London’s ‘feminist go-go girls’

Truly.  Or at least that’s how the Guardian describes them.  A leading group, the Actionettes:

So why are they are feminist?  Because

Many of these groups have an overtly feminist ethos. The Actionettes only dance and accompany all-female acts (although they would make an exception for Elvis); often the events at which they and other groups perform are hosted by women DJs. They aim to be as friendly and unintimidating as possible, never to be aspirational, or perfect. “We wanted to do something purely for the love of dancing, music and dressing up, but we wanted it to be girl-based,” says Sarah Todd. “It’s a bit like being grown-up girls – we do the sort of dance routines little girls do in the playground.”

As well as the sisterly vibe, there is a pleasing innocence to these groups. It’s a subversion of the usual go-go style where identical girls would cavort suggestively, with a male audience firmly in mind. “We are not the sort of girls you would see in a men’s magazine with giant boobs and pin-up figures,” says Ilona Jasiewicz, AKA Miss Luncheonette of the Actionettes. “It is not titillating. It’s not done for men to look at you and think, ‘Cor’ … Any woman could see us and think, ‘I could do that.’ There is no one who would be ruled out for being too tall, too fat or too skinny.”

Well, it is a change to see feminists characterized as aiming to be as friendly and unintimidating as possible.

Summers off the short list

…and we may have helped! Thanks to FEAST-L for the link.

Hillary Clinton as secretary of state? W/ addition

That’s the Thurs night buzz.  What do you think about the merits of such a choice?  Of course, even if it does happen, it will be some mixture of agreements and compromises, but generally is it good or bad?

Such an appointment would mitigate two worries of mine:

1.  His administration needs to do more than take women’s concerns seriously.  It needs to see women as very important moral agents who do the deciding on a wide range of issues.  Hillary doesn’t just represent a lot of women’s interest; she embodies an extremely important perspective.  Or at least she can.

2.  I’d be reassured to find he can work with a powerful woman like her.  No doubt for wise political reasons, Michelle Obama is being hyper non-threatening right now.  Hillary is sort of at the  opposite end. 

Of course,  there’s much more to be said about her qualifications.  And Bill.  (I  guess we all have to live with the fact that he’ll always be a part of her narrative.)  But, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Added:  Rachel Maddow’s interesting discussion on the possibility: