the ch!cktionary

Uh, group question time.

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 19:17:00 -0400

I’m doing research for a new writing gig*, and I have a question for the masses: Do most people shower before and/or after they have sex?

Because if so, I have really failed to follow this convention.

Answer and see the results of my survey on Urtak! Have more to say? Leave a comment under this post.

* I’ll be editing the sex and relationship section for gURL.com in a couple weeks! More updates to come :)

Yes, I am that creepy.

Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:50:00 -0400

P: Have you seen my gray t-shirt anywhere?
Me: Nope. Don't think so.
P: Are you sure you didn't take it with you on a trip somewhere so you could smell me?
Me: Um ...

Is this racist? Is that racist?

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:11:05 -0400

Is this racist? Is that racist?:

Chances are, if you’re asking, it’s probably racist.

Another interesting discussion that I’d been following the past few days on robot-heart-politics’ blog: how White people feel unfairly called “racist” when they have racial preferences in dating or express a seemingly benign curiosity about others’ background.

Look, you can defend your dating preferences all you want; you can call them “preferences” instead of a fetish. If you “tend” to be attracted to a specific race to the point where you’re largely dating only people of a specific race, you are likely fetishizing something. I say this as an Asian woman who knows firsthand the irresistable allure of my “delicate” feet, my “olive” complexion, and my “mysterious” eyes. These are phrases taken verbatim from my personal dating experiences. And you know, there’s definitely a difference when I’m dating White people who don’t fetishize me. When I’ve dated or hooked up with guys who don’t have any discernible dating patterns, they don’t make remarks about me that are specific to things that have to do with my race. They don’t tell me that Eastern religion is so “peaceful”, expecting to me to understand their New Agey sentimentality, or offer compliments that could very well apply to any random Asian chick on the street.

Yes, non-White people may also prefer to date those of their own background, but their reasons for doing so are often related to wanting shared life experiences with their partners. This, too, is a limiting way of looking at relationships, but it’s not racist to date on the basis of compatibility. It is racist, however, to think that Asian features are more attractive and to assume that this is a natural preference that you just can’t help. It’s just the way you were born! Well, maybe it feels “natural” to you, but you weren’t born into a vacuum. We’ve all grown up in a world where we are fed messages all the time about what’s beautiful and what’s not. We’re influenced by sexualized portrayals of minorities in mass media. No one just is or just isn’t attracted to XYZ racial group. Even the most enlightened of us out there make assumptions about others on the basis of cues like race, gender, class, etc. And no one is immune to that.

Along the same lines, why is it that non-Whites take so much offense to being asked about their ethnic or national origin? Because it would never occur to me to ask a White person where they’re from. Me the Living, the blogger with whom robot-heart-politics was having this discussion, presented this dilemma: while speaking with a stranger at a parking garage, she detected that he had an African accent. Yet even after she gave him cash for his parking because he had only a credit card on him, she “was still nervous to ask if he was from Africa for fear of insulting him”. She writes that “we should be able to ask questions about other people without it seeming malicious/with ill-intent”. Which is fair if you’re talking with a social acquaintance, but a stranger who you’ve only known for a few minutes? No, I don’t think it’s really appropriate to ask someone where they’re from just because you’d like to satisfy your curiosity about their accent. I am asked where I’m from all the time by strangers, and you know how that conversation goes down?

Me: I’m from California.

Stranger: But where are you originally from?

Me: San Francisco.

Stranger: But what about your family?

Me: They live in Los Angeles.

Stranger: But where do YOUR PARENTS come from?

It’s annoying, it’s unnecessary, and it’s not something that I owe a stranger. I know that it might seem really natural to ask a non-White person about their background, but I can attest from personal experience that this will not haunt you for the rest of time if you don’t find out. How do I know this? Because I’ve gone through countless social interactions with White people who never feel the need to ask me where I’m from or where my family is from! And as far as I know, they aren’t squirming inside with unquelched curiosity.

You can claim all you want that you don’t judge people on the basis of race, that race is inconsequential to you, that you are friends with plenty of minorities. Even if all these things are true, it doesn’t mean that you’re not being racist when you feel the need to “place” a person on the basis of how they look or sound. I don’t ever wonder whether my White friends are mostly Irish or German or French or whatever. This never, ever crosses my mind. But people wonder all the time where I’m from and even if they’re perfectly nice about it, it still makes me feel as if there is something that will always separate me from those who are White and allowed to walk around without being treated as objects of curiosity.

