(Originally published on The Good Men Project)

On my day off from work the other week, I engaged in my first Twitter debate. I was perusing the Timeline when I came across a Tweet from Amanda Marcotte, a writer for Pandagon and one of the leaders of today’s feminist movement. I had been in touch with Marcotte recently, asking her to contribute to my piece on Skirtgate, the Park Slope, Brooklyn sexual assaults contretemps (which, incidentally, inspired my next piece titled Feminism: The Winter of Men’s Discontent, a commentary on the rise of misandry and men’s growing resentment toward feminism). Marcotte tweeted that she was disgusted with the New York Times for giving air-time to Katie Roiphe, who argued in a recent op-ed that sexual harassment in the workplace is an irrelevant, antiquated institution. Or in her words: “When I was at Princeton in the ’90s, the guidelines distributed to students about sexual harassment stated, “sexual harassment may result from a conscious or unconscious action, and can be subtle or blatant.”… If this language was curiously retrograde in the early ’90s, if it harkened back to the protection of delicate feminine sensibilities in an era when that protection was patently absurd, it is even more outdated now when women are yet more powerful and ascendant in the workplace.”

Roiphe is one of the most talked about cultural critics of her generation (her book Uncommon Arrangements: Seven Portraits of Married Life in London Literary Circles 1910-1939 was a delight to read, by the way). But Marcotte isn’t a fan. Fueled by her rage at Roiphe’s commentary, Marcotte launched insults at her throughout her response piece, writing things like, “She cashes that NY Times paycheck while doing no real research that could actually upend her baseless assertions” and “I’m looking forward to Roiphe’s denunciation of Dan Savage’s It Gets Better project, where she scoffs at the idea that pantsing a kid and calling him ‘fag’ on a daily basis should be a matter of concern, and not just a delightful expression of youthful boisterousness that shouldn’t be troubled by the high suicide rate amongst gay teens.” Marcotte considers Roiphe a giggling “hair-curler” who “panders to sexist men for condescending head pats.”

When I engaged Marcotte on Twitter I knew I was in for a wild ride. She is adept at Tweet debating (Twebating?) and dominated our discussion, firing out replies and replies to my replies three or four at a time, leaving me heady and confused as to which reply I should reply to. I’m new to Twitter and am still working on Tweet etiquette and strategies. Perhaps I tried too hard to fit all of my thoughts into one tweet – often substituting numbers for letters and symbols for words, which I now see is not the most couth approach – as opposed to doing it piecemeal like Marcotte.

The question that started it all was based off Marcotte’s response piece, in which she used the word slut several times (she wasn’t calling Roiphe a slut but used the word in other ways). I was curious to know, simply: “Do you have a definition for the word slut?” In recent times, feminists have appropriated the word, wearing it like a badge of honor at various protests, such as the Slut Walks, but I wanted to know how Marcotte actually defined it. Here’s how the debate began (I’ve done my best to reconstruct it):

AmandaMarcotte

http://bit.ly/tGiyq3 Fucking disgusting that the NY Times continues to run people questioning whether or not to allow harassers full rein.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte - Hi, Amanda. Curious: Do you have a definition for the word slut?

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg Yep. A “slut” is someone who has had sex with two more people than the person calling the target a slut.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg “Slut”, however, has no relationship to reality. It can’t be measured and basically is meaningless without misogyny.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg In other words, to believe in the concept of a “slut”, you must believe women are inferior to men on some level.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte - Can we agree it’s not just a term used toward females? What about misandry – women calling men “sluts”? That happens too.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg If you believe that, I have a bridge I can sell you.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte - may not happen as often, but my friends and i have called men “sluts” and “man whores” plenty of times. it goes both ways.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte – Don’t understand how u go from critiquing Roiphe to saying she would scoff at calling little boys “fags.” A stretch, no?

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg It’s a really nice bridge. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Can you get to the San Francisco area soon with your checkbook?

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg It’s also made of PURE GOLD. And you can have it for a mere $5,000. It’s an incredible bargain.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte -i had a feeling u would start to belittle my thoughts…a shame…I’m a fellow female who is just trying 2 have a dialogue.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg If you believe ironically calling someone a manslut is the same as calling a woman a slut, you have growing up to do.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg I don’t really see the point in arguing with people who are being disingenuous, sorry.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg And I can’t force you to grow up on Twitter, so what’s the point of engaging you?

