<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Sexist &#187; Jane Austen</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/tag/jane-austen/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist</link>
	<description>Sex and Gender in D.C.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 18:08:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The Morning After: &#8220;SUV of Male Privilege&#8221; Edition</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/06/02/the-morning-after-suv-of-male-privilege-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/06/02/the-morning-after-suv-of-male-privilege-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 13:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alyssa rosenberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Britney Spears]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[eric holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jane Austen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lynn hirschberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[male privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pride and Prejudice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pride and Prejudice and Zombies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prison rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SAFER campus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suv]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the curvature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[zombies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=10610</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
More from Tiger Beatdown on manlit: This time, Garland Grey on the role of privilege in co-opting Jane Austen, a la Pride and Prejudice and Zombies:
Austen had to work very hard to hammer out a structure and a flow and a  rhythm to the story, and you pull up next to that process in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3520/3981468002_cd6084fbdc.jpg" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></p>
<p>More from <strong>Tiger Beatdown</strong> on manlit: This time, <strong>Garland Grey</strong> on <a href="http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/06/01/what-we-read-when-we-dont-read-the-internet-presents-hard-work-and-hard-work-and-ripoffs/">the role of privilege</a> in co-opting <strong>Jane Austen</strong>, a la <em>Pride and Prejudice and Zombies</em>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Austen had to work very hard to hammer out a structure and a flow and a  rhythm to the story, and you pull up next to that process in your giant  SUV of male privilege and start plugging your electricity and water into  it, taking all the work that Austen did to get the thing published, all  of the work that made her writing world famous, and you make YOURSELF  world famous. . . . it seems that when a woman works with a man’s material, they are  given a more restrictive license to do so; their work is always assumed  to be “less than” than a man’s work. And HEAVEN FORFEND that a BLACK  WOMAN recombine the work of a white woman such as Margaret Mitchell,  like Alice Randall did in <em>The Wind Done Gone.</em> Remember what a  pointless shitstorm all that was?</p></blockquote>
<p><span id="more-10610"></span></p>
<p>Also, there weren't <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/36978/yawn-of-the-dead">hardly any zombies in it</a>!</p>
<p>* Seconding <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01tue3.html">this <em>New York Times </em>op-ed</a> urging Attorney General <strong>Eric Holder </strong>to enact strong standards to help end prison rape: "Predictably, state and local corrections officials determined to  preserve the disastrous status quo are pushing back. Mr. Holder must  hold the line." In <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hRT83-P6uFUn1Z_1gcpa9Yri_tTQD9G046K84">related news</a>, "Immigration and Customs Enforcement is investigating allegations that a  guard at a central Texas detention facility sexually assaulted female  detainees on their way to being deported."</p>
<p>* In defense of <strong>Lynn Hirshberg</strong>'s devastating <strong>MIA</strong> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/magazine/30mia-t.html?pagewanted=all">profile</a>: <strong>Alyssa Rosenberg </strong>on the <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2010/06/mia-and-the-stories-celebrities-tell-about-themselves/57482/">narratives celebrities create</a>, and the value in dismantling them:</p>
<blockquote><p>Queasy but great entertainment—and great entertainment journalism—have  often come out of the disjunction between established celebrity  narratives (at least the ones that are meant to be taken seriously) and  reality, or the breakdown of a once-true narrative. Vanessa  Grigoriadis's 2008 <em>Rolling Stone</em> <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=[8131,28475]">profile</a> of Britney Spears came as the former teen pop star was punishing her  handlers, America, and herself for imposing a restrictive, virginal life  story on her by going publicly, shockingly crazy. But the piece also  exposed that story as false in the first place. Britney was sexually  active before her breakout album, and she'd had breast implants.  What  was interesting was less that she and her management team lied about  those events, but how she succeeded, and then failed, to live out the  history that was retroactively created for her.</p></blockquote>
<p>* Via the <strong>Curvature</strong>: Watching an ultrasound of a fetus <a href="http://thecurvature.com/2010/06/01/anti-choice-ultrasound-laws-dont-change-abortion-rates-but-continue-getting-tougher/">does  not deter women</a> from having an abortion.</p>
<p>* <strong>SAFER Campus </strong>on the testimony of a woman who was raped at UV A in 1984, and the <a href="http://www.safercampus.org/blog/?p=2552">strange sexual assault policies</a> that remain at the school today:</p>
