uhhMayzing Music Monday!

Hi all!

Sorry for the abridged music blog today, but I would like you to check out and support and awesome female music artist, Lights!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JL3qQwEOV0

Lights is a Canadian-born singer/songwriter and all around awesome performer. She personally reminds me of the Postal Service, but lists her primary influence as Bjork. I linked to one of her songs that's my favorite, but I will definitely be checking out her full album when it's released (hopefully) in October. It takes a lot for female solo artists who don't fit in the cookie-cutter pop mold to break through in the industry, so it's always helpful to be supportive of the artists we like! 

You Run Fast, But Too Fast for a Woman...

I'm not sure how others are taking the accusations that South African athlete, Caster Semenya is not female, but this just sounds like another, "you obviously can't do that because you're a woman" excuse.

If you need to play catch-up, here is the story reported on cnn.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/08/20/athletics.worlds.berlin.semenya.gender/index.html

Semenya beat, no, destroyed, her competition in the women's 800-meter, finishing the race in 1 minute, 55.45 seconds...the best so far, in the world this year! She was a full 2 seconds ahead of the second place competitor (and 2007 champion). She CAN'T be a woman.

But wait, there is more proof...she has a "masculine" build. Duh.

I'm sorry, so when a female athlete does extraordinarily well, she has to be male? It doesn't have anything to do with the hours, weeks, years of intense training she's been through to make it to such an event? Nope, it's because she's a man.

I really hope these ridiculous tests come back to prove to everyone that Semenya is female. And even if on the off chance they don't, there is still a bigger issue brought up here that's quite disturbing:

"Women can do well...but not that well"

"Protecting" Love and the Human Race...

New Jersey based anti-gay group National Organization for Marriage (NOM), held a Celebrate Marriage and Family Day in Rhode Island last week. NOM boasted that they were one of the largest financial contributors to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign in California. Their mission: to “protect” Rhode Island from allowing same sex unions of any kind. That’s right, no recognition in the government or religious institutions. Gross. So basically you just want us to exist then…thanks.

Rhode Island queer activists proudly protested outside of NOM’s event.



Representatives from NOM stated that the event was not meant to be political or religious, just celebration with multiple renewed vows. Ahem…





Yeah, that wasn’t political or religious at all…

In a nut shell, she’s saying that if the government allows same-sex unions, the human race is bound to end because of the lack of child production. Who fills her mind with these crazy ideas? Clearly, queer couples have alternative routes to creating a family. What would she say to orphaned children or those in the foster care system? "Oh sorry dear…we could have placed you in a warm home filled with unconditional love and parents able and willing to provide you with anything you’ll ever need…but they were the same sex. Have fun in the (too often) corrupt child care system."

NOM says they want to protect family and love…but what kind of love are they showing? If anything, they are destroying the basic fundamental concept of love, and that is to end hate. Their “love” is centered on the idea of hatred and discrimination. I’m from New Jersey and I shutter to think that headquarters for NOM is located in Princeton. With a vote for equal marriage coming up soon in New Jersey, we need to be stronger, more devoted, and more organized than the hateful groups.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

If you’re in the area, the Women’s Center of Ramapo College will be hosting an equal marriage demonstration on Saturday, October 3rd from 12pm-3pm. It will consist of a letter writing station, phone bank, postcard station, as well as a large-scale symbolic wedding ceremony open to all!

And please don’t forget about the National March for Marriage Equality on October 10th-11th in DC.

Cross posted here and here!

aMazing Music Mondays

In this edition of "Manic Music Mondays", we are giving props to one of the coolest female artists out there right now: India Arie!



If you've never heard of her (what?!?), here is a short clip from one of her more famous songs, "I Am Not My Hair":

"I am not my hair
I am not this skin
I am not your expectations no no
I am not my hair
I ma not this skin
I am a soul that lives within"

Enough said. And the best part? All of her music is about female empowerment and being happy with who you are as a person, not with your physical appearances. And, in a society where Kayne West and friends set the cultural standard for what "good" music is, it's no wonder India Arie is not on the Billboard right next to them.

I mean, who wouldn't want to listen to songs that objectify women's bodies and reduce them to nothing more than sexual objects? That's a top hit right there.

Seriously though, no wonder American girls and women have such low self-esteem, we are brought up to believe that there is an ideal, and if we don't fit that ideal, then we're not beautiful and we should hate who we are.

