Audiobook review: How to be a Woman by Caitlin Moran

How to be a Woman

Written and read by: Caitlin Moran

Published: 2011

Synopsis: Though they have the vote and the Pill and haven't been burned as witches since 1727, life isn't exactly a stroll down the catwalk for modern women. They are beset by uncertainties and questions: Why are they supposed to get Brazilians? Why do bras hurt? Why the incessant talk about babies? And do men secretly hate them?

Caitlin Moran interweaves provocative observations on women's lives with laugh-out-loud funny scenes from her own, from the riot of adolescence to her development as a writer, wife, and mother. With rapier wit, Moran slices right to the truth—whether it's about the workplace, strip clubs, love, fat, abortion, popular entertainment, or children—to jump-start a new conversation about feminism. With humor, insight, and verve, How To Be a Woman lays bare the reasons female rights and empowerment are essential issues not only for women today but also for society itself.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

“When a woman says, ‘I have nothing to wear!’, what she really means is, ‘There’s nothing here for who I'm supposed to be today.”

Caitlin Moran is a very funny woman. I am basically reduced to shrieks of laughter and tears every other sentence. She's also seems very down to earth and approachable. I am not good at approaching people, even the people I know, but I feel like I could at least squeak a hello her way and she'd probably give me a big smile and compliment my dress and then I'd cry and scurry away before I made a fool of myself. But perhaps what I love most about her, is how passionate she is about women. Even though a lot of her columns aren't exactly platforms to discuss feminism, she's always managed to weave it in. Or maybe it's just that because she obviously feels so strongly about the issue of female empowerment that it comes through in subliminal waves.

So I was so happy when I discovered that How to be a Woman is, as the title might slightly suggest, about women. And it's about all kinds of womanly issues, from lighter fare about handbags to tales of terrible boyfriends and confrontations with co-workers and strangers and siblings. It's about periods and hairstyles and weddings and babies. It touches on every contradiction women are forced to deal with, every sexist, unfair way of life that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future. It discusses stilettos and glass ceilings and falling in love with celebrities.

It is, overwhelmingly, a book about feminism. HOORAY!

I'm sure there are men (and maybe women) that roll their eyes and mumble under their breath about the feminazis and make pithy comments about it being "that time of the month" when they hear me exclaim excitedly about a book being about feminism but to me it feels really important that we have fun, interesting and relevant books about feminism right now. It seems like every other week another celebrity is coming out to say "never fear fans! I'm no feminist!". No, they're humanists; they actually love men a lot; they don't think it's helpful. It's infuriating and it's a subject that Caitlin beautifully, bluntly covers in her book.

“We need to reclaim the word 'feminism'. We need the word 'feminism' back real bad. When statistics come in saying that only 29% of American women would describe themselves as feminist - and only 42% of British women - I used to think, What do you think feminism IS, ladies? What part of 'liberation for women' is not for you? Is it freedom to vote? The right not to be owned by the man you marry? The campaign for equal pay? 'Vogue' by Madonna? Jeans? Did all that good shit GET ON YOUR NERVES? Or were you just DRUNK AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY?”

When women are dying and being humiliated for wanting to be sexually responsible,shamed for being raped and are bullied out of having abortions, feminism is that much more important. It shouldn't be a dirty word. It shouldn't be something people wonder if we really need. It is confounding to me that anyone would hear the definition of feminism and think "hmmm, no, not for me".

“What is feminism? Simply the belief that women should be as free as men, however nuts, dim, deluded, badly dressed, fat, receding, lazy and smug they might be.”

I'm sure the staunchly anti-feminist types aren't likely to pick up this book but they really should, because Caitlin is incredibly fair and reasonable in her perspectives on society. Perhaps my favourite example is her chapter on porn. Caitlin makes a very important distinction between porn, or the act of watching two people have sex, and the porn industry. There is, as Caitlin believes, a world of difference between the two. There is nothing inherently wrong with enjoying sex and even wanting to watch two people who are attracted to each other bump uglies. It's why romance novels always sell like gangbusters. There is plenty wrong with an industry that objectifies women and presents an unrealistic expectation of sex, relationships and female bodies though. These sorts of distinctions sometimes get lost in the general anger of internet feminism, and perhaps to some people it isn't an important distinction to make, but I think a lot of the feminist blow-back from men is just reactionary responses to issues like this being raised. They feel threatened and attack and before they know it they're yelling about feminists being lesbians or old cat ladies or social outcasts (as though there'd be anything wrong with being those women, I basically fall into two of those three categories) and then huff off to their shitty jobs that pay better than their female co-workers.

