Aww

Boys are so funny.

Not in the "wah, boys are such strange creatures that I don't understand!" whiney way that, yeah I know, I have lamented in the blog before. What I mean is guys are just funny. They are creatures of entertainment, and are quick to take every opportunity to crack an inappropriate joke, or make people squirmishly uncomfortable. They have comedic timing, usually, and they're witty, hilarious, and I swear they just get away with so much more shit than women do. Look, I just typed shit, twice. You know what I think when I write shit (thrice!) in one post? I think, damn, now I look really unlady-like. I think, well great, now I'm an uncouth female writer and I'm taking cheap shots because I ran out of the really melodic, lyrical bull that I'm used to putting out in the world. I think, I seem like freaking Amy Poehler, and I don't think she's funny. I think she's crass and a little disgusting and like I'd rather rub a dead rat on my hand than watch her on TV. When a guy swears in his writing, like say in another blog that I frequent written by a certain boyperson/coworker/I bet you won't notice this for a week does, the profanity comes off not only pithy and adeptly turned, but I swear to God sometimes it sounds brilliant. Like fuck was the greatest word ever invented, or shit was the best descriptor anyone has ever used. I have never had so much aggravated language in a blog post before, and I will brazenly admit that it feels both liberating and, well, twitchy. My leg is popping up and down now. Swearing in public turns me into the squirrel from Hoodwinked.

I was reading Marie Claire which, I still think, is one of the best women's magazines out there today. It's informed, intelligent, and it makes a damn good case for being an independent, free-thinking woman. All the important "IN" words for women. But, it's really just not funny. There are polite quips and banter here and there, and the recent article about dealing with the downside of wedding season (omg, totally do not give the same gift to every bride and groom you see this year) is supposed to be so funny because they include a sidebar on how to handle nasty 911 situations, like the bride being pregnant on her wedding day. Do NOT make jokes about her belly and how she's a mommy-to-be, FYI. Holy fuck (whoo! count 6) it's just boring. But it's the kind of humor that women are accustomed to and hits right in their comfort zone. Polite giggles with your hand held over your mouth, right ladies? Throwing your head back and laughing at a magazine would be, well, in poor taste. Boys get Maxim. Boys get Details. Boys get freaking Playboy. Not saying I want naked dudes linked in with my intellectual stimulation, but when women try to put it all together it just comes off smutty. Hello, Cosmo.

The Daily Show has all dudes, right? Are there any women? I'm not a habitual watcher, so I wouldn't know. And the Colbert Report, well, duh. Okay, but you have SNL. Or Mad TV. And Tina Fey made history by becoming the first lead SNL female comedy writer. She's funny! She wrote one of my favorite movies of all time, Mean Girls, and she's the featured celebrity (because every magazine has to feature a celebrity now) in the May issue of Marie Claire. Except, Tina Fey is one of a very few smart, witty women who have managed to retain some modicum of femininity while they stay true their inner hijinx. Cybil Shepherd comes to mind as a funny woman. Candice Bergen on occasion. And even so, in my mind, the perception of them is slightly masculine. They have a fairly mannish quality to them. Take That 70's show for example. Redhead Donna, hilarious, but with a definite air of masculinity. Brunette Jackie, laugh worthy but in such a hee-hee, airhead way. So, what, being funny means you're being like a dude?

I often wonder if I can identify a female writer or male writer just by their style. In fact, reading Marie Claire today I was trying to do that. Male, Female, Female, Female. And, perhaps pleasantly surprising enough, I was wrong a few times. But only, and get this, when it was a man writing. Men can adapt female writing, but then they seem, what, gay? Women can adapt male writing, but then they seem butch. But how many female writers are there for GQ? Or Maxim? I seriously considered applying to Maxim when I was looking for jobs, but would I be giving up my liberated woman views to work for them? Verdict: yes. Application killed. But, is that holding me back? Guys will write for a women's magazine, so, why shouldn't I try writing for a men's magazine? Because I don't ever feel like I could be funny in the way that they need. I could be cute funny, and that's what it all comes down to. Men can be laugh out loud, raucous, hilarious and completely inappropriate funny. Women can be laughable, adorable, and quaint. Fucking A.

Even at the tail end of this ranty post, all I can think is, "I read my writing and think, gee, I feel like flowers and clouds after reading this." I read other people's writing, mainly male writers, and think, "Yeah, that's it, get into the gritty shit. Do it." I can't even get myself to do it -- this entry is a definite stretch for me -- so if, as a women's college educated, independent, liberal female, I'm worrying about crossing the line, someone tell me how women in general can toe the line between funny and crass without getting shit on?

I've definitely heard at least a couple guys tell me that girls will never be as funny as boys. Is it because we aren't willing to take the chances? Or because taking the chances makes us look too much like one of the dudes. Freaking gender stereotypes. I am liberated. I've made "that's what she said" jokes, albeit like twice, but I've gone there and I've done that. I've done keg stands, watched videos I never should have watched with things in places they never should have been, and I've shot guns, I like comic books and I can beat you at Street Fighter II. And I still like pink, and high heels, and make-up and snuggling.

