“Plenty of college football programs, including Penn State’s, run men’s fantasy camps. Only a few hold events for female fans, and those tend toward talks and tours (the Ole Miss Ladies’ Football Forum features a fashion show). At Penn State, the women wanted to play. Before athletics officials could decide how best to market their new X’s & O’s Camp, it sold out.”
Plus one for gender equality in sports enthusiasm.
An action alert from the website of NARAL Pro-Choice America…
Anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) will do whatever it takes to stop women from accessing abortion. Many CPCs harass, humiliate, and scare women.
Now, CPCs are using popular online search directories to mislead women about their services.
We need to stop CPCs from using popular sites like SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com to advertise abortion services that they clearly don’t provide.
Help protect women from accidentally going to a CPC staffed by anti-choice volunteers, by adding your name to the letter being sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com.
Never heard of a CPC? Many CPCs look like a woman’s health-care clinic. But most are unlicensed and unregulated organizations staffed by anti-choice volunteers. Their number-one goal is to make women feel too guilty or scared to choose abortion by providing information that is medically inaccurate and manipulative. Let’s be clear: CPCs do not provide abortion care.
It’s fine for groups that oppose abortion to advertise. But they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise under “abortion services” or “abortion clinics.” It’s just cruel to lie to women facing an unintended pregnancy.
Sign the letter. Tell these companies that CPCs are using their resources to trick women, and that the fraud against women must stop. Add your name by June 30 so you can be part of their delivery!
You can also sign the petition at Change.org. Thank you to Jackie for pointing out that the deadline for this letter is coming soon.
We are often asked if we might change the name of our little feminist initative — ‘zine, blog, and related live events — to something less inflammatory. “Hoochie,” we are told, smacks of the derogatory. “You can’t represent feminism with such an anti-woman name.”
Anti-woman? This is always a surprise, our founders took the title out of a fishing lure catalog, and didn’t have anything anti-woman in mind. Not wanting to be oblivious, however, we of the current writing and editing crew decided to look up the word in the dictionary.
Hoochie: a hut or lean-to. According to the OED, the word was used in the WWII-era armed services to refer to a temporary shelter or dwelling, especially one that is rattle-trap, insubstantial. Etymologists suppose the word comes from Japanese, in which language “uchi” means “dwelling.”
Huts aren’t anti-woman, though they have played a part in certain anti-woman cultural traditions. We kept looking, and there it was, lodged as entry 2 under the head-word. (Note to selves: contact the OED staff, ask why the feminine term is relegated to second class status.)
Hoochie, or more fully, hoochie mama: a young woman; especially one who is promiscuous or who dresses or behaves in a sexually provocative or overtly seductive manner. Example, from non-feminist rapper Big Daddy Kane: “‘Specially if the hoochie’s on birth control.”
The origin of the word is unclear, though it seems to be related to hoochie-koochie, a term in recorded use since at least 1890 to refer to a kind of erotic dance. Example: “They expected a theatre man to be brassy and leering, like a sideshow barker at a hoochie-koochie tent.” According to the Urban Dictionary, “Couchie is adapted from the French word coucher for “to go to bed” (like our word “couch”, which you can lie down on) … women who danced suggestively were ‘hootchie coutchie’ dancers … These women were not considered morally upright in the general public, so calling a woman a hootchie cooch was calling her a tramp, especially if she dressed in a way that is meant to be provocative.” (Yes, that’s the same French coucher as in the song that so audaciously portrays a woman intiating an intimate encounter. The daring! The nerve!)
Really, now. Voulez-vous get something better to do than accuse us of woman-hating, when obviously we’ve got the best intentions in appropriating and rehabilitating (a great word — meaning, to dress in new clothes!) a term of anti-woman sentiment? We like the long “o” sound, we like the tschuss-tschuss, we think highly of our diminutive and easy-to-rhyme-with -ie ending, and are pretty happy all around being called Hoochies.
We won’t be changing the name to anything safer, thank you. Besides, all the good, wholesome, safe names are already taken.
But perhaps we’ll consider going in a more risque direction, since that seems to be what our readers want…
Here’s a look at the latest search terms that have brought readers to our blog.
With these numbers, how could Boobie Magazine fail to be a hit? Plus, we can guess, we’d attract attention from just the sort of people who might benefit from a challenging feminist perspective.
We here at Hoochie don’t subscribe to the principle of gender-exclusive art experience. Accordingly, we do not support gender-exclusive art competitions which are organized for any reason other than to remedy differential access to art awards. Such unfairness is not uncommon, but it is not universal. The competition held by MsLexia magazine seems to fall outside of this category. In mildly satirical but nonetheless authentic terms we hereby announce the first-ever Hoochie Woman ‘zine Men’s Women’s Poetry Competition.