What made it a truly wonderful experience, though, was listening to Caitlin read the audiobook herself. I'm a big fan of comedy autobiographies read by the author (I can't even imagine having read Bossypants, it was made for Tina Fey to read out loud) and this is pretty much the same category. Whether it was Caitlin's impersonation of her over-enthusiastic 14 year old self reading diary entries, or her raucous laughter over a memory of her sister or the rising volume as she got angry about the glass ceiling or the ever present expectation that a woman needs to have babies to be complete, it was just the absolute perfect way to experience the book. It was like having an invisible Caitlin Moran following me around all day, commenting on life and love and careers while I drove to work, or caught a bus from uni, or waited in line at the post office. I'd find myself laughing along with her, or nodding along to her argument, or tutting in commiseration about the asshole musician boyfriend she once had. The only downside is that I didn't take any notes on my favourite quotes and parts, which means I can't just quote bomb you all for the final part of the review. But trust me, it's hella quotable.

Close Enough = Good Enough? Whitewashing and casting in film

For the last week or two there has been some interesting discussion happening on a lot of film sites. As stills and posters and trailers were steadily released for Ridley Scott's new biblical epic Exodus film journalists and bloggers questioned whether it's still okay to blatantly whitewash a film that takes place, ostensibly, in Northern Africa. Considering it is 2014 and that we know that there  is a pool of brilliant actors from every nationality and religion across the world to dip from, is there any reason to cast white men in roles that they probably shouldn't be cast in?

 Hollywood is usually a good decade behind the rest of the world on just about everything, but even if most television shows and films retain a primarily white cast (and tell a primarily white story) at least there is push back from the audience. Look at Girls, look at Dads, people (or bloggers in most cases I guess) aren't afraid to point at a TV show or film and say "NOT GOOD ENOUGH". So when a film set in Egypt telling the story of the exodus of Jewish slaves is cast with handsome big name white men it isn't surprising that everyone gives it the ol' side-eye.

Interesting, the comments from film viewers seems to sway in both directions. Judging by the Badass Digest comments (which is always a good way to judge. There are decent people in that corner of the internet) people seem to think that either:

A. It's business. You get a big name actor to make you big time money. So it's kinda not really whitewashing. Sorta.
B. Can you even name a decent POC to play those roles or sell tickets?
C. It's not great that in 2014 this is even an issue. And jesus, do you remember the Avatar: The Last Airbender film? What a disaster.
D. Noah was all white. And it's all imaginary anyway.
E. I'm Egyptian/Jewish/whatever and I don't care. Everyone is just so overly PC these days.
F. Eh, since when did pop culture influence changes in society*

Overall I'd say it swings about 50/50, for some it comes down to a business transaction. A white lead man like Christian Bale sells more tickets than whoever they'd cast as Moses if they were going for something more realistic. For some, removing a well known white actor means subbing in an unknown Egyptian actor which...I don't even know how to react to that argument. If replacing a white lead leads you to assume they'd hire a taxi driver like they did in Captain Philips then sorry buddy, but you're part of the problem.

One interesting thing I noticed in the discussion on a more diverse and inclusive cast is the casting suggestions people tossed up. Names like Nestor Carbonell and Cliff Curtis** were thrown around as potential good fits and while I understood where they were coming from on the one hand (Carbonell is pretty and should be in everything), is hiring a man of Spanish or Maori descent actually better than casting a white man? I mean, not only is it still not the right ethnicity but now we have the "brown is brown is brown" ickiness thrown into it. Is close enough good enough?

There are plenty of interviews with actors like Kumail Nanjiani and Danny Pudi where they talk about going to auditions where there options are basically terrorist, convenience store employee and computer nerd. Not to mention they'll shift from playing a Pakistani character to an Indian or Iraqi character as needed. Counter this with the outrage online when Henry Cavill, a Brit, was cast as Superman. The fact that he would be speaking with an American accent wasn't good enough, Superman is meant to be an American. CAN'T YOU SEE YOU'RE RUINING OUR LIVES? So if it isn't acceptable for a white man to play a different white man, why is it okay to have a South American play someone from the Middle East, or vice versa?

