mtv lifer writing a Joss Whedon biography to come out in 2014.
i watch a lot of television. a lot.
and i talk about fandom and television in general a lot.
when not slacking off, i'm rambling at PopGurls.com
(not as much lately)

I just noticed something strange on Wikipedia. It appears that gradually, over time, editors have begun the process of moving women, one by one, alphabetically, from the “American Novelists” category to the “American Women Novelists” subcategory. So far, female authors whose last names begin with A or B have been most affected, although many others have, too.

The intention appears to be to create a list of “American Novelists” on Wikipedia that is made up almost entirely of men. The category lists 3,837 authors, and the first few hundred of them are mainly men. The explanation at the top of the page is that the list of “American Novelists” is too long, and therefore the novelists have to be put in subcategories whenever possible.

Too bad there isn’t a subcategory for “American Men Novelists.”

"

Wikipedia’s sexism toward female novelists (via explore-blog)

IMPORTANT UPDATE the author, Amanda Filipacchi, from Sunday:

“In an Op-Ed article I wrote, published on The New York Times’s Web site on Wednesday, I suggested it was too bad that there wasn’t a subcategory for “American Men Novelists.” And what do you know; shortly after, a new subcategory called exactly that appeared.

But there was more. Much more. As soon as the Op-Ed article appeared, unhappy Wikipedia editors pounced on my Wikipedia page and started making alterations to it, erasing as much as they possibly could without (I assume) technically breaking the rules. They removed the links to outside sources, like interviews of me and reviews of my novels. Not surprisingly, they also removed the link to the Op-Ed article. At the same time, they put up a banner at the top of my page saying the page needed “additional citations for verifications.” Too bad they’d just taken out the useful sources.

In 24 hours, there were 22 changes to my page. Before that, there had been 22 changes in four years. Thursday night, a kind soul went in there and put back the deleted sources. The Wiki editors instantly took them out again.”

(via glintglimmergleam)

Wikipedia is a great resource and actually a really terrible place full of awful people

(via ravenqueered)

How passive aggressive mature. This is why we can’t have nice things.

(via fizzingwizard)

I am tired of being called a shrieking harridan for pointing out inequalities so tangible and blatant that they are regularly codified into law. I am tired of being told to provide documentation of inequality in the comments sections of a website where a staff of smart women documents inequality as fast as our fingers can move. Like, you might as well write me a note on a banana peel demanding that I prove to you that bananas exist. I am tired of being asked to “cite sources” proving that sexism is real (that RAPE is real, even!), because there is no way to concisely cite decades and decades of rigorous academia. Allow me to point at the fucking library. We can’t cite “everything,” and our challengers know that. It’s an insulting diversionary tactic, it’s an attempt to drag us all backwards, and fuck it. Do your own research like the rest of the grown-ups.

What are you supposed to do when someone asks you to “prove” that feminism isn’t a massive conspiracy theory in a country where we’ve only had 39 female senators in the nation’s entire history, and 20 of them are serving right now? What kind of a stupid fucking question is that? What are you supposed to say when the 8,000th faux-incredulous jackass throws you the same argument about the wage gap or the draft or bumbling dads in Tide commercials—as though holding each of their hands individually through the empirical facts of the world around us is a worthwhile use of my time. As though feminist academics haven’t filled books (decades of books) with answers to that shit already. As though they believe that if they can keep you occupied refuting their flimsy trump cards over and over forever, they can stave off any changes to the culture that keeps them on top. 

— Lindy West

 

popgurlie:

Apparently Bic felt that ladies needed pens just for them, because our hands just can’t handle standard pens. Are standard pens just too manly? Is that why there are no “Bic For Him” pens — just too damn redundant?

some reviews:

These are more than just pens. They are little pink saviours. Every girl and woman should own one.

As a MILLIONAIRE AUTHOR of BESTSELLING TECHNO-THRILLERS, I have to say that I was very disappointed with this pen. Whenever I tried to write punchy, in-your-face prose about the nuclear payload capabilities of the B-2 Northrop-Grunmann stealth bomber, I found myself instead writing about shopping, cocktails and friendship. And when I tried to write the title ‘OPERATION CRISIS POINT’ at the top of the page, I found myself writing ‘DIARY OF A THIRTYSOMETHING’ instead. Is Jeremy Renner gonna want to star in the movie adaptation of that? IS HE HECK.

I feel I must complain in the strongest terms about the sexism of this item. Where are the “For Him” pens? How can I embrace my masculinity, when there is no pen for me? Am I destined to just watch all of the women around me falling into a sparkly dream of ponies, crochet and butterflies, while I pace angrily here, unable to access the manly world of construction vehicles, barbeques, motor racing and science? I can barely adjust my crotch, I am so angry.