The Patriarchy Wants A Lesson On Privilege 101

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:32:00 -0400

I’ve spent the better part of the morning following along in a debate between robot-heart-politics (a favorite blogger of mine) and a white, male reader of hers who “has trouble believing someone was oppressed just because they said so”. robot-heart-politics provided a bunch of studies demonstrating institutional biases against women in the maths and sciences, which the reader deemed “insufficient” and lacking in scientific rigor. What the reader wants is “a quantifiable model for white male oppression”. Not only is this impossible to produce (for reasons I’ll go into below) but it’s also highly unreasonable to expect an oppressed class to school a privileged class on what constitutes discrimination. I mean, really? I don’t expect gay people to prove to me, a straight person, that there’s actually homophobia. I don’t expect poor people to prove to me, a Harvard grad, that hunger and poverty are widespread problems. And if someone asked me, as an Asian person, to “prove” to them that racism exists, I would laugh all the way back to Chinatown. Marginalized groups are not responsible for explaining their marginalization to you. If you are actually concerned, you would take the initiative to do some research yourself instead of showing up at some oppressed group’s door step demanding a list of citations for things (racism, sexism, etc.) that are proven time and time again in the real world.

But back to why a “quantifiable” model doesn’t work:

1. No perfect model exists to measure this kind of thing and if a model like that did exist, a grad student would be the one inputting variables and determining which are important enough to include and which aren’t. And humans — especially overworked grad students — are prone to making errors, using their personal judgment, and being biased by the agendas of the lead researcher, etc. I don’t know what the White Male Reader’s academic background is, but a lot of social science is murky and vague and inconclusive and doesn’t purport to offer definite, hard answers. This is not chem lab. But as he’s already said, “But to me, if it can’t be quantified using rigorous analysis it doesn’t exist. Sorry!” Um, okay, so then a lot of things don’t exist in your mind. Can someone quantify my love for my dog versus my love for my partner? If they can’t do that, does this mean that I don’t actually have these feelings? Not everything in the world can be quantified. And even if it can and even if it bears the name of some academic journal, it doesn’t mean that it’s the Absolute Truth. (You think the editors of academic journals aren’t prone to personal biases when it comes to which papers they accept?) What you’re asking for is impossible to produce, even if the world’s leading academics work on it.

2. The “epistemological rigor” demanded by robot-heart-politics’ reader is a much higher standard than what is asked by even the criminal justice system. If a bunch of children claim abuse, say at the hands of a religious institution, do we ask them to offer airtight proof? Even if no one was around to witness said abuse? Even if they only have their memories and personal experiences? And when they come back with others who had shared experiences, do we write off all their stories as “anecdotes” that don’t prove a greater trend — that trend being that institutionally, there is a problem that needs to be addressed? At the point where hordes of people start coming forward with their own horror stories, it’s time to shut up and listen, no? You have here a bunch of folks who, yes, are citing their own anecdotes of discrimination, but who constitute such a large group that I find it hard to believe anyone could ignore that these are institutional problems. By demanding undeniable proof and refusing to listen until you receive said proof, you’re essentially telling oppressed people to spend time proving their oppression or else be taken for liars and/or crybabies.

For more on privilege, read this fantastic post by robot-heart-politics.

I try to keep my cold German on his toes. (Yes, my iPhone is in...

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:00:00 -0400

I try to keep my cold German on his toes.

(Yes, my iPhone is in German. Getting in practice where I can!)

A Sexpert's Advice: Don't Listen To The Advice | Sex Really

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:17:46 -0400

A Sexpert's Advice: Don't Listen To The Advice | Sex Really:

Ugh, dating manuals are the bane of my existence. Every so often, someone will email me saying, “I read this and this in a book. Is it true? Should I follow these rules?” And then I have to launch into a whole lecture about how no one has any 100% Success Guaranteed formula for romantic relationships. And that most people who claim that they do are quacks or just as bad at relationships as we are. I talk about The Rules, He’s Just Not That Into You, and other dating guide nonsense in the following article for Sex Really:

When it comes to a divisive topic like first-date etiquette, there are so many divergent viewpoints that a girl needs to get some perspective before she dives headfirst into the self-help section at her local bookstore.