And the next time some asshole guy slams his arm into my shoulder because he thinks I'm a prissy bitch, I'm going to turn around and knee him in the balls or punch him in the face. Cause, you know what, I am a prissy bitch.

I just wish I could figure out how to do it all without feeling like I was giving up some special, delicate, flowery part of myself.

Confessions of a Female Enthusiast

Greetings from Manhattan and Boston! There's been a bit of a hiatus from blogging, and I apologize for the conspicuous (or was it?) absence. I'll blame it on the recent rush of activity in my normally "well-scheduled" life. Who loves excuses?! Anyways, down to business. While I have been, and hopefully will continue, to do my best to keep this blog unisex focused, today's post will be centered around some thoughts on females and their various contributions to modern day society. Ooh, light and airy!

First and foremost, hooray for Argentina's first female President! Congratulations to Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, the uh... former? first lady of Argentina. Apparently, that's South America's second female president in two years following behind Chile's Michelle Bachelet. I'll outright say that I don't know anything about South America, but at least in this regard it's fabulous to see the progressive changes that are being made there. Though there are some hanging questions about Ballot distribution which trouble me, it is quite heartening to know that women are pushing boundaries out in the world. Whether she is a capable leader has yet to be seen, but she definitely seems to recognize the burden that is resting upon her shoulders now.

"Kirchner declared victory late Sunday. In a speech, she said she felt not only a responsibility to lead her country, but 'an immense responsibility for my gender.'"

These first few women who are stepping into the Presidency are going to, as my favorite US AS History teacher used to say, lay the groundwork for paradigms of any women to follow. They will be judged harshly if they fail, and while I would love to believe in fair reporting, I would venture a guess that their accomplishments will only be lauded a fraction as much as a male President's accomplishments would be. Even the IHT article itself, while "fair reporting," smacked a bit of jabbing implications that Kirchner had won the elections both riding on the coat tails of her husband and with ulterior motives besides improving Argentina's foreign policy. The BBC article on key election concerns does help shed some light on the issue, but that article falls distinctly on the disparaging side as well. The least biased, or perhaps biased in the direction I prefer, article that I've found is this Q&A from MWC News. Honestly, I'm not sure if I'm pre-disposed to looking for positive presentations of women in the media (duh?) but having seen the way Hillary has been portrayed in the American press I'm hesitant to believe that other women will be given neutral reviews. Then again, the nature of the press is such that there is no such thing as "neutral."

Before anyone asks about my personal beliefs on Hillary, I'll say that I'm glad she's trying for the Presidency. No matter how you slice it, that post is an incredible opportunity and burden not only for her as an American, but also as a woman. I've kept some tabs on her policies, and while I haven't chosen a candidate that I solely support, I hate to admit the lurking feelings of allegiance towards her for being a woman and, to be honest, for being an alumna of my alma mater. She has some good ideas, and if they were put into practice I'd like to believe that they would be functional and perform their purpose. But, I'm not a politics type of a person so these are just my uneducated two cents.

In other news on women to admire, the recent break about Dumbledore's sexual orientation has caused quite the stir. Suddenly, the story about the boy who lived became completely focused on the boy being led (misled?) by a man with questionable interests. Now, I'd like to pause for a second and say that realistically no one in the world is entirely altruistic, so there will always be "questionable interests." Furthermore, Rowling never tried to refute or paint Dumbledore in a light that would show him as infallible or that he wasn't trying to use Harry as a tool in many ways. Essentially, I don't see how his sexual orientation can suddenly alter the entire universe that she has created, and at least Edward Rothstein from the nytimes seems to agree with me.

On an individual note about Rowling, I will commend her again for the entire HP series. Much though everyone picks at the books, and tries to lambast the characters and plot, I am really in awe of what she has created. As an artist/writer, she did what politicians all over the world and human rights activists have been trying to do for decades. She got people to care about something. Whoever you are, wherever you were, if you were somewhat in touch with any type of current events or media you probably knew about Harry Potter and you were probably at the very least curious about the outcome of his life. She spanned socioeconomic divides and brought together an entire world by showing them our world using magic. That sounds hokey, I know, but all Rowling really did was present modern day society and the problems we face through the lens of the fantastic, mythic, and intangible. It disgusts me the way people rip into how successful HP has become and complain that she only wrote the stories to make money. I could be wrong, but as a writer you never know how well your work will be received so I doubt she was banking on her success. Not to mention, as an author, publishing is not the most lucrative industry to become involved in anyways.

Anyways, many nods and acknowledgments to both women mentioned here for their impressive accomplishments. I'll take my feminism onto the streets of Cambridge/Boston now. Surprisingly the foliage hasn't hit yet, but perhaps I'll have some photos to post for everyone's enjoyment later.