WHEREAS literary imagination is an ungendered realm;
WHEREAS a person’s status as a human being accounts for greater differences in their respective experience than their status as a person of gender;
WHEREAS Mslexia magazine’s competition implicitly endorses the notion that men are incapable of writing certain kinds of poetry, and by extension the general principle that some kinds of art are exclusive to some kinds of people;
the editors of Hoochie announce their intent to award a $100 prize to the male poet who submits the poem that best represents a woman’s experience from a woman’s point of view.
Please make sure you have read the rules before submitting.
ENTRY
ELIGIBILITY
For more information or clarification, contact us at hoochiewomanzine@gmail.com. Closing date: 15 August 2010.
Hoochies, I’m back!
I’m working on a longer post, but I actually just wanted to share with you a wonderful performance art piece from 1968. Valie Export, a Viennese artist, created what she called “Tap and Touch Cinema,” where she wore a box “theater” around her middle and invited passersby to reach in and touch her naked breasts… as she forced them into direct eye contact. I thought I’d draw this to your attention because I really think it confronted the objectification of women and was extremely socially provocative. In a way she was saying, “you can fantasize about an anonymous body as much as you want, but can you look into a real woman’s eyes while you do it?” Incredible…
The prospect of a male pill has appeared on the horizon various times over the last 50 years, but the issue of side effects scuttled every effort. Scientists, May reports, “actually discovered an effective vaccine that completely stopped the production of sperm without interfering with sex drive.” But it also made users’ testicles shrink by a third, so the researchers abandoned it, concluding, “The psychological trauma of shrinking testes just cannot be overcome.”
— from “What the Pill Gave Birth To,” Michelle Goldberg’s review of America and the Pill: A History of Promise, Peril, and Liberation by Elaine Tyler May, Basic Books, 224 pages, $25.95.
Hoochies, I am proudly and unequivocally pro – choice. Unfortunately, the anti-choice movement often terms this position “pro-abortion.” No one is pro – abortion. It is a horrible experience that no woman should have, but we must have the right to choose for ourselves. Much of the abortion debate centers around the actual decision, but what happens afterwards? Many “right-to-life” groups have attacked this question with considerable energy and emotional manipulation techniques. Project Rachel, an online “support center” aligned with evangelical Christianity, tells women that “it’s normal to grieve a pregnancy loss, including the loss of a child by abortion. It can form a hole in one’s heart, a hole so deep that sometimes it seems nothing can fill the emptiness.” At first glance, this seems harmless enough – even kind and understanding. Yet the implication that abortion trauma (and their “data” is pretty questionable) means that a woman shouldn’t be able to decide about a life-changing pregnancy for herself is condescending and ridiculous. The Project Rachel website, cunningly called “Hope After Abortion,” has a section devoted to the stories of women who have regretted their abortions. I am not contesting that a woman might regret her abortion, or feel the agony and confusion of depression and loss. I feel deeply for the women who have shared their experiences on this site. Yet their sad stories do not mean that every woman should lose her freedom to control her own body and life. Furthermore, while Project Rachel recognizes the anguish that can follow abortion, it does nothing but torture women who have already been through enough trouble. One of the quotes sections is ominously entitled “Died,” and is a list of anonymous entries such as: “I wished it was me and not my baby who was dying.” I think it is destructive and cruel for organizations like Project Rachel to manipulate women in the guise of compassion. We must make sure that there remain kinder, more helpful options that emphasize truth and understanding instead of thinly veiled judgment and deceit.
P.S. I just Googled “post abortion support” and almost everything that came up was in the vein of Project Rachel. Let’s change this.
Hoochies, I really don’t want to admit this, but I will. I watch The Millionaire Matchmaker. Now, on many counts, this show is pretty despicable. The premise is addictive: Patti Stanger, a 3rd generation matchmaker in LA, sets up rich men through her Millionaire’s Club, the website of which looks like an advertisement for a brothel. These millionaires are allowed to handpick women who are usually a) way too nice or b) way too young. Criticizing this show is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I’ll give you the highlights:
1) If you want to marry a millionaire, and you’re above a size 6, good luck. Patti reserves “bigger” (i.e. a size 10) women for her “chubby chasing” clients. Now, I take offense at this on a couple of levels. First, the idea that a woman should be telling other women that they are fat and unworthy to compete for male attention is disgraceful. This kind of attitude teaches men that only the slimmest of women are worthy of love, and it teaches women that in the competition for rich men, their bodies are the greatest weapons. Insidious female on female attack is destructive and demeaning. If we tell men that they should only be attracted to certain body types and that the rest are undesirable, it feeds right back into a damaging sizist cycle that we need to end.