So step one: Let’s take it back to the old school. What were the love gurus of yore telling young women? According to one 1938 dating guide, women are advised to avoid getting drunk, sitting in awkward positions, chewing gum with their mouths open, or talking while dancing. That last one aside, all the other tips actually sound quite reasonable to me. If anything, dating rules have gotten wonkier in the post-war era.

Take, for example, the book-turned-movie He’s Just Not That Into You, in which Greg Behrendt tells women, “We like not knowing if we can catch you. We feel rewarded when we do.” So in other words, guys are just like dogs and women are just like squeaky toys…

Outside Knightsbridge Station in London this summer Photo...

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:26:43 -0400

Outside Knightsbridge Station in London this summer

Photo credit: Patrick Hamm

As a feminist, what is your view on children?

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:21:35 -0400

My totally kneejerk, purely personal, non-feminist opinion: I do not like kids. Nothing personal, babies, but I do not find you or your bodily excretions at all adorable. I don’t like the time, commitment, or money you require. I don’t like your lack of boundaries and failure to comprehend rules. I’m also not fond of listening to high-pitched squeals or forcibly removing sharp objects from mouths. If I become a mother, I will probably require frequent sedation.

That said, I’m totally capable of playing and hanging out with children for short periods of time. Kids like me, and I like them, as long as I don’t have to take them home with me at the end of the day! I can understand — intellectually, if not personally — the biological urge to have children, though I don’t think there’s a single non-selfish reason to do so. But hell, if having children makes you happy, go ahead and do it. There are plenty of things we do that are out of self-interest.

My feminist opinion on children, however, is this: women, especially poor women, totally get the shitty end of the bargain. If you are a woman in a heterosexual relationship, you will likely be stuck with the brunt of the child-rearing duties. Of course, this isn’t always the case, but on average, women spend more time on childcare and domestic duties than men, even when both partners work outside the home. Some women — those who are very, very lucky — can opt out of work to stay at home with their kids, but this is not a choice that most families have the luxury of making. And on the other side of the feminist coin, some high-powered female executives do manage to balance career and family, but it’s not as if they’re doing it single-handedly. For every child who has a nanny, there’s another child (the nanny’s) who doesn’t have a mother. One of the contradictions of modern feminism is that women can’t actually “have it all”. Not as long as we still have to survive in a market economy like everyone else.

I don’t have the time to get into Marxism & Mommyhood 101 on this blog, but for a primer on the state of women’s equality and modern motherhood, I’d recommend Arlie Hochschild’s The Second Shift. As a side note, despite my lack of patience for those wriggling little beasts known as kids, I’m very interested in pregnancy and motherhood from an academic standpoint. So if you’ve got more burning questions: Ask them here.

At the Tate Modern in London. Photo Credit: Patrick Hamm

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:30:00 -0400

At the Tate Modern in London.

Photo Credit: Patrick Hamm

Exiting one of the exhibitions, Exposed: Voyeurism,...

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:26:05 -0400

Exiting one of the exhibitions, Exposed: Voyeurism, Surveillance, & the Camera (which is running until October 3rd)

Photo Credit: Patrick Hamm

A Final Word On The "Harvard Factor"

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:52:00 -0400

You do ride a lot on your Harvard education, more than you should. Open up your pretty little eyes: Having a Harvard degree, just by itself, is not going to land you places … When you’re at the elite school level, you don’t get compared against the rest of the pool; you get compared against people from other elite schools. Shitty economy aside, it’s still hard to land a job for us, because we have to measure up to brainiacs from other elite schools with a perfect GPA and a bazillion internships. Your Harvard sociology degree will look like shit next to the MIT econ major’s. — Anonymous Reader

You know, I will be the first to say that I’m completely unqualified to be an investment banker. (Hear that, employers? Lena Chen cannot figure out Excel.) I’m also not qualified for a job at a research lab, a paragliding school, or the local zoo. See? Lots of knowledge that a Harvard education doesn’t equip you with!

But seriously? If our major competition consists of MIT econ majors, we do not have it that tough.

I’ve observed that what I wrote about this topic has rubbed a ton of people the wrong way: both the alums of elite institutions and also those who didn’t attend them. I have a theory why:

Those who didn’t go to an elite institution think that the subtext to my argument is that they’re “inferior” for not having a fancy pedigree.
Those who did attend an elite school think that I’m dismissing their hard work and writing off their success as a result of their academic affiliations.