<blockquote><p>[N]one of the rapes reported to UVA (and consequently reported to the  federal government) has resulted in sanctions. There is something wrong  with all of the different pieces of this picture. I would add that the  procedures for UVA’s sexual assault board <a onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/www.virginia.edu/vpsa/assaultprocedure.html_2b?referer=');" href="http://www.virginia.edu/vpsa/assaultprocedure.html#2b">include  two options that are basically mediation</a>—one literally called  mediation, and a “structured meeting” that seems to be the same as  mediation except the discussion is more structured? What? Notably, if a  student chooses a structured meeting, they must <strong>waive their  right to a formal adjudication before the Sexual Assault Board</strong>.  (Oddly enough, students are allowed to pursue formal adjudication if  the are unhappy with the results of a mediation…as long as they don’t  sign anything that says they can’t…) Neither the mediation or strcutured  meeting can result in sanctions. Perhaps this speaks to why the 52  reported rapes at UVA resulted in no sanctions? I would really like to  know what channels UVA’s sexual assault cases go through most often.</p></blockquote>
<p><em>Photo via <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kiwoo/3981468002/sizes/m/"><strong>daniel.julia</strong></a>, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/06/02/the-morning-after-suv-of-male-privilege-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: Plenty Courtly, But Where are the Fucking Zombies?</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/04/01/pride-and-prejudice-and-zombies-plenty-courtly-but-where-are-the-fucking-zombies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/04/01/pride-and-prejudice-and-zombies-plenty-courtly-but-where-are-the-fucking-zombies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:30:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Beyond DC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[braaaaains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brains]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jane Austen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mysterious plague]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pride and Prejudice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pride and Prejudice and Zombies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seth grahame-smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the undead]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unmentionables]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=3413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
In this week's paper, I reviewed Seth Grahame-Smith's foray into undead Jane Austen adaptation, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies:
With his first novel, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Seth Grahame-Smith invents a genre: In an undead Jane Austen adaptation, there must be brains, and there must be braaaaains. Unfortunately, Grahame-Smith is already breaking the rules.
Read the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/huffcp/images/features/zombies.jpg" alt="" width="420" height="300" /></p>
<p>In this week's paper, I reviewed <strong>Seth Grahame-Smith</strong>'s foray into undead <strong>Jane Austen </strong>adaptation<em>, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies</em>:</p>
<blockquote><p>With his first novel, <em>Pride and Prejudice and Zombies</em>, Seth Grahame-Smith invents a genre: In an undead Jane Austen adaptation, there must be brains, and there must be <em>braaaaains</em>. Unfortunately, Grahame-Smith is already breaking the rules.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=36978">Read the review here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/04/01/pride-and-prejudice-and-zombies-plenty-courtly-but-where-are-the-fucking-zombies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Podcast: Five Minutes* You&#8217;ll Never Get Back</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/26/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-5/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/26/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Five Minutes You'll Never Get Back]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bobby Allyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[City Paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Edward Cullen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jane Austen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Riggs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pootie Tang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Twilight]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/?p=1307</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome back to another edition of Five Minutes* You'll Never Get Back, City Paper's sex and politics podcast. This week, City Lights Editor Mike Riggs and I discuss the pros and cons of cinema's most recent abstinence-only vegetarian tween vampire phenomenon, Twilight. (Our usual cohort, Intern Bobby, gets a pass this week).

Topics discussed: Jane Austen, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome back to another edition of Five Minutes* You'll Never Get Back, <em>City Paper</em>'s sex and politics podcast. This week, City Lights Editor <strong>Mike Riggs</strong> and I discuss the pros and cons of cinema's most recent <a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/25/in-defense-of-abstinence-only-vampirism/">abstinence-only vegetarian tween vampire phenomenon</a>, <em>Twilight</em>. (Our usual cohort, <strong>Intern </strong><strong><strong>Bobby</strong></strong>,<strong> </strong>gets a pass this week).<strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p><strong>T</strong><strong>opics discussed: </strong>Jane Austen, morality, ballet studio, Pootie Tang, Edward Cullen, Zac Ephron unlike Edward Cullen, Mike Riggs unlike Edward Cullen, feasts of flesh</p>

<p>* okay, ten minutes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2008/11/26/podcast-five-minutes-youll-never-get-back-5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