Well, I say, fuck that....and apparently, so does Ms. Arie.

What Would Bill Think of This?

I want to start this post out by talking about what we should be focusing on in regards to Hillary Clinton this week: the message she is bringing to the African people. According to the New York Post Hillary started out this week "on the first leg of a seven-nation tour of Africa, Clinton will speak to Kenya's leadership about U.S. concerns for the country, the homeland of President Barack Obama's father, in the wake of corruption scandals and disputed 2007 elections that led to violence that left more than 1,000 dead."

Clinton has been all over Africa over the last few days, working to spread a message of goodwill from the United States, while simultaneously offering up criticisms of issues on which the two countries disagree:

"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to rebuild American relations with South Africa on Friday after years of frustration over the nation’s approach to issues like AIDS and the crisis in Zimbabwe.

Promising to “broaden and deepen” American ties to South Africa, the continent’s economic and political powerhouse, she said the two countries would “work together to build a global architecture of cooperation.”

But she also made clear her disapproval of the nation’s past policies on AIDS, which have been widely criticized as lagging behind science and allowing the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of people through government inaction.

[via the New York Times]"

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Monday for Congolese youth to lead nationwide protests against massive corruption and rampant sexual violence in the country's violence-torn east.

"You are the ones who have to speak out," she told university students in Kinshasa. "Speak out to end the corruption, the violence, the conflict that for too long have eroded the opportunities across this country. Together, you can write a new chapter in Congolese history."

Clinton travels on Tuesday to the eastern city of Goma, the epicenter of horrific rapes and other sexual crimes committed by the military and rebel groups as they fight over the region's vast mineral wealth.

Clinton said she would press officials in the Democratic Republic of Congo to address the issues. But she stressed that domestic outrage at graft and sexual assaults against women and girls was needed to help prod the government into action.

[via Yahoo News]"

I think its obvious at this point that Clinton's task is not easy in the least - there's historical tension, massive cultural differences, rampant misogyny and much more to be contended with here. She should be commended for this huge undertaking or, at the very least, respected for the effort that she is making as Secretary of State.

She should be, but, of course, she isn't.

Most of us haven't really heard about what Clinton's been doing in Africa, especially those of us who get our news primarily from the television news networks, because the news-media has been abuzz with a very different story. Here's a quick taste of how America's news networks have been covering her Africa trip for the last few days:

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost her cool Monday after a Congolese student, speaking through a translator, asked her what "Mr. Clinton" thought about a Chinese trade deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The only problem? Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. No immediate word yet how Clinton responded."

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?" Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill's spokeswoman.

"My husband is not secretary of state, I am," she replied. "If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband."

[via ABC News]

"The secretary of state bristled Monday when — as she heard it — a Congolese university student asked what her husband thought about an international financial matter.

She hadn't traveled to Africa to talk about her husband the ex-president. But even there, she couldn't escape his outsized shadow."

She abruptly reclaimed the stage for herself.

"My husband is not secretary of state, I am," she snapped. "I am not going to be channeling my husband."

Clinton's presence, so bold in her historic presidential candidacy against Barack Obama, has sometimes been hard to see in the months she's served as the supposed face and voice of U.S. foreign policy."

[via MSNBC]

Clinton's response to this one, highly inappropriate question (that was, in fact, translated correctly all along) has taken center-stage, quickly pushing all of her diplomatic accomplishments in Africa aside. This coverage honestly depresses me, as the more I read about the incident, the more sexism I find myself trying to ignore.

For instance, all of the news agencies I have seen reporting on this event have written it off as Hillary "losing her cool" (or some similar phrase that implies an emotional outburst, rather than an appropriate response to a rude question) a phrase that implies Hillary, rather than the asked of the offensive question, is the one that committed a social gaffe.

There was no "lost cool" here, Hillary handled the question perfectly. As Secretary of State to Bill's former president, it is Hillary (not Bill) that currently has the power and influence that make her opinion (not Bill's) relevant to America's international policies. How could it be considered anything but insulting for an individual to ask her for her husband's opinion on an issue where she is the one who's opinion actually has influence and importance? Framing a question in that way does one thing and one thing only: it belittles Hillary's position and power by implying that her opinion is less important than her husband's. Now, compound this with the fact that the question came during a campaign to end sexual violence against women in Africa and it becomes even more understandable that Hillary would be offended by the belittling implication of the question asked.