Make pens For Him. Strong pens. Manly pens. Pens that dress on the right. Pens with good grips for masculine hands. MANPENS!

I always have difficulty with that little clicky thing at the bottom of biro’s. Can never really work out what it’s for although my husband tells me it’s a special way that men have for pushing up the ink filled tube in order that the pens write. Not being a man myself, I have obviously never been privvy to that little secret.

But NOW we lucky ladies have a pen designed just for us. How marvellous. Thank you for making my life just a little more pink, it will go wonderfully well with my pink poodle and pink towels.

A few years ago, I did dreadfully badly at my university exams and I now know why, I had purchased a wrongly-gendered pen. I may sue BIC at some point if I can persuade my husband to drive me to a lawyers office.

Listen BIC, any chance you could produce a ladies pencil to go with it? Preferably one that doesn’t have that complicated little clicker on the bottom because, as I’ve already said, I’ve never mastered those.

sex-positive-bitches:

Kristen Stewart: smiling is not an obligation, professional or otherwise

 ”She stands out on the red carpet because she does not smile broadly or pose; she usually looks slightly uncomfortable. Of her red-carpet experience,Stewart said:People say that I’m miserable all the time. It’s not that I’m miserable, it’s just that somebody’s yelling at me…I literally, sometimes, have to keep myself from crying…It’s a physical reaction to the energy that’s thrown at you.”
“Stewart is often a target of a specific kind of body policing: the “smile, baby” requirement. When she appears on the red carpet and does not assure us with her teeth that she is simply thrilled to be reduced to a presence, a dress, a posture, she is often the target of harassment for her expression. There is an expectation of women in general and famous woman in particular to always assure the onlooker that they are happy to be looked upon through smiling, and Stewart rejects this.”
“Women are expected to be nice and sweet, to make other people feel comfortable. A woman who says ‘hey, I think there’s a problem here’ is being ‘negative.’ A woman who doesn’t smile while she’s being harassed is ‘humourless.’ A woman who prefers to stay focused on tasks is a ‘cold bitch.’ Significant gendering is involved here; women have an obligation to look and act a certain way and when they don’t, they need to be hassled until they do.”

sex-positive-bitches:

Kristen Stewart: smiling is not an obligation, professional or otherwise

 ”She stands out on the red carpet because she does not smile broadly or pose; she usually looks slightly uncomfortable. Of her red-carpet experience,Stewart said:
People say that I’m miserable all the time. It’s not that I’m miserable, it’s just that somebody’s yelling at me…I literally, sometimes, have to keep myself from crying…It’s a physical reaction to the energy that’s thrown at you.”

Stewart is often a target of a specific kind of body policing: the “smile, baby” requirement. When she appears on the red carpet and does not assure us with her teeth that she is simply thrilled to be reduced to a presence, a dress, a posture, she is often the target of harassment for her expression. There is an expectation of women in general and famous woman in particular to always assure the onlooker that they are happy to be looked upon through smiling, and Stewart rejects this.”

“Women are expected to be nice and sweet, to make other people feel comfortable. A woman who says ‘hey, I think there’s a problem here’ is being ‘negative.’ A woman who doesn’t smile while she’s being harassed is ‘humourless.’ A woman who prefers to stay focused on tasks is a ‘cold bitch.’ Significant gendering is involved here; women have an obligation to look and act a certain way and when they don’t, they need to be hassled until they do.”

thegreenwolf:

Dear Facebook,
No, switching over to leet speak as my language on my account and finding that “female” became “sandwich maker” was NOT amusing or funny or a good joke. It was sexist and disgusting; it’s basically another version of the bullshit misogynist putdown “get back in the kitchen”, used to belittle and marginalize women for entirely too long.
If FB for whatever had a “race” setting, would it be okay if the only option for black people was “n*****” or “slave”? Really, how did this even get through?
This is a pretty rotten Easter egg, folks.
No love,
Lupa
PS to readers—here’s where you can go report it: https://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=ui_profile


wow. fb. they seemed to have changed it, but the fact that female was EVER “sandwich maker” is fucked up.

thegreenwolf:

Dear Facebook,

No, switching over to leet speak as my language on my account and finding that “female” became “sandwich maker” was NOT amusing or funny or a good joke. It was sexist and disgusting; it’s basically another version of the bullshit misogynist putdown “get back in the kitchen”, used to belittle and marginalize women for entirely too long.

If FB for whatever had a “race” setting, would it be okay if the only option for black people was “n*****” or “slave”? Really, how did this even get through?

This is a pretty rotten Easter egg, folks.

No love,

Lupa

PS to readers—here’s where you can go report it: https://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=ui_profile

wow. fb. they seemed to have changed it, but the fact that female was EVER “sandwich maker” is fucked up.