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte - that’s ur biggest mistake, amanda. thinking that people who disagree w/you r being disingenuous. for the record, i’m not.

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte – why is calling someone a man slut ironic? you don’t think women feel grossed out by men who fuck everything that moves??

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg If calling a man a “slut” with humor is the same thing as calling a woman one sincerely, then I AM selling you a bridge.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg If you sincerely don’t believe in irony or nuance or context, then you believe I’m actually trying to sell you a bridge.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg You can’t have it both ways. So what’s your offer on that bridge? I’m not mocking you; there is no such thing as irony.

AmandaMarcotte

@NeelySteinberg For the record, I do think you’re being disingenuous. The only other option is “really daft”, and I don’t want to think that

NeelySteinberg

@AmandaMarcotte – that’s right. begin the ad hominem attacks.

“You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”

Last week, I wrote an op-ed piece on the recent sexual assaults in Park Slope, Brooklyn and the ensuing contretemps surrounding a police officer’s controversial remarks to a woman about her attire. The remarks, seen as sexist, had feminists crying foul. In the article, I asked Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart (HUS), and Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon.net for their thoughts. Walsh and Marcotte are ideological opposites — Marcotte is one of the leaders of today’s feminist movement; Walsh believes that Marcotte and her ilk’s contemporary feminist doctrine is dangerous and counter-productive. After linking to my article on HUS, a war raged in the comments section, in which anti-feminist rants from men abounded. Naturally, Marcotte supporters were in the minority.  One battle in particular pitted some poor gal named “Stephanie” against everyone else, and although I disagree with her position, I give her credit for taking the time to understand contrasting viewpoints. As of press time, there were 370 comments and that number will likely grow until Walsh’s next blog entry.

Like many of Walsh’s posts that deal with feminism and modern-day sexual mores, my piece clearly hit a nerve among men. As Rebecca Traister once wrote in a Salon.com review of Maureen Dowd’s contentious book Are Men Necessary?: “You only touch a nerve by telling a truth.”

The truth in this case, I believe, is a very real burgeoning discontent among men today with the feminist movement.  While it’s difficult to know if the comments within Walsh’s post are representational of the larger male population, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge a growing resentment, restlessness, and frustration that, contrary to what some may argue, does not seem to be operating at the fringes. In fact, it’s a sentiment that seems to be growing daily and in large numbers. Men are angry. And I suppose they should be.

In a recent article entitled Why Men Are in Trouble, which I also mentioned in a recent piece I wrote about the supposed sexist remark of Senator Scott Brown, author William Bennett offers insight into why this may be the case.

“The data does not bode well for men. In 1970, men earned 60 percent of all college degrees. In 1980, the figure fell to 50 percent, by 2006 it was 43 percent. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three to two. Women’s earnings grew 44 percent in real dollars from 1970 to 2007, compared with 6 percent growth for men. In 1950, 5 percent of men at the prime working age were unemployed. As of last year, 20 percent were not working, the highest ever recorded. Men still maintain a majority of the highest paid and most powerful occupations, but women are catching them and will soon be passing them if this trend continues.”

Additionally, in 2008, men represented 93 percent of all workplace deaths, even though women were responsible for 43 percent of all hours worked, and about 95 percent of workplace suicides in that same year were committed by men. Single men constitute about 60 percent of the homeless population.

Men are the ones now crying foul about countless topics: the divorce court system; Title IX; gender quotas; loosened employment physical standards (e.g. firefighters, police officers, military personnel, etc.) for women but not men; confusing dating mores (is it no wonder they’re running in droves to the Seduction Community?); male gender bias in school systems; disingenuous domestic violence numbers; misleading wage gap statistics; derailment of stimulus money for “testosterone-laden, shovel-ready” jobs. (On the topic of domestic violence: I’m beginning to see more and more examples of female on male violence. Just look at reality television, for instance. Shows like Teen Mom and Jersey Shore show frequent examples of this sort of abuse. In the case of Teen Mom, one of the female leads was arrested for her actions, but when Jenni “JWOWW” Farley attacked Mike “The Situation” Sorrentino – see video here – nobody seemed to bat an eyelash. Compare that collective indifference with the headlines sweeping the nation when Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi was hit by a man – see video here. How many examples of female on male violence are actually reported, anyway? And finally, God help me for knowing those fist-pumping delinquents’ names by heart.)