Yet Hillary was not phased. She simply reminded the questioner (sternly, yes, but no more so than the situation deserved) that she was the Secretary of State, not her husband, and that she would speak for herself in this interview, rather than be his mouthpiece. Basically, she acted in a manner that asserted her authority, authority that the American media seems intent upon slowly stripping away through coverage that implies Hillary overreacted in some way to the situation, packaged alongside the constant reminder that the question was "mistranslated" (even though that assertion, is actually a "mistranslation" of the facts) - making it seems as if Hillary overreacted to a whole lot of nothing.

This is the face of politics for women in America. Not assertive enough? That's expected, you're a woman. Assert your power and influence in an interview? Whoa there sweetie, stop overreacting now. Don't go "losing your cool" in front of the media. Expect your opinion as Secretary of State to trump your husband's in situations related to your job? Sorry sister, you're married to a former President... who cares about your own credentials? We'll call you next time the White House needs to be re-decorated.

Still doubt that sexism is in play here? Check out this awful video from MSNBC News, provided by Jezebel, in which "reporters" joke that Bill should have flown out to the Congo to "rescue" Hillary from I don't know what... doing her job? And, even more offensively, that Hillary needs to get back to the gym as if that has any relevancy here. You stay classy, MSNBC.

Facing "The Ugly Truth"

I went with friends to see The Ugly Truth recently. For those that do not know what the movie is about, here is a synopsis:

http://www.sonypictures.com/movies/theuglytruth/site/#/about-the-film/

You may have seen coming attractions or advertisements with Katherine Heigl holding a heart by her head, and Gerard Butler holding a heart by his crotch. Right there, that should set the tone for the movie.

Admittedly, I kind of liked the movie. However, there were a few scenes, or even just a couple lines, where my mouth might have dropped and I said "That's not OK," or maybe even raised the eyebrow a few times. I realize it's just a movie, but I do want to highlight some of the social constructions depicted in the film that reflect the world we live in today.

First off, the entire movie is heterosexist.
They categorize the female lead to be a hopeless romantic, looking for love with the perfect guy. The lead male is a blunt, chauvinist who does not believe in relationships, just objectifies women and insists that's all men do (which might be true, but women do their share of objectifying others). This creates the "gender box" that all women are romantics that believe in true love, and all men "think with their dicks." While I might agree, that does not mean it is true-that is just bias.

Butler's character admits the "truth" about how men are in relationships. But does that go for all men? Is he just making generalizations? Or is he admitting what he would personally say/do? I think it's a combination of the last two.

In one scene, Butler's character said on his show ("The Ugly Truth") that [straight] men are incapable of love because [straight] men are only interested in "tits and ass."
Heigl's character calls in and tries to prove him wrong by describing what her type of a man is: charming, successful, muscular, etc.
Butler's character identifies her as a lesbian because he believes she described the perfect woman. Then when Heigl's character denies it, he assumes she's ugly. How does one come up with that??

Transitioning a little bit...I'd like to address the straight male audience. If a possible love interest calls you up, asks you out, and hangs up after you hesitate, do you call back? If you call back, and then she puts you on hold for more than 30 seconds, then hangs up, do you call back again??
I don't think this is represented well. It's unrealistic. Who has time (during the work day) to be put on hold? Ok, if you are bored, maybe that's different. But, if you're a doctor (like said character from the movie) would you have time for that? For me, I think it would be a mixture of "I don't have time for this" and "I'm not dealing with this hanging up business." Not all men and women are desperate!!


While I did enjoy most of the movie, there were just a few parts (such as the ones outlined above) that bothered me that I felt I needed to address. I'm just pointing out how the media adds to the social constructs that are ingrained into our thinking process. And then, there's just the last instance that is ridiculous and misleads people.

Mind you, this is just my take on the movie. You don't have to agree with it. And there are probably many other factors that I overlooked, but I'll leave it up to the viewing audience.

Orgasm or I do?

Lately, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about sex.