Is ethnographically near enough, near enough? Is it just a matter of "acting" the part? And if that is the case, is it even an issue to have white actors play Egyptian characters, or Egyptian actors play white characters? Obviously that sort of argument removes the complicated politics of white privilege and the issue that plenty of movie goers simply don't see a problem with a lack of roles (outside of stereotypes) for minority actors. So is whitewashing in film a thing of the past that is slowly being rectified one cast at a time, or are we simply shifting across from whitewashing to racewashing where anyone who isn't white can essentially be any ethnicity required? And is this an issue? Is it still racism, just with a different focus? Or is any role better than no role?

Like with all of these posts I write, I'm mostly trying to work out some thoughts in my own head, and I think I've landed on a different point to the one I was originally tangling with. Not to mention I'm writing all of this as a white girl from Australia, so I don't really have a leg to stand on. So in conclusion, I guess...

Anyway, as usual, I'd be interested to hear what you all think in the comment section!

*Mmm-hmmm. Yeah, probably never....idiots.

**Mostly named because he has played every ethnicity under the sun, which is kinda the issue at hand.

Kayleigh's Ranty Soapbox of Rants: The Internet and Absolutes

So I've been wanting to get some stuff off my chest and I finally decided to sit down and write a post about it. Like most of the times I do something like this, it'll probably be garbled and steam-of-consciousy but hopefully my tangled thoughts will at least approach the realm of sense making.

At any point there are usually hundreds of annoyances and niggles floating around my head. Like why does The Invention of Lying equate telling the truth with being an asshole? If you can only speak the truth why does that mean you'd walk up to a stranger in the street and tell them their ass looks huge in those pants. That movie was really dumb you guys. But while some are mini and insignificant like that, some are larger and end up becoming this great huge bezoar blocking me from moving past and concentrating on more important, and usually more rational, issues.

Right now the issue clouding my vision is the internets. Oh how I love it and I hate it. One of the best things about the internet is meeting people who get fired up by similar things. I have a lot of dude friends and while I'd say they're all feminists and would happily call themselves that, they're hardly the type to rant with me for hours about rape culture. They're much more likely to nod their heads and dart their eyes worryingly when I start to get caught up in one of my anger-spirals (I feel for them, truly, I can go for hours). So it's nice to come to the internet, especially if I've just witnessed/heard about something particularly demoralising, and see that I'm not alone, there are literally millions of people only a click away thinking just the way I do, getting angry like I do and abusing GIFS the way I tend to.

Of course, there's always the flip side of this. I'm not talking trolls or hatemongers (although those guys make me want to cry) but people who refuse to see anything except in absolutes. The thing that really frustrates me about sites like Tumblr or Jezebel (and stop me from getting more involved with either site) is that people are SO quick to pile on or judge or demand apologies over complete non-issues or misplaced rage. One of the best examples of this is the Heath Ledger/Joker tumblr thread that happened a few years ago.

Granted, I don't know if this one actually happened or was a joke about how quick people on the internet are to make snap judgments but it shows the point I'm trying to make. If you've ever made a rape joke you're pro-rapist. If you ever criticise another country's policies you're pro-Hitler. If you accidentally use the wrong pronoun when discussing a trans person you're a huge pile of shit. There are no allowances for human error or for a slip of a tongue, you are written off immediately and no attempts to apologise or explain yourself will suffice.

 JLaw has landed in hot water a few times over things she's said, and while some of them can be taken badly, I'd personally chalk most of them up to being young and really not understanding how offensive it is. I 100% believe that JLaw has probably read over articles calling her transphobic and realised that her quippy joke about her cat wasn't the wisest thing to think or say out loud. I know it's easy to look at people younger than you and say "you should have known better" but seriously, how many people haven't said some shitty dumb things in their lives but are lucky not to have a microphone in their face when they say it? This isn't to say people don't have a right to feel offended, they absolutely do, but maybe we shouldn't be so quick to cast stones for a few off-the-cuff remarks made at 20.

Then there are things like Jenny Trout's (or Jennifer Armintrout or Abigail Barnette) article "Jennifer Lawrence Body-Shames You More Than You Might Realise" WHICH ACTUALLY BODY-SHAMES JLAW WHEN TRYING TO SAY SHE BODY-SHAMES US. It isn't JLaw's fault that the public doesn't react to her and Melissa McCarthy's comments about weight equally. Just because there are larger actresses out there doesn't mean that JLaw doesn't come under fire from her management, producers or tabloid magazines about being too big for film. Just because she is skinny by IRL standards doesn't negate the fact that Hollywood is fucking appalling. In fact, it makes it worse. Look, I love Melissa McCarthy but it's not like you can deny that she's larger in size. I couldn't care less if she lost weight or put more on as long as she's happy and healthy, but of course she's been skewered by producers and tabloids, she doesn't fit their idealistic beauty standards by a mile. But JLaw is tiny and young and gorgeous, she should be their ideal for beauty. The fact that anyone in the industry thinks otherwise is exactly why that industry is so broken. The fact that they're telling a young girl who can't possibly weigh more than 55kg to lose weight is so disgusting it makes me want to vomit. Neither woman should feel pressured to lose weight to get work and neither woman should be abused if they say they just came from eating a burger at Maccas. But just because people would throw mud at MM for saying the same thing doesn't mean JLaw should have to censor herself.

"What are you gonna do? Be hungry every single day to make other people happy? That's just dumb."

How is that statement body-shaming larger women? Are thin women not allowed to state the obvious and say that diets are dumb as hell just because there are bigger women out there? Are you not allowed to say you enjoy a burger AND mention that you hate spending time in the gym but have to for work? How can Jenny Trout not see that her argument has nothing to do with JLaw and everything to do with society and the Hollywood system? I don't know if this is simply the backlash we all knew was coming for JLaw, misguided internet social justice or misaligned anger based on JLaw's transphobic remarks I mentioned earlier, but it is so stupid I want to tear my hair out.

But in my mind one of the biggest internet absolutes has to be surrounding MRAs (men's rights activists). This is actually tricky ground because 95% of MRAs are absolute assholes who are pissed that a woman might ever have the same rights as them. They're the kind of privileged rich white man who would also march down New York streets with signs saying "diversity = white genocide". Ugh.

But there are 5% of people there with legitimate causes that get grouped into that bundle of assholes just for being a man. Grab the pitchforks ladies, how dare he think he has anything to complain about! But he does. Take male rape. It's a very real issue but either people don't believe it exists (because apparently being aroused biologically - which they cannot help - negates a firm NO) or mock/ridicule men who do come forward as victims. The latest campaign by NO MORE with Mariska Hargitay is actually brilliant because it targets male AND female rape myths and tries to re-educate the public about both of these issues. Or how about the fact that a large chunk of MRAs (of that 5% obvs) are actually focused on equalising rights when it comes to their children. Whether it's paternity leave or shared parenting rights* - these aren't outrageous issues to bring up and aren't actually specifically male issues.

I saw a post on Tumblr** the other day which said that patriarchy is damaging to everyone, not just women. Because of the patriarchal values that still reign supreme there are unreal expectations placed on both women AND men.

Thanks go to Tika for reblogging this

In the case of the legitimate MRAs, they are essentially fighting for the same thing as feminists. They want to be treated equally in all areas of life, which requires removing the patriarchal chains that bind us all. But because of the bigots who hide behind the MRA moniker people on Tumblr and Jezebel hurl insults at anyone who dares bring up a male-centric issue or utter the words men's rights. Yes it's largely a defense mechanism against the horrible people that usually use those words, but it's so fucked up that people just disregard legitimate issues because there are assholes out there. Not everyone who is pushing for men's rights is a white rich cis-gendered bigot.

We all turn to the internet to be our perfect escape from the horrors of the world, so when someone threatens to destroy that I think we all get a little defensive. It's understandable, I've been there, I've made those snap judgments. But it's getting to a point where everyone has to tread so carefully because if they make a wrong step they'll be hated by the internet for the rest of human existence. Damn straight we should call people out when they say something stupid or bigoted or incorrect, but maybe let's not jump to calling a commentator a slut-shamer because they're worried about the direction Miley is headed down or transphobic because they slipped up and called someone a he instead of a she. We're all human and we all have opinions and we all make mistakes. So how about we share out some of that special empathy we all have for minority and subjugated groups and treat everyone like human beings and give them the chance to explain themselves or explain to them why they're wrong. Can't we for one second step off the gas and just calm the F down?