First off, I do not think I’m better than you because of where I went to school. Are there advantages? Sure. But that doesn’t mean I’m better. Second, you may work damn hard as the graduate of an elite school, but other people may work comparably hard and do not make nearly as much money. It doesn’t mean that you’re just riding on your degree, but it does mean that you’re — relatively speaking — rather privileged. Take for example, this article from The Crimson, which shows that even newly minted Harvard grads make over $60,000 a year, nearly $20,000 more than the typical American male (who, on average, is probably much older). Obviously, this figure doesn’t represent everyone (it’s like twice my expected annual salary) but it does demonstrate that there’s a real discrepancy in income between those who attend elite schools and those who don’t.

As I wrote in my original post on the topic:

A Harvard degree, of course, does not mean you will definitely get a job, and sure, some of my friends graduated without offers. But let’s be real, their unemployment is temporary and bears little resemblance to the unemployment facing most bewildered college grads. (I don’t just assume this; the non-Harvard grads I know have a much tougher time than their equally unemployed Ivy counterparts.) Unless they are one of the few who come from a truly impoverished background, most Harvard kids are able to get by until they find something. It’s just that many want very specific jobs, often located in New York, which pay a certain wage and select among a candidate pool filled with other Harvard grads. And my unemployed classmates have yet to land one of those jobs yet. There’s nothing wrong with holding out for a good gig, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that an unemployed Harvard kid has the same lot as your typical unemployed American who can’t make ends meet. All kidding about my “banking back-up plan” aside, I think you have to agree that an Ivy Leaguer is going to have an easier time on the market.

I think the reason why people are so resistant to acknowledging their privilege is because they see themselves and their friends working really hard. And maybe they haven’t landed the jobs they’ve wanted, maybe they’re having to settle, and maybe this whole post-grad thing is not working out the way they originally planned. Look, I never said that Harvard grads don’t have anything to worry about, ever. But when I write about privilege and the fact that some people have it while others don’t, it comes off as really entitled when some of the responses are, “BUT HARVARD KIDS HAVE IT TOUGH TOO! IT’S NOT SO EASY COMPETING AGAINST MIT!” I mean, really? I know young people who are on unemployment, state-subsidized healthcare, and food stamps. A few are graduates of elite schools, but most aren’t and they would probably laugh in your face if you came to them with your life woes. The job search you’re undertaking may be hard, but it’s still a privileged one. And you know what, recognizing one’s privilege — say, in the case of Male Privilege — is usually interpreted as a good thing, a sign of self-awareness.

As I told one reader:

While I don’t love everything about my school (who does?), I totally acknowledge the fact that it gives me a leg up — and that’s not something that’s just a myth. But part of the problem with explaining that meritocracy is a sham is that there’s not really a nice way of doing so, when so many people are invested on the idea that their hard work means they “deserve” the end result.

We live in a market economy. No one really “deserves” their lot. Almost everyone who makes money in America makes money off the back of someone else, someone who makes less, who lives with less, who may be just as hard-working but was less fortuitous when it came to life circumstances. There’s nothing fair about the way our economy is organized, and nothing fair about the way my income or your income is determined. When I say, “I have privilege because of my degree, and you might have privilege because of yours”, it’s not that I’m trying to condemn you for having advantages that others don’t have. A lot of people have things that others don’t have. Nor am I suggesting that you rip up your diploma and head for an ascetic life in the mountains. Obviously, that’s not going to change the world either. What will change the world — in my view, at least — is if more people begin to acknowledge the way wealth is distributed, not on the basis of need or on the basis of hard work, but largely on the basis of pre-existing wealth and pedigree. And once enough of us recognize the inherent injustice in an economy such as this one, maybe we’ll also be more willing to challenge the very system that conferred upon us all this privilege in the first place.

When Patrick and I went to the Tate Modern this summer, he took...

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:00:00 -0400

When Patrick and I went to the Tate Modern this summer, he took some gorgeous black-and-white photos on his camera (a Leica M6 for all of those asking).

This is just one of me goofing off.

My favorite Boston-area consignment store, Second Time Around,...

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:00:00 -0400

My favorite Boston-area consignment store, Second Time Around, is having their “Midnight Madness” sale today and tomorrow. All their summer merchandise, which is already priced at a fraction of retail cost, will be marked down a further 70 percent. I LOVE this sale and have always found such great stuff from it. I live within a five block radius of three Second Time Around locations, and as a STA devotee, I’ve also checked out their stores in DC and New York. (They’ve expanded to a ton of East Coast cities over the past couple years!) Click on the promo poster above for a list of participating store locations and hours.