Not as much about doing it, as much as about NOT doing it. As feminists, we often address the societal pressures surrounding sex and the importance placed on women being sexual objects. There IS a lot of pressure to have sex, it’s everywhere and it seems like “everybody’s doing it”. But, there is also a lot of pressure NOT to do it. Especially for young women, we are taught all the time how to say no. Sex is a commodity, and women are the keepers of it. We are in charge of the “no” in order to stay pure. This is because men (who are the only people women have sex with, because we are all straight) are sex driven maniacs who can’t control their urges and need to push us to have sex and we must say no in order to maintain our virginity, which is essentially our self-worth, so that we don’t become damaged goods. Obviously.

Recently, I came across an article on the subject in the Trentonian called “Orgasm or I Do?” about how the push for young women to say no to sex until marriage isn’t making them NOT have sex, it’s just making them get married earlier. Is this really what the religious right is pushing for? These people are basically threatening young people that the natural, sexual desires they feel towards their partner will put their eternal life in danger if they act on them. So, if you have sex with the man you love, you’re responsible for him burning in fiery hell. Good job. How fucked up is that? Let me be clear, when I say the religious right I’m not referring to individual religious people. I grew up in a religious (Catholic) household and I know that my mother wanted me to wait to have sex until it was with someone I loved and cared about. But if I came home at 19 and announced I intended to get married so that I could have sex in order to avoid “sexual sinning”, I’m fairly confident she would have bought the condoms for me… well not literally but you get the point.

This may be an unpopular sentiment morally, but just looking at the decision to have sex versus the decision to get married, getting married is a WAY bigger deal. Marriage is a legally binding contract. There’s a lot of benefits to being married but there are also a lot of hurdles to jump through if you decide to divorce. And considering that marrying young is one of the biggest indicators for what couples will get divorced, this is really something that should be thought through before such a lofty commitment is decided on just to have sex. The choice to have sex has it’s own possible consequences as well (the possibility for pregnancy in hetero couples, as well as the risk of STIs all around, just to name a couple) but with responsible use of safer sex and/or birth control practices, these risks are minimized. Not to mention, these risks don’t magically go away with a ring on your finger!

The decision of whether or not to have sex is often not an easy one, especially for young women being bombarded with all of the different messages. If you don’t have sex, you’re a prude and probably weird and so no one wants to bone you anyway, but if you do it you’re a slut and clearly going to hell. The best advice for talking to young women about sex is not only telling them how to say no so that they don’t feel pressured by their partners to do something that they don’t want to do, but also encourage them that when they’re ready, it’s okay to say yes. If we continue to encourage women that there’s no ding ding without the wedding ring (thanks, Robin Hood Men in Tights!) we just end up hurting them more in the long run.

Cross Posted at http://community.feministing.com/2009/08/orgasm-or-i-do.html

Uncovering Myths About the Hijab

Click the picture to the left to read the article entitled, "Muslim Women Uncover Myths About the Hijab", reported by cnn.com

I really enjoyed reading this article. In general, I am fascinated by Middle Eastern culture and love reading about the political and social aspects of the society itself. Admittedly, I have been weary of the concept of a hijab, mostly because it has always been presented to me in negative ways, which gave me the impression that they are oppressive to all Muslim women. And, for some Muslim women, the hijab feels oppressive. Well, that seems simple enough to me, women who feel this way should not have to wear them. Easier said than done.

Rowaida Abdelaziz, the young woman pictured above and interviewed in the article, brings a new viewpoint to the hijab. The idea that the hijab liberates her from pressures to focus on her own physical aspects is refreshing...a concept that could be very useful in our own "beauty"-obsessed society.

I think, especially with the younger generations, the hijab is taking on a new meaning of female strength and empowerment...something Muslim women are WELL overdue for!

Gone too far? The Joan Rivers Roast...

Did anyone else catch the roast of Joan Rivers? I’m usually prepared for some of the most tasteless jokes out there, but I did NOT prepare enough. In my opinion, the best/smartest comedians don’t need to resort to easy/cheap laughs, but every year the roasts get worse and worse. It has almost become the vulgarity Olympics.

The line of jokes I felt most strongly against were the comments made by Gilbert Gottfried, Joan Rivers, and Bob Garrett regarding Howard Stern host Robin Quivers. Garrett came out with a slew of racist jokes, all in poor taste. And apparently, Robin has spoken very openly about being molested by her father as a child. Rivers and Gottfried decided to exploit that situation.