2) I guess money trumps idiot? These men are often rude, strange, misogynistic, witless and boring. And yes, many of them are pretty ugly. But millions of dollars seems to give them a free pass on many qualities one might look for in a mate. However, the few woman millionaires on the show have no such luck. They are still judged for their looks and admonished to let the man take control. It would appear that money only makes things harder for women because they have to prove that they are still “feminine.” Hoochies, I ask you: why does “feminine” have to mean docile and simpering? Unfortunately, in the Millionaire’s Club, women do not have power unless expressly allowed. In her 10 Dating Rules for Single Ladies, Stanger writes, “do not offer to outright pay for something: once a woman touches money/credit card in front of a male she becomes masculine energy, which is undesirable.” Basically, according to this line of thought, men are not attracted to women who are remotely self-sufficient – in Patti’s words, the penis will definitely not get off the couch.
3) Patti Stanger gives matchmaking a bad name. The whole point of matchmaking should be to make a match, but these women are never asked what they want in a man. Granted, it’s their choice to turn up for the vomit inducing “casting sessions” (really an appropriate name when you think about it, eh?), but the only criteria on their lists is “loaded.” The Millionaire’s Club does not take into account what both sides are looking for, or even considers that a woman might want more than a rich husband. It is merely a vehicle for spoiled, rich and awkward men to sample the never-ending bounty of the LA babe buffet, and perpetuates the ever gaping gender divide.
As most of you probably know by now, boobs can cause earthquakes. No, really. During Friday prayers in Tehran, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi, a senior cleric, stated that “many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes.”
Sedighi’s claim, naturally, has brought an outcry from the feminist community. In turn, yesterday “Boobquake,” created by Jen McCreight of BlagHag, took on Sedighi’s accusation full force. The concept was simple – by wearing cleavage baring shirts, women would be able to show that breasts don’t have a great cosmic power over the earth. At first glance, Boobquake seems liberating, and clearly a deep v-neck is not going cause a natural disaster. But I have to wonder: is baring cleavage a constructive way to combat Sedighi’s claim?
I’d have to agree with Beth Mann at Salon when she writes that she “appreciate[s] McCreight’s intentions behind this; she meant it as a feminist response to a ridiculous statement. Unfortunately, it seems to be turning into something else, with many men chiming in, with their “show us your tits” camera-ready attitude.” Society is constantly telling woman that we are only as good as our bodies, whether they are baby makers or eye candy. “Boobquake”, though well-meaning, feeds right into this limiting concept.
I think that whatever you choose to wear, you should be able to feel proud and happy. If baring cleavage accomplishes that for someone, then that is terrific. But by showing a lot of boob, you are inviting people to look. I’m not saying that’s necessarily negative, but I think it’s a fact. Dressing a little more modestly is not always a bad thing; in fact, I believe that it’s ultimately more productive than a low-cut shirt. Of course, showing a little less skin has nothing to do with earthquake prevention – only with changing the dialogues from women’s bodies to women themselves. A woman does not have to resort to using her body to get attention, even if it’s to take on sexism. By fighting a ridiculous and chauvinist statement by exposing our bodies I think we ultimately miss the point. Next time, let’s lead with our minds instead of our chests.
For a feminist blog, this may seem like the most obvious, clichéd statement in the world. You all know as well as I do (probably better) that millions of articles, books, documentaries, et cetera have treated this very issue. They have treated it kindly, unfairly and everywhere in between. I don’t pretend that I can join their ranks. But I do propose that we all take a moment (maybe more than that) to define feminism for ourselves. Not what we think feminism is, historically, idealistically, for our grandmother, for Phyllis Schlafly or for Betty Friedan. Feminism has become a scary word for most young women. How many times have you heard, “well, I support women’s issues, but I’m not a feminist.” We need to change that. I’m thequeenofscots, and I’m the new Hoochie blogger. I’ll start with this. I am a feminist. No qualifier, no blushing. Let me begin the conversation by telling you a few things about me (in no particular order):
– I believe wholeheartedly in a woman’s right to choose. I also know that having an abortion is a horrible experience, but if a woman does not want to have a child, she should not have to have a child. For me, the issue is ultimately that simple.
– I think “man-bashing” is completely destructive and inhibiting. Men can be (and are) feminists, too. We can’t leave them out of the fold.
– I’ll admit it. I don’t like my body a lot of the time. But it’s so BORING to constantly have the “I’m fat” conversation. As women, we have better things to talk about, and more important things to do than obsessively pick apart our bodies.
– Finally, I believe that young men and women need to take back feminism. We support women’s issues AND we are feminists!