A blogger named “Byron,” a frequent commenter on Walsh’s site and an eloquent one at that, sums up the growing disillusionment in a different way. In his personal blog, he writes: “We cannot apply identical expectations to both men and women, as men and women are, by definition, different. If you have a law or a morality that is very easy for 50 percent of the people to live under and very hard for the other 50 percent, it isn’t a fair law, and it isn’t a healthy morality.”

If the pendulum of gender equality once swung all the way to one side it’s now perhaps well on its way to the other.  I’m truly thankful to the Suffragettes of yesteryear, who, frustrated with their social and economic lot in life, helped women make tremendous gains. I’m truly thankful to the feminists who helped pave the way for equal pay and equal rights and equal opportunity. Just the other day, I was having a conversation with a woman who has been a college professor for 35 years. She told me that when she first started teaching, a couple of the male faculty members at the college where she worked asked if she wanted to join the faculty wives club. “I sent my husband,” she said with a Cheshire Cat grin. While not the most abhorrent of statements and probably not intended maliciously, I certainly wouldn’t want to go back to those days (although watching this guy live would have been fun).

I can’t help but wonder, though: When it comes to the present day, as men’s bitterness grows and women’s progress continues at the expense of men’s, has the fairer sex gone too far? Are we now committing the sins that we spent years admonishing men for?

Men sure think so. They argue misandry is on the rise.

The anti-misandry movement, however, is also on the rise, bubbling just below the surface of mainstream reporting. Type in the word “misandry” into a Google search, though, and all sorts of articles and book titles appear. On YouTube, there are hundreds of videos dealing with the subject. Websites and blogs dedicated to exposing feminist indoctrination flourish. (This video in particular I found poignant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A.)

Men are starting to feel like they’re the enemy. That sentiment makes sense when you come across blogs like Eve’s Daughter, in which she dedicates an entire post to listing all the ways men are rape-supporters. The first bullet point says a man is a rape-supporter if “he’s ever sexually engaged with a woman while she was drunk or high.” There go the celebrated days of Woodstock…

When I inserted myself into the hullabaloo over at Walsh’s site, I asked the male commenters the following question: “There seems to be a growing animosity and resentment from men towards the feminist movement, and it’s certainly reflected in these threads. I am curious to know: From a male POV, what could the feminist movement do to bring men on board?”

I don’t align myself with the modern-day feminist movement (although I am grateful for gains previous waves achieved), but I am curious to know from the male perspective if there’s a way to bridge what I see as an ever-growing divide – one that more and more seems to be pitting the sexes against each other rather than uniting them. Men want to be heard when it comes to these topics; they want to talk freely and openly as men but, ironically, feel that their honesty only brings tsking, shame and derision (the way women once felt or still feel, perhaps). But how can we get anywhere unless we have honest discussion? Or, in the words of blogger Byron: “How do you talk between the sexes about the differing experiences of sex?”I, for one, wanted to listen to what they had to say. Here is a small sampling of some of their responses:

Wayfinder: For me, the good in the post-first-wave feminist movement was co-opted on the academic side around the time of deconstructionism. The academy has moved past that, but feminism is still mired in the 20th century ideologies that produced it. In attempting to root out underlying ideologies behind prejudices, they became the thought crime enforcers they were trying to fight.

So, I’m not sure that the feminist movement needs men or women at this point. I think its ideology is due for being replaced with something a bit more gender-realist, something that acknowledges that there are differences between the sexes and that the women actually like it that way aren’t brainwashed.

To put it another way, feminists have defined masculinity as the enemy while simultaneously trying to ape the male-success standards. Cultures have existed that celebrated women’s achievements, but feminists discount them because they aren’t defined as male achievements.

To address the point I think you’re looking for, feminism can’t bring men on board until they stop defining male masculinity and female femininity as the enemy.

Jesus Mahoney: Way back in 2002, Shelby Steele wrote a great essay for Harpers entitled :The Age of White Guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual” about the Civil Rights Movement in America, and I think that much of what he says there can be applied to the Feminist Movement equally well.

