What We Missed

Joe Walsh told Tammy Duckworth to shut up already about her military service. At The Nation, Katie tells Joe to… well, watch the video.

At Sociological Images, Lisa offers “the one really excellent solution to the clusterf@ck that is parenting in America” in the aftermath of Anne-Marie Slaughter’s Atlantic article: Don’t. Have. Kids.

How to tell the difference between a sexualized image and a sexy image (probably NSFW even though most of the images come from regular old advertisements).

Oh look, it’s Zerlina in the New York Times.

New York, NY

Chloe Angyal is a journalist and scholar of popular culture from Sydney, Australia. She joined the Feministing team in 2009. Her writing about politics and popular culture has been published in The Atlantic, The Guardian, New York magazine, Reuters, The LA Times and many other outlets in the US, Australia, UK, and France. She makes regular appearances on radio and television in the US and Australia. She has an AB in Sociology from Princeton University and a PhD in Arts and Media from the University of New South Wales. Her academic work focuses on Hollywood romantic comedies; her doctoral thesis was about how the genre depicts gender, sex, and power, and grew out of a series she wrote for Feministing, the Feministing Rom Com Review. Chloe is a Senior Facilitator at The OpEd Project and a Senior Advisor to The Harry Potter Alliance. You can read more of her writing at chloesangyal.com

Chloe Angyal is a journalist and scholar of popular culture from Sydney, Australia.

Read more about Chloe

Join the Conversation

  • http://feministing.com/members/stellarose/ Stella

    Sorry, but I am not impressed by the “don’t have kids message.” In fact, I think it is extremely sexist. Women, like men, should have the right to choose whether or not to have children. We should not be discriminated against for EITHER CHOICE.

    Please explain to me why it is a feminist position that women, but not men, should have to choose between reproducing and making a living. Personally, I thought both of these things were human rights for members of both categories of people. Not just men, who have long taken for granted that they have a right to reproduce and buy food and shelter.

    And please explain to me why women who DON’T believe that they have a right to reproduction and economic solvency should then look at those of us who did have kids and then blame us for our own oppression because we DECIDED to have kids. How exactly is this feminist? Can the author of that piece please have a think about the fact she’s reifying quite possible the oldest precept of patriarchy (being a mom = economic dependency on a man)? HELLO, are you now voting Republican? because the last time I checked, that was their platform.

    And lastly, need I point out that people of both genders who do have kids are producing a societal good, at great personal cost to their ability to sleep and go have fun in the evenin, among other things. Yes, there are too many people in the world. But no, the human race would not be able to continue if everyone decided to avail themselves of your magical solution to the oppression of mothers. In Japan, where women by and large have decided not to have children anymore due to the sexism they face when they do, their economy is literally imploding due to the precipitous population drop off. Someone has to have at least some children to care for you when you are old and pay taxes that will pay your social security check in 2040. That person should not be discriminated against or prevented from making a living for doing so. Even if they are a lady.

  • http://feministing.com/members/azure156/ Jenny Gonzalez-Blitz

    Yeah, I’m childfree but I mostly agree with Stella (except to blanketly say that having kids produces a “societal good”. Only time can tell on that one. ) Anyway, my main point is, if not having kids is the only fully workable solution, that’s not really entirely a freedom of choice, is it?