So that's where I'm at right now. I guess I'm basically saying don't be a dick and don't assume the worst of everyone. And maybe give people, obviously trolls not included, the benefit of the doubt. It's not so hard is it?


*two areas*** which are majorly skewed in the favour of women, primarily because of patriarchal ideals that women = caregiver and men = breadwinner.

**In one of the rare instance where I came across rationality on Tumblr

***and two areas which are still grossly inadequate when it comes to everyone involved. Everyone gets a raw deal, and both need to be seriously re-evaluated at the most basic level (also yes, I did note a note)

An Australian's note on the Occupy protests

Occupy Oakland*

I haven't been following the protests on the news, or through regular internet channels, all of my knowledge and information has come straight out of tumblr and twitter. As a result I probably don't know much about the who, what, when, where, why and how but what I do get is the raw passion, emotion and determination that is surrounding most of these protests in the US. Speaking as an Australian who has never been to the States, and knows only a handful of you guys in the flesh, one of the problems in recent years is that all that seemed to come out of the US, (on the tv, in the news etc) was endless greed, stupidity, consumerism, hate and every kind of ism you could imagine. I'm not saying the whole country is that way, of course it isn't, but thanks to your last president, the majority of news coverage showed a massive world power who seemed like a two year old on a sugar rush. I've read a few news articles where people have called the protesters "hippies" (seriously, still?) or "bored trust-fund kids," but twitter and tumblr show a different story. Instead I see men and women, old and young, straight and gay, liberal and conservative, people of all races and and education levels and backgrounds standing up and demanding the right for a voice in a country which has been drowned out for far too long by a minority of people who believe they're the only ones who deserve the right to speak, or to act. Historically, America was always the country that refused to take it lying down. The most inspiring Americans are those who stood up for what they believed in, the Rosa Parks and Martin Luther Kings, it's in your blood to fight for your rights, and to fight for equality. It's a beautiful thing to see that coming back after so many years of almost zombie-like apathy, to see you all unified, emotional and believing in something. I've spent hours on Tumblr utterly inspired by the pictures and quotes coming out of the Occupy movements. Keep it up America, you're amazing my pants off right now.

*Navyman, copy of the US constitution in hand, stands and faces riot police after they fire tear gas.

In which I put my rant pants on

I feel bad that the blog has been faltering a little lately in terms of content and while I have a couple of book reviews almost ready for posting today's post is not book related at all.

Yesterday in my Monday Links post I posted a link to a ridiculous article by an Australian opinion writer as well as a couple of comical rebuttals to her bizarre beliefs. For anyone who didn't read my post or the articles it linked basically the article was about Australian Finance Minister Penny Wong's announcement that she and her partner are expecting a baby in December. The article basically slams "leftists" for creating a society where people are forced to feign exaggerated happiness for alternative life decisions and if they express their real opinions, i.e. that homosexual marriage and adoption = the death of society, the traditional family and the end of the world, then they are branded bigots, homophobes and "right-wing".

She then went on to say, after slyly suggesting that the birth of this baby coincides rather closely with the coming election (is she freaking kidding me!), that the London Riots were largely a result of fatherless children and therefore if we allow, and especially if we celebrate, gay parents (or single parents for that matter) then it's only a matter of time before the same happens in Australia. Now let's overlook the glaring oversight she's made in suggesting the London Riots had only one cause and ignores that there has been a building of social and economic insecurity in England, and Europe in general, for months now. Let's even overlook the fact that she suggests that mother can't possibly raise anything other than a thug or a hoodlum if she doesn't have a strong man to discipline the children (hello, 1950s calling) and that she's drawing parallels between single parenting in low socio-economic or troubled neighbourhoods (for the most part) and a rich, upper class family that has two loving (though gay which apparently is important) parents and a support system in place.  Let's even overlook that she says, and I quote,"Sure, there are aberrations, and you can always find evils within traditional families, domestic violence and child abuse. But even this imperfect institution is better than the Hobbesian social chaos the children of the underclasses have been born into for the last 50 years."