A consignment-shopping newbie? Read my beginner’s guide to scoring second-hand deals.

Boston
176 Newbury St., Boston, MA, (617) 247-3504
219 Newbury St., Boston, MA, (617) 266-1113
324 Newbury St., Boston, MA, (617) 236-2028
82 Charles St., Boston, MA, (617) 227-0049
8 Eliot St., Cambridge, MA, (617) 491-7185

New York
262 Mott St., New York, NY, 10012 (212) 965-8415
111 Thompson St., New York, NY 10012, (212) 925-3919
1040 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10021, (212) 628-0980

DC
3289 M Street Georgetown, DC 20007 (202) 333-2355

You and Patrick and Hamlet are too cute. I want the dirty truth. Do you get in fights? Is one of you secretly insecure? Do you get jealous? Possessive? Come on, things can't actually be as perfect as they seem.

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:28:00 -0400

No relationship is perfect, mind included! And when you live together, there are roommate dynamics to worry about in addition to romantic drama. Considering that we both work from home (Patrick on his dissertation, me on freelance writing) and spend the majority of the day together, we’re pretty good about sharing space and avoiding bickering. I think this is because our relationship is really egalitarian. Both of us contribute different things, but we also each pull our own weight. For example, Patrick is a total neat freak, which means that he spends way more time wiping, laundering, sweeping, etc. in a day than I do all week. On the other hand, I care a lot about eating good food while he’s happy with a burrito for dinner, so I’m always the one who cooks. This kind of division of labor seems to be, in my opinion, fair and feminist.

It’s the same approach we take outside our relationship. Patrick and I spend a ton of time together and as a result, share some of our friends, but we still have social lives outside each other. I try not to be possessive of his time, since I see him more than anyone else does anyway. He’s not at all jealous of my male acquaintances and is as friendly with my exes as I am. After being together for so long, I trust him as much as I do any of my closest friends, some of whom I definitely couldn’t live with.

And as for Hamlet, well, he’s a handful, and I wasn’t what anyone would call a “dog person” when I met my two Yalies. They’ve both grown on me since.

Hate Mail of the Month

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:00:00 -0400

Usually, I’m pretty good at sniffing out the riff raff on my blog, but distinguishing between trolling and ignorance is always a close call. I wasn’t quite sure which was the case when this hit my inbox after I wrote an article for Skirt! Magazine’s August issue (“What did Cosmo teach me about feminism?”):

I have to say that I do not understand WHY “Skirt” would bother including one of your absolutely frivolous, dumb and weak article in their publication? Are you really serious— No wonder Harvard is putting out such uneducated graduates. What a waste of money!!!! I am a writer and find you very well lets just say a bit of a buffoon. You are so willing to give away your privacy what is left I would ask you?

I wish you the best, but you would think you would have more respect for yourself and other women. I hope you find that G-spot after all that is of grave importance. What do your parents think of your blog? I am sure they just love it and discuss it over dinner right?

I am sorry, but I had to write you because I am amazed at how little class and respect you have for yourself and other women! I guess with a rag like Skirt that is what they want to publish. Sad! The lack of real writing about real issues are really above their heads and obviously yours.

Say what? Given the content of my not-so-incendiary article, I’m surprised they took my account of my Cosmo-reading days as such an … affront to their personal value system. But given the absence of crass language, I’m inclined to think that this letter writer is for real and not someone purposely trying to incite a reaction. Even I’ve written more controversial things, no? Likely, this woman read (or “read”) my piece, looked me up, and was terribly offended by my Google results. Not really my problem, though I’d still like to know what her beef was with my article.

My response:

If there are specific passages in the Skirt! piece that you take issue with, I’d be happy to discuss them and you can certainly leave a comment on the website where the piece is published. Without any excerpts, it’s hard for me to understand where some of your criticisms (lack of respect for myself/other women, “uneducated”, “frivolous”, and “dumb”, etc.) are coming from. If it isn’t clear from the article itself, I am critiquing women’s magazines for their non-substantive content and for their emphasis on consumerism/the beauty ideal (things that are harmful for women).

As for my blog, I don’t see what my parents’ opinion has to do with anything. Again, if there is something specific on my blog that you take issue with, please make that clear instead of just making ad hominem statements.

