a Mrs., or, if they sound young, then they're obviously a Miss.

It just makes me wonder, what the HELL has happened to Ms.? (For the record, if they say their full name without a title, I always record them as Ms. I'm fighting the SYSTEM, man!)

I mean, seriously, why are we still living in a time where women are defined by their marital status? Such advances feminism has made, and we still have to put up with people assuming that we're married, or that we're not. And the thing about it is, none of this is malicious in any way, it's almost an unconscious assumption that if a woman is a certain age that she must be married, and therefore she's a Mrs., which really doesn't allow for the billions of differences between women that may be a reason that they reject that particular title.

The thing is this. If you look at basically any form, the title option goes like this: Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms. At least Ms. is basically always included, but if you ask me, that option should just be Mr/Ms (oh yeah, also Dr, and Rev, and whatever else. But for the ladies and the dudes). I mean, how simple is that? No one needs to worry themselves about whether anyone else is married, and no one needs to define themselves by being married, or not so much. I feel like there's a real stigma against 'Ms', like if you use it you're this crazy angry feminist, who no one likes, and to THAT I say firstly, shut up;

and secondly, look, defining women by their marital status is sooooo old, and part of a really gross patriarchal system that it would be really easy to defy if everyone just called themselves Ms.

Plus, you know, it would stop me getting pissed off at work every 5 minutes.

As always, I'm not saying that people are wrong for calling themselves Mrs, or Miss, and if I'm honest, probably about 95% of the time, the women who don't title themselves probably are 'Mrs' someone and don't even notice what's being done to them. I'm not even going to touch the whole 'taking his name' when you get married thing, but I honestly think that the Ms/Mrs/Miss thing is a much more important thing to think about because, well, it's no one else's business what your marital status is, men don't have to have it hanging out there at all times on their names, and it should be no different for women.

*Relinquishes soapbox for next speaker of awesomeness*

But, I mean, I'm right though, right? Or am I making mountains out of molehills? I'm aware that there are some more important issues affecting women that should maybe take precedence over this one, but it's such a small thing that makes a really big symbolic difference. I'll always be a Ms, anyway.