TRIGGER WARNING

It was vile, but she laughed at them. I’m not sure if she really was ok with the jokes, or if it was a front in order to avoid looking like a poor sport. The entire premise of a roast is to offend and insult. And I know some might just say I need to lighten up, but I can’t nor do I think I should have to. Garrett is supposed to be a household name, a familiar face. What a great image to put out there, even if was just in “good fun”. I’ve noticed a lot of “rape jokes” posts lately. If those in the public eye can make them without visible repercussions, then of course they are going to filter their way to more common usage.

And maybe it’s just me, but I don’t EVER find molestation “jokes” funny in any sense.

At what point can we STOP laughing, and say they’ve gone too far?

cross-posted at http://community.feministing.com/2009/08/gone-too-far-the-joan-rivers-r.html

We need a fucking revolution.

The 10 "Manliest" Ways to Die...

As feminists (and educated individuals in general) we know the dangers that come when certain things are labeled according to gender stereotypes. Manly;girly; they're all adjectives that individuals use to describe something that is supposed to pertain to a specific gender. The other day, I was stumbling around the internet when I came across a website that struck me as, well, rather idiotic and just plain annoying. Upon a mere glance at the title of the webpage, "The 10 Manliest Ways to Die" I knew I would be in for a real treat. This website cites the 10 "manliest" ways to lose one's life, writing about ten men who have perished in very "manly" ways. What makes something manly? I mean, how does one die in a manly way? This is a concept that I have yet to grasp. What makes being impaled through the heart by a short-tailed sting ray, jumping into a volcano or, my personal favorite, being killed by a robot, something that can make you uber masculine? I would hate to see what the idiots at this website would determine to be the most "girly" ways to die. It is not surprising, however, that these people would post such a narrow-minded topic on their website. Other popular hits on their site include the "10 manliest names ever," "creative and funny toilet signs," and "the strangest canned food." Intelligence at its greatest, huh?

Anyway...here's the link. Check it out if you wish to seek amusement from the ignorance of others. http://www.oddee.com/item_96485.aspx

Peace&Love.

Manic Music Mondays

Ever notice how a majority of songs played on the radio have to do with love?...Or what people think is "love." It ranges from:
"There's this girl/boy I like, but he/she doesn't know I exist" to
"He/She is with someone else, but he/she should be with me" to
"I'm so in love with the person I'm with and can't live without him/her" to
"I used to love you, but now I hate you, but I still love you" to
"I'm totally over you, but I'm writing a song about you."

Take Taylor Swift, for instance. She always sings about the guy she can't have because he's with another girl. Well, hunny, obviously he's not going to leave her for you if he talks about how "he's so in love." And if he does, then what makes you think he won't do the same to you??

Have some respect for yourself. Show some independence. Find someone that actually wants you, not a sloppy second.

In her song Love Story, one of the verses reads
"Romeo save me, then try to tell me how to feel"
Umm...don't be so dependent on men, particularly ones that don't even realize you basically drool when they're in the room. And don't EVER let a man tell you what to do or how to feel! Think for yourself.

Another one of her songs that is very popular on the radio now You Belong With Me contains the lyrics
"Dreamin' about the day
When you wake up and find
What you're looking for has been here the whole time"

Really, if he hasn't seen it yet, why are you still bothering?? Don't waste your time. Why don't YOU wake up and move on to bigger and better things?

Lastly, there's a verse in Teardrops on My Guitar that bugs the crap out of me:
"I'll bet she's beautiful
That girl he talks about
And she's got everything
That I have to live without"

WHY ARE YOU COMPARING??!!
#1 I think Taylor Swift is very pretty. She has gorgeous hair and beautiful eyes. She shouldn't be concerned about her attractiveness.
#2 Why does she assume she will only be loved for her looks?
#3 If he doesn't see what a great person you are, then it's his loss. Forget him. He's not worth it and you deserve better!

Life should not revolve around a guy I really hate when straight female artists write songs and sing about how their world would be nothing without that guy and they can't live without him. Ugh, gag me. There's more to life, and I'm sure you can find something to live for.

Historical Turn Out in Australia Equal Marriage Rally

8,000 Australians participated in a giant rally for marriage equality this past Saturday after the Australian government failed to pass equal marriage legislation. They instead voted to recognize same-sex couples as civil unions.

Here is a video of the amazing turnout:




This video has fueled my excitement for the National March for Equality that will be held in Washington DC on October 10th and 11th.

I hope these grassroot efforts will be enough to gain the full rights/federal protection we have been promised. I feel as though the issue of marriage equality has almost disappeared from the news recently due to all the media coverage of the economy: cash for clunkers, healthcare, the war.

One story I did see recently was on Fox news. A round table was discussing if people "should even care" about GLAAD's ratings of TV networks for the inclusivity of Queer characters, as though it wasn't "real news." What I found the most ironic about this disrespectful line of questioning is that as the story was airing, the scrolling news banner included the Tel Aviv shootings. THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO CARE. Simply put, we need more positive queer visibility. Why? Because both institutionalized and personal hatred still exists, and far too often it leads to violence.

So many times I've heard people state that they simply "disagree" with the gay lifestyle but that they're "glad we live in a country where people have the right to choose." Well, we don't choose to be queer, so what choices are they referring to exactly. The fact of the matter is, the hateful choices/opinions of others have taken away the queer community's right to choose for themselves. And the last time I checked, we are still people .

FIGHT FOR YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

Choose love and I hope to see everyone in October.

Cross posted at http://community.feministing.com/2009/08/historical-turn-out-in-austral.html

We Need a Fucking Revolution

When Radio Goes Wrong

This makes me sad.

This story was brought to our attention by a recently graduated WC staff member (Thanks Cass!).


"Kyle and Jackie O’s Lie Detector segment turned to disaster today when a 14-year-old girl - dragged on the 2Day FM radio show by her mother - angrily revealed she had been raped.

The mother then asked her daughter: 'Have you ever had sex?'

The 14-year-old replied: 'I’ve already told you the story about this ... and don’t look at me and smile because it’s not funny.'

After a pause she then raised her voice and said: 'Oh OK … I got raped when I was 12 years old.'

Sandilands hesitated before asking 'Right ... is that the only experience you’ve had?'"


You can read the full story here:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/girls-rape-revelation-sinks-radio-lie-detector-stunt/2009/07/29/1248546762075.html

What bothers me is that this whole situation should have never even happened. Why in the hell would you drag your unwilling daughter on a radioshow and ask her about her sex life? According to the article, the mother knew that her daughter had been raped, too.

Sandilands response only makes things worse. Not only does he completely ignore what the young girl says, but he continues to ask about her sexual history. Ugh!

So, Twilight Really IS Creepy

The above video can be found on YouTube entered in as "Buffy vs. Edward". I know this is meant to be funny, but I'm just happy that someone has finally realized that Edward's "passion" and "love" for Bella are actually obsessions...and unhealthy ones at that!

Try explaining this to my 9-year-old sister, Brianna, who swears, "NO, Edward is really in love with Bella. It's love, it's love!" Right, or it's exactly what a relationship should not be (the fact that Brianna thinks this is okay, scares the crap out of me too).

But I feel as though I'm outnumbered in this argument...1,000,000 to 1. Still, I'm sticking to my theory...he's extremely creepy. This video just says it all.

Manic Music Mondays

Dear Katy Perry,

You can NOT pretend to be an ally of the gay community just because "you kissed a girl and you liked it." That's awesome for you...however that doesn't give you gay street cred. Especially when you release vile filth like "You're So Gay."

Here's a small sample of your musical "genius"

I hope you hang yourself with your H&M scarf
While jacking off listening to mozart
You bitch and moan about LA
Wishing you were in the rain reading Hemingway
You don’t eat meat
And drive electrical cars
You’re so indie rock it’s almost an art
You need SPF 45 just to stay alive

(CHORUS)
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like boys

You’re so sad maybe you should buy a happy meal
You’re so skinny you should really Super Size the deal
Secretly you’re so amused
That nobody understands you
I’m so mean cause I cannot get you outta your head
I’m so angry cause you’d rather MySpace instead
I can’t believe I fell in love with someone that wears more make up than...

No you don’t even like boys
You’re so gay and you don’t even like boys
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like
No you don’t even like… PENIS!

Aren't you charming?...

If you're going to be an ally, you should probably try not creating music filled with trite stereotypes. Catchy tunes don't make up for your lack of sensitivity or understanding of the implications of your lyrics. Have you forgotten, or just chosen to disregard the "That's so gay" campaign.

Oh that's right, you just chose to use it over and over and over again for a national audience...thanks.

~We Need A Fucking Revolution~