And the author’s answer:

Did you find your G-Spot? I am sure many have! Women like you can never be considered writers—you are an overexposed Blogger! Big difference!!!!!

Troll or not, someone failed to look up the definition of ad hominem. Whatever.

A Particularly Odd Trespass of Personal Space

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:37:04 -0400

Is peeking under women’s umbrellas the new catcall? Because this happened to me yesterday in Brooklyn as I was crossing the intersection of Metropolitan and Bedford. I was so utterly outraged that someone would look under my umbrella, lick his lips, and say, “Oh my”, that I couldn’t even find the composure to ask the guy what the fuck he thought he was doing. I guess he wanted to see the head that went along with the body he’d presumably been checking out from afar? I have no idea.

So next time you are scurrying about a major urban center, face hidden from view, happy as a clam, please realize that at any moment, a creepazoid might stick HIS HEAD under YOUR UMBRELLA. Be prepared. Nothing is sacred anymore.

Ok so yesterday I had sex for the first time. It was with a friend of mine and it was, well I'm not sure how I should describe it but it was nice. We talked about it up front and after and it's probably a one time thing since I'm moving to another country for half a year.

The thing is I'm not sure if I want to tell my friends. They're a little more conservative than me and I know they will judge me for sleeping with a guy who is not my boyfriend and probably never will be and I don't know I want to hear that. On the other hand, they're my friends and hiding it would probably feel like lying.

What do you think I should do? Ever been in a similar situation? I know it's a weird question to ask you, but well, I can't really ask my friends so..

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:10:00 -0400

You know, normally, I would say, don’t worry about what your friends think as long as you’re making choices that are right for you, but in this case, I’m not even sure you should feel any sort of obligation to reveal all the details of your love/sex life. These experiences are yours and your partner’s. Would your friends expect you to spill family secrets? Probably not. So perhaps being guarded about a one-night stand shouldn’t be equated to “lying”.

I’ve had a couple similar experiences so I can relate. When I first started writing Sex and the Ivy, there were a lot of things about me that people felt entitled to know. And that entitlement made me feel really uncomfortable, as if I didn’t have any privacy or secrets of my own. Compounding the problem was that I lived at the time in a suite of six women, where you couldn’t sneak in overnight visitors if you tried. Some of these women are my closest friends to this day, but nonetheless, it was really hard to live with zero secrets. They may have been my biggest cheerleaders when it came to critics of my blogs, but there were plenty of things I did back then that they didn’t approve of (perhaps rightfully so) and plenty of things I did that they didn’t necessarily understand. I didn’t want to share every single anecdote of my sophomore year with my roommates, but it happened anyway because of our living situation.

There was definitely a point at which I realized that our rooming arrangement was bad for my mental health and probably bad for everyone else’s too. It was just too much estrogen in too small a place, and it didn’t help that we were all rather entrenched in each other’s lives. For a variety of factors, all of us split up for junior year; two transferred Houses, two moved into an off-campus apartment together, and two stayed.

And you know what? I think this saved a lot of friendships. I don’t think that being close friends with someone requires sharing everything and anything and trying to force that model of friendship can actually be really detrimental. If you can deal with whatever backlash you may get from your friends, perhaps you should be open with your experience and try to change their minds about non-relationship sex. But if it’s a lost cause or if you simply don’t feel like spilling the beans, then by all means, keep your secrets. You’re entitled to them.

Eva Franco “Fifi” Jack & Jill Stripe Skirt Dear...

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:27:32 -0400

Eva Franco “Fifi” Jack & Jill Stripe Skirt

Dear Rue La La, this skirt is gorgeous. It’s also $69. I can’t buy this. Those less broke: join the site with my invite link; contribute to my shopping bank! My wallet will thank you.

Candid via my iPhone from More Magazine’s photo shoot of young...

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:43:00 -0400

Candid via my iPhone from More Magazine’s photo shoot of young feminists. From left to right: Megan Evans, Julie Zeilinger, Morgane Richardson, Jen McCreight, and Tracy Clark-Flory.

I’m at a photo shoot and freaking out over the shoes. This...

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:45:49 -0400

I’m at a photo shoot and freaking out over the shoes. This is a really random experience that will likely be the subject of a future “Bad Feminist Confessions” post. (Don’t worry guys, this series is mostly satire. I’m not concerned about my feminist street creds.) P.S. I’m in NY until Monday!