I'm willing to overlook all of that today because I am shocked and amazed at one thing in particular, namely, that gay couples are somehow different to "normal" couples. Seriously, why is this even a conversation? Why are we still at a point where we talk about homosexuality as though it's some new "lifestyle choice" that is currently the latest fad. Since the dawn of time there have been gay men and women. This isn't news people. They've been lurking through history since before some of your countries were discovered. They're responsible for some of our best art, literature and music, they've lead men to war, governed countries and educated students. Sure for a great part of our history they were stigmitised or kept in the shadows or even executed but that doesn't mean that guys haven't been falling in love with other guys for centuries.

However reading Miranda Devine's article, or any article/blog post from like minded people, you would think that homosexuals were a new form of life that need to be studied before we can truly allow them into our society. In the comments of several articles I've read that have rebutted Devine's idea I've seen people say "I've got nothing against gay people but until there are peer-reviewed studies done to prove that two parents of the same sex won't harm a child's development I'm a little uneasy about the idea".

Seriously world. You want peer-reviewed studies to tell you that, surprise surprise, being gay will have absolutely no effect on your kids, except perhaps they won't be disgusting homophobes and close-minded twits like you? Being gay does not transform you from being human into some alien life form that needs to be studied. The only difference between you and a gay person is that when they go home at night they bang someone with the same bits as them. Seriously. That's as complicated as it gets. This idea that someone they're going to instill harmful or dangerous "whatevers" onto a child is simply ludicrous. Of course there will be bad gay parents, but I can think of a dozen bad straight parents while I sit here and type this up. Being heterosexual does not make you infallible when it comes to being parents, you have just as much chance of cocking up and destroying little Jimmy's life as Jack and James down the road does.

One argument that crops up over and over is that little boys and girls need female and male role models in order to grow up balanced and good and smart enough to know that looting is for dicks. You know what, I don't disagree with that. But two men (or two women) who choose to raise a kid are not going to live in a bubble secluded from everyone. Have you ever heard the phrase "it takes a village to raise a child"? It's well-known for a reason. In the past it was expected that an entire village or group would raise a child. The grandparents, aunts, uncles, sisters, cousins, brothers, neighbours all played a hand in imparting their knowledge, love and ways on a child. In parts of the world this is still the status quo.

The idea of the traditional family being mum, dad and children is bunk. Even in modern western countries you (usually) grow up knowing your grandparents, uncles, cousins, aunts and in some cases, god-parents. Your parents have friends who spend time with you, come round for barbecues or you go on trips together. You have coaches and tutors and teachers and your friends have parents who mingle with your parents. The village might have changed but no parent, single, gay or in a traditional marriage, does it completely alone. Sure there are studies that say that a boy needs a male role model, but that doesn't mean that a boy growing up with two mums is going to grow up without one. It might not be his dad but it might be his grandfather, his English teacher or his soccer coach. Bonds happen regardless of whether you are related to someone by blood. One of my biggest role models is a teacher who I never had for a single class. When I graduated primary school he took me aside and told me that I was destined for great things and that all I had to do was work hard and the world was mine.That single sentence is worth more than everything any other teacher or blood-related male has said or done for me and has stuck with my in the 10 years that have passed.

I feel I might have shambled over a few points here rather haphazardly but basically what I want to say is this. Being gay does not make you different. It does not make you unpredicable as a parent. The idea that people think we need to study homosexual parents as though we're studying the nesting habits of the penguin appals me. wake up people, we are all the same. Who you want to have sex with doesn't change how you'd be as a parent.  I'll say it again, the only difference between a gay parent and a straight parent is that when the kids are finally asleep the gay parent bang someone with the same bits as them. Those same bits do not mean they are going to raise pedophiles or murderers or thugs. They are human beings, their sexuality does not change that. I guess the crux of my point is that I should not be writing a blog post saying that there is nothing different between a straight or a homosexual parent. I hate that I've had to write this and that I've had to use the words "they" and "them" because I feel like I'm drawing a line in the sand and backing up ideas suggesting an "us and them" mentality. I'm only 23 but I'm tired, physically tired, of speaking out against bigoted ideas and breeches of basic human rights. I shouldn't have to speak about the lack of differences in this situation and the fact I am doing that right now makes me extremely sad and weary.

Ok. Rant over. It feels good to get that out of my system. I promise next time I'm back it'll be with a book review.