I’m sure you can find a link to it somewhere, but the gist of the article is that a political movement that demands recompense for grievances (i.e. a movement of people playing the victim card) robs the individuals that comprise that group of their personal power, and therefore cannot achieve anything of lasting value.

In short, insofar as battle against racism has been won at all, it’s been done by black individuals who have shown their worth in society, not by black groups shouting for freedom and equality.

In short, people should stop jockeying for political power and start reclaiming their individual power.

If women want power, they need to start living lives of power instead of complaining about being victims.  In other words, they have to display their value to society instead of just screaming about it.

In short, Feminists must have been snoozing through high school English while their teachers were exhorting them to “show, don’t tell.”

Park Slope, Brooklyn: One of New York City’s most desirable neighborhoods and home to a whole bunch of famous people, like Steve Buscemi and that actor everyone confuses with Samuel L. Jackson. Recently, though, Park Slope hasn’t been so idyllic. A slew of gropings, rapes, and molestations have occurred since March, making the locale more infamous than anything else. The suspect has been targeting women between the ages of 20 and 35, all of whom at the time of assault were wearing short-hemmed clothing. (Police do have a “person of interest” in custody as of October 11.)

A recent Wall Street Journal article covering the attacks had me thinking about what I believe to be a tragically misguided focus. According to the Journal, police officers patrolling the area have been telling young, female residents to be mindful of what they’re wearing because the assaulter has been going after women dressed in short skirts. Granted, some of the quotes from the officer, as mentioned by “Lauren,” sound a bit obnoxious, especially if, in your head, you add a certain tone or emphasis on particular words. But there’s no way to know exactly how those warnings were delivered by the officer, unless you have access to a flux capacitor and a Delorean. I digress. The point I want to make is that instead of focusing on the assaults and keeping women safe, some members of the fairer sex have seized on the cops’ sartorial advice and deemed it inappropriate, insensitive, and sexist.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne responded to the uproar by saying: “Officers are not telling women what not to wear — there’s a TV series that does that.” (Do I smell a career in stand-up?) He continues: “They are simply pointing out that as part of the pattern involving one or more men that the assailant(s) have targeted women wearing skirts.”

Alas, Skirtgate was born.

The incident soon became the latest cause celebre for feminist groups, inspiring protests and yet another Slut Walk, a demonstration against explaining or excusing rape by referring to any aspect of a woman’s appearance. Not too long ago I attended the Boston version of Slut Walk, organized by feminist figure Jaclyn Friedman.

While I agree that the way a woman dresses is NEVER an invitation to be raped or sexually assaulted (I’m having visuals of the horrific Jodie Foster rape scene from The Accused), I do have to wonder: What’s so wrong with suggesting that women exercise a little common sense in these scenarios? If I know that a man is assaulting women wearing short skirts in a certain area around a certain time, you can damn well be sure that I’ll take all precautions necessary. Nor would I ever tell my daughter (if I ever have one) the following: “Sure, honey, wear those hooker heels and that dress that barely covers your vagina proudly when you walk through Boston Common at 3 a.m. on a Saturday.”

The notion that humanity is perfectible — that we can reason with or socially engineer sick-minded individuals — is puerile. We do not live in an ideal world. We never will. Unfortunately, we live in a world where police won’t always be able to save everyone or catch the criminal right away. Unfortunately, we also live in a world where this happens and people like this exist. We do not live in an ideal world. So what’s wrong with merely suggesting that women take precautions?

I admire their passion and dedication, but I do think that certain feminists are so ideologically attached to their ideas that they often become blinded to reality. What if a woman came forward on the night of a Park Slope attack and said she felt she had been saved by an officer’s counsel earlier that day, in which he mentioned to be sure to cover up late at night? Of course, there’s no way to know for sure in this hypothetical if that’s the reason the attacker avoided her and went after someone else, but would the feminists turn a blind eye to this kind of testimony? I wonder.

I would be remiss, however, if I didn’t mention the fact that I remember many nights walking home late from the bars in outfits that, to be sure, revealed some skin. Part of me feels a bit uncomfortable, hypocritical even, espousing calls for good judgment when the mistakes of my youth burn brightly in my memory. But the truth is I was lucky. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dispensing advice based on the filtered wisdom one gains with age.

After writing this piece and tiring of my own opinions on the matter, I was curious to see what others had to say about the Park Slope contretemps, so I reached out to a few people who I knew would view the incident through different lenses. The first of which was Susan Walsh, author of the popular blog Hooking Up Smart (HUS), a strategic take on dating, sex, and relationships. Walsh was a guest on my radio show back in the day. She was recently profiled in this tremendous piece about the lives and realities of today’s single woman. HUS has a large following and is worth a weekly check-in.

Next, I contacted the aforementioned Jaclyn Friedman, Feministing.com’s Jessica Valenti, and author and speaker Amanda Marcotte, all avowed feminists and leaders of the movement. Marcotte responded; I never heard from Friedman or Valenti. Marcotte, by the way, is no stranger to controversy – this woman has balls! (In one of her entries for John Edwards’ campaign blog, of which she was blogmaster, she wrote: “Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” Yowsa!)

In many of Walsh’s blog entries, she goes toe-to-toe with all three ladies, so I figured their juxtaposed opinions would be interesting. Below are Walsh’s and Marcotte’s thoughts on Skirtgate and a few other topics I wanted them to answer about dating, sex, relationships, and feminism.

Their responses couldn’t be more different. Check them out below – they are worth a read. Who do you agree with?

BLAST: What was your reaction to the Park Slope incident in which cops warned women about wearing short skirts?

MARCOTTE: First, I want to draw your attention to the fact that the NYPD responded to feminist complaints.

It was unacceptable of the NYPD officers to exploit the existence of a rapist as a cover story for an obvious power trip on women. Authoritarians all over the world love how rape gives them an excuse to indulge the misogynistic desire to tell women what to wear and how to act, but the police work for us, and because of this, they should treat women with respect. We women, after all, pay their salaries with our taxes.

WALSH: I understand why the women who were stopped by the policeman were offended. He may have been insensitive in his approach. I think it’s very important to consider his intention, though. As far as I can tell he was attempting to advise women about real risks to their safety. Though the journalist suggests that the police department disapproves of all shorts, skirts and dresses, he appears to have specifically taken issue with “short shorts” and dresses that “show a lot of skin.” Is it in fact prudent for women in that neighborhood to be careful about their appearance and behavior at night? Of course!

The WSJ article describes how many women in the neighborhood are taking concrete steps to stay safe. 80 have attended self-defense workshops. Women have stopped wearing high heels because they make it difficult to run away from an assailant. Women have been observed taking taxis to travel two blocks at night. All of these strategies are sensible and effective. Do they guarantee that a woman will not be attacked? Of course not, but they lessen her risk considerably.

Does it lessen a woman’s risk to refrain from “showing a lot of skin” at night in the very neighborhood where these attacks are occurring? Probably! It sure can’t hurt! Evidence that all of the attacks have been against women in skirts just adds to the good sense of such a strategy.

What’s going on among feminists here is that the political is getting in the way of the personal. When we stifle prudent advice to women about keeping themselves safe from assault because it doesn’t fit the agenda of sex-positive feminism, we risk the health and safety of women in a very real and measurable way.

NEW YORK — The word “slut” has long been used to shame women.  Men use it to belittle women and make them feel bad about their sexuality.  Women use it to hurt one another and defend their own reputation.  On Saturday, New York City took the hateful term back for the first time, and unleashed its inner slut.

The first ever New York City Slutwalk flooded the lower east side with people screaming for their rights to sexuality, and in support of rape victim rights.  An estimated 3000 people showed up.

“Slutwalk NYC is part of a worldwide grassroots movement challenging rape culture, victim-blaming and slut-shaming, and working to end sexual and domestic violence,” according to the Slutwalk NYC website.  Slutwalk happens in many major cities across the country.

Slutwalk started with a series of speeches to get the crowd excited, and culminated with the same.  The group gathered in Union Square to listen to speeches about victim blaming and rape culture, all meant to gain awareness and empowerment for victims.

People of all genders and orientations attended the rally that marched from Union Square to Broadway, then down 8th street to 2nd avenue, it continued down 3rd street, and ended by going down Lafayette and back into Union Square.

The walkers held signs such as “end sexual violence now,” and “my clothes are not my consent.”  Many dressed like “sluts,” in order to show that the way a person dresses does not mean they are asking to be raped, or want it, which is a common defense of rape culture.

Slutwalk happened just one day after an NYPD officer told women on the street that their skirts were too short, and looked like the kind of women a rapist would target, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The event got its name from a comment a police officer in Toronto when he said, “Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized,” according to Gothamist.

Attendees left the event feeling empowered.  One Slutwalker said that chanting and yelling things like “hey-hey, ho-ho, rape culture has got to go,” made her feel liberated.

LAVAL, France — “When the rights of some women progress, the rights of others take on a new light and then all of humanity starts to move.”

These words hung in the center of an exhibit entitled Rendons nos droits universels, or Let’s Make Our Rights Universal, which was on display this month in Laval.

It was organized by Femmes Solidaires, a national women’s organization in France, as part of a month of human rights events organized by the many international solidarity associations in Laval.

The exhibit advocated for equal treatment of women around the world and in France, with panels detailing injustices that occur against women in many realms, including political, personal and professional life.

Femmes Solidaires, founded during the French resistance during World War II and specially recognized by the United Nations, aims to inform the public about the injustices and inequalities that women face.

Their goal is to defend “the fundamental values of secularism, diversity, equality for the rights of women, peace and liberty,” according to their annual report.

Michèle Huard, 67, an active member of Femmes Solidaires, expanded on the subject of feminism, and explained her own views on the subject.

“For me, the two most important things are secularism and equality before the law,” she said.

Huard, a retired nurse who has traveled widely, said she has experienced the condition of women in China, Turkey, Northern Africa Canada and elsewhere in Europe.

“I find that in France, even if it’s not perfect, it’s a type of model, even if it’s far from being perfect,” she said.

For her, the key to ameliorating French women’s condition is to have equal legal rights.

She said she believes fundamental differences separate men and women, thus legal equality is the sole playing field on which equality can be achieved.

“The only thing necessary to improve in France is that women have the same rights as men, which is to say, the right to vote, work, etc. After that, everything else is a nuance.”

To elaborate, Huard explained the concept of laïcité.

“It’s the separation of the intimate realm from that of the exterior, in particular for us, the religion. That is part of the intimate realm,” Huard said.

While laïcité can be strictly defined as secularism, the French employ the concept more broadly to distinguish between what they consider appropriate for public versus private life.

“A laïc person can have a religion, but that religion should not interfere with the public realm,” Huard said.

For her, problems arise when religion enters the public sphere.

Huard said religion’s interference with legal rights is what has prohibited women’s rights from advancing, in France and around the world.

“For us, the separation of church and state is what has evolved things for us as women.”

Huard said she vividly remembers participating in the feminist movement in France during the 1970’s, a movement whose roots she attributes to the more secular culture of England and the United States.

Concerning religion, Huard offered the example of Islam in France, which she said poses an imminent threat to equality.

Huard, describing herself as agnostic but from a Catholic tradition, said she believes all religions, especially Judaism, Christianity and Islam, teach that women are in need of male supervision.

“For me, all religions have commanded that women are in need of a guardian,” she said.

For this reason, Huard said she supports the recently-passed French law which bans the Islamic veil in public.

“I believe that Islam is a very strong religion, and Muslims are very religious, even those who do not practice, who call themselves laic. And I believe that if we let this continue, the more moderate Muslims will find themselves dominated by the extremists, and that becomes dangerous,” she said.

Huard said in making this decision, she was torn between a woman’s right to dress how she chooses, and what she sees as the stifling restrictions of religion on women.

At the same time, she insisted that in their private lives, women should be allowed to behave as they choose.

Huard, the mother of three children and wife of a retired postal worker, said taking care of her children or serving coffee to her husband does not belittle her stature as a woman, as long as she has the freedom to choose.

She chose to continue her career while raising her children, and though she supports working mothers, Huard said she understands mothers who put their professional lives on hold for the sake of their family.

“I always have a sense of guilt that I did not devote enough time to my children because of my education and career. I have that in the depths of me,” she said.

Huard said since women and men are created differently, they will always have separate roles.

“A man is not disrupted by his period each month. It’s not the same thing. We are more subject to our hormones,” she said.

At the same time, she said this should not inhibit men and women from having equal, albeit different, rights.

In France, women have the right to at least 14 weeks of maternity leave. In 2002, a law was passed giving men the right to time off when their child is born: 14 days.

Huard said this example is an anomaly, and most other laws favor men.

In the 1950’s, women and men did not have equal rights after a divorce, and as a result, women were often sent to jail for adultery.

Other reforms instituted in the second half of the twentieth century include shared responsibility between husband and wife as head of the household, and more equivalent salaries. Women gained the right to the same educational opportunities, and could have bank accounts and jobs without the consent of their husband.

French women gained the right to vote in 1944, and birth control and abortion was legalized in the 1970’s.

“In France, when you think just about the laws, we say to ourselves, good, we have the right to abortion, to take care of our own bodies, we say to ourselves there have been a enormous advancements. [But] in what is actually going on, it’s not necessarily true,” said Huard.

In addition to the exhibit, Femmes Solidaires participated in a silent march against domestic violence towards women.

At the march of silence, men and women of all ages protested against all types of violence against women.

Jacques Marie, 59, of Laval, said he knows both men and women who choose to ignore the topic of domestic violence.

“It’s useful to show that this exists,” he said, speaking of the march.

“I am concerned, and I am trying to plant my little seed, to try to advance things,” he said.

Claudine Roche, another member of Femmes Solidaires who attended the march, said in order for the condition of women to improve, women need to take an active role in the political arena.

“It’s necessary for women to be present in political organizations and hold political office,” she said, so they can prove their capability in the public sphere.

Julie Geslot, 22, of Laval, was one of the few young women present at the march.

She said she participated because she thinks it is important to unify with others to defend the rights of women around the world.

The goal, she said, is equality between women and men.

“The same rights and the same consideration, no matter our habits, religion or age,” she said.

Huard expressed a similar opinion, but said because of innate biological differences, women’s situation will always be more difficult.

Still, she said laïcité is the key to legal equality, and the only way to give women an equal chance in society is to separate their private lives from what they are capable of in the public sphere.

For this reason, she said, she will continue to work with Femmes Solidaires for the rights of women in France and around the world.

“I always come back to laïcité,” she said, “but maybe that’s just a utopia. But I come back to it because I say to myself, there’s not a reason to stop trying.”

ROME — Castellammare di Stabia is a little town near Naples, where you can no longer wear a teeny tiny miniskirt on the streets.

It seems the town has not been served by the sit-in protests from the defense of the miniskirt organization of women, because police are enforcing new rules banning “skimpy” and “slutty” clothing after a measure was approved 17-9 recently.

It will be also forbidden to play football in parks and purchase alcohol after 10 p.m.

Yesterday, at Castellammare di Stabia, about 50 women protested in defense of women’s rights in front of City Hall, where the city council was called to vote on the controversial regulation. The event, sponsored by the centerleft democratic party of that area, was attended by young and older women wearing miniskirts.

But the Mayor of Castellammare di Stabia, Luigi Bobbio, said it’s not the miniskirt, itself, that’s banned in the regulation, “just the really slutty ones.”

Miniskirts will be fine unless it is so small that it is virtually non-existent as a skirt and leaves the underwear (or something else) visible. Bobbio insists, “the skirt is absolutely allowed and permitted. The regulation, how easily you can guess if you do not fall into the easy manipulation, is not aimed at banning this or that piece of clothing, but to give the city and precise coordinates of the citizens of civilized behavior to respect the freedom of each and therefore the freedom of all. ”

We want to remember that the origin of the miniskirt was in 1963 and it’s generally credited for the work of the British designer Mary Quant, who was inspired by the car Mini, and since the late 50′s had started offering more and more short dresses. And also the revolution in clothing and in general of the women’s look was designed by Coco Chanel who located the length of hair and skirt one of the main parameters of change of culture. In Italy, the skirt began to get popular in 1966.

In these days, in Castellamare di Stabia, it seems to be back at 40 years ago.

Ladies, put on your walking shoes and leave your men at home; it’s time to party Shecky’s style.

Girl’s Night Out came and left Boston, leaving a trail of happy, shopped out women along the way.

“It’s a great excuse to go out on a Wednesday night, shop, and hang out with girlfriends,” exclaimed shopper Heather Cloran, gesturing to her other girlfriends. “The drinks are good and the food is great!”

The Shecky’s Girl’s Night Out has been founded by a young entrepreneur named Claudia Chan. She’s been keeping Girl’s Night Out going for the past eight years. She went to all-girl schools her entire life, including Smith College. She is considered the ultimate girlfriend.

“Being culturally surrounded by diverse women my whole life has allowed me to understand the unique strengths, needs and challenges of the women in my own life and inspired me to dedicate a career toward empowering and entertaining women,” said Chan.

And with that title she has designed this event to be for girls to inspire the ultimate girlfriend experience with shopping deals and free products from big sponsors. Shecky’s is known for organizing the largest girlfriend targeted events in the entire country, involving what Claudia likes to call “350,000+ highly engaged and targeted 21-39 year old fashionable, female consumers.” These are consumer that big and small sponsors alike want to reach. Sponsors for Shecky’s include: Lean Cuisine, Veet, Bath and Body Works, EMD Serono Fertility Lifelines, and several others.

EMD Serono, the only non-frivolous booth at the event, probably had the most valuable information to offer women of all ages regarding infertility. There were pamphlets of info, and they even quizzed women on their knowledge of infertility which I completely failed.

“There is a strong lack of awareness surrounding infertility and women here at Shecky’s are very responsive,” said Executive Vice President David Stern. “And being in this type of environment makes this topic less of a stigma.”

And while women were becoming more informed, they enjoyed fruity cocktails, dishes from Lean Cuisine, and girlfriends Katherine Street and Tammy Lambert really enjoyed the free cupcakes.

“This was way better than we expected,” said Lambert. “It’s lower key and there aren’t many big name vendors, so it’s unique.”

Some ladies were even reunited with long lost girlfriends from their childhood.

“We came for the drinks and the goodies, but we also came to see old girlfriends and network and socialize,” laughed girlfriend Kim Ross. “And we got to get away from the kids and the husbands.

The ad for this event said suggested the men be left home, but there were a few working gentlemen who really had some fun in an all-girl atmosphere.

“It’s awkward with a bunch of women,” said photographer John Tomadakis, “but I love it. It’s magnificent fun and it’s totally nonthreatening here. We even get a couple looks and smiles.”

Take it from me, the girl looking for ultimate experiences: Shecky’s Girl’s Night Out should definitely be on your list of things to do in your lifetime. And don’t worry, if you missed this event in Boston, there are plenty more happening every month all over the country. Just check out http://www.sheckys.com/events/ to learn about when and where the next Girl’s Night Out is. There are never enough opportunities for you to be pampered and to purchase one-of-a-kind clothing right from the designer. Have a great girl’s night out.

See below for our interview with Claudia Chan.

BLAST: How did you get into the business of girly things?

CLAUDIA CHAN: I went to an all girls’ high school in Manhattan, followed by Smith, an all women’s college, and grew up in a family where women simply dominated. Being culturally surrounded by diverse women my whole life has allowed me to understand the unique strengths, needs and challenges of the women in my own life and inspired me to dedicate a career toward empowering and entertaining women.

BLAST: What did you study as an undergrad?

CC: I majored in Government and minored in International Relations (the 5-college certificate that allowed me to experience many good classes at UMass & Amherst)

BLAST: What did it take to begin this business?

CC: Every entrepreneur has their own unique start-up situation. In my case, I had no start-up capital. Looking back on my own experiences, I honed in on a few key elements to get my business a float — relentless passion and drive, prioritizing your energy towards making your product or service great, and the sales and marketing necessary to get it to the next level, then the next level and the next level, looking forward more than looking back, and remembering to take care of yourself while building the foundation of the business.

BLAST: What makes you the perfect girlfriend?

CC: Women are emotional and extraordinary. It’s amazing how much we can accomplish and multi-task, yet also sometimes get held back and stuck. I think being a great girlfriend means always being there to provide your friend with confidence, inspiration and empowerment to live the best life they can. The most worthwhile friends are those that return the favor.

BLAST: Have you ever considered marketing to gay or metro men?

CC: No. Women influence over 85 percent of all purchasing decisions. We know women, it’s our strength. If anything, we’re continuing to expand our national female reach with the new Shecky’s brand launch as the leading girlfriend community and lifestyle company.

BLAST: How did you organize this Girl’s Night out event?

CC: After 9/11, my partner Chris Hoffman published a Girl’s Guide to NY Nightlife to raise the city’s spirits. A big Girls Night Out party is what we felt the book and New York City needed. The 1st Girls Night Out event