ff

**a bit of a rant this week. if you don't have time to read it all, go right to the bottom and watch the kristen schaal video because it is perfect. but. also. you should read the post! but. definitely don't miss the video.**

last week mike pesca made an epic mistake in a throw-away intro to the gist podcast which, more or less, said:
hey ladies. don't be offended by the wedding dress ad. you're over-reacting and silly.

i. was. furious.
because pesca is a favourite of mine, who up till that moment, i had thought of as one hell of a feminist voice in the slate world which can be a little soft-sided and old-fashioned in its feminism. he has changed my mind about things a few times. i often disagree with him, but have never been upset by something he's said. i respect the way he comes to his opinions, how he constructs his arguments, the vigour with which he researches any given perspective. not so on this. i was. offended. angry. very much.

i wrote pesca an email* in which i pointed out all the ways that the BRIDE trope is limiting and diminishing to women, all the ways that women are hurt by the sickly weird world that has been constructed around bride-dom. how it is beyond BEYOND beyond loaded, and pointedly tone deaf when trying to engage an entire massive demographic in your politics. so so so patronizing. i said how appalled and saddened i was that such a thoughtful man could be so dismissive of obvious sexism, and so unkind to the women who were speaking against it. 'punch up!' i said. telling women to stop being so emotional, angry, over-reactive is outright hurtful, and i expected better.

(worth noting, sarah-the-roommate, who is worlds less emotional in her feminism, and worlds more experienced, read, considered, educated, was as angry. i learned that later when we were catching up on each other's weeks. but also: i'm tired as fuck of being deferential in my own feminist opinions, as if they're somehow less valid because i'm emotional. you know. cuz laaaadies be weepin. and i was way too kind, in hindsight, in my email. way too gentle and apologetic. i'm tired and tired and tired of holding out my hands, warmly saying 'let me help you understand this sexism you are perpetrating' with the big eyes of a kindergarten teacher. 'i'm so sorry i have to be hard on you, i'm so sorry i'm asking you to confront the utter shitty-ness and hypocrisy of your behaviour.' so, bonus for you - this awesome piece on feminism NOT needing to make men feel all cozy. and double-bonus - the womansplainer.)

sarah and i were both fairly certain there would be an apology on the podcast this week. as it was such an out of character stance for him to have taken, and surely he would think 'oh fuck, that was stupid, glib and irresponsible of me.'

but that didn't happen. he did write me back, and responded to a tweet from sarah, as well as he and i had a twitter back-and-forth for a bit. and basically he stood by it all, saying that what he simply didn't see sexism in the advertisement, or in his reaction to it, and that everybody gets pandered to. (in his email he pointed out that there are ads targeting the men-who-love-guns set too. so. NOT SEXISM, SEE! sure, those ads are targeting specific individuals and not AN ENTIRE GENDER, and oh, white men really have a problem with being misunderstood and tokenized in politics, oh wait...)

ANYWAY! the point is. i'm bummed as fuck. i've tried to listen to the gist since, because it really was my favourite podcast before this, and i just can't. if we're gonna talk like the republican ads, so other ladies can understand, it is like i was, like, totally in love with this man and now i'm like, totally disappointed and heartbroken cause, like, he doesn't get me at all. so, like, time to have some bitch-time with my galpal kristen schaal:



happy friday, boyfriends, fiancés, husbands! xoxo

* i thought about putting the full email and twitter exchange up, but i've already written a lot today. so. let me know. if you wanna see it. i'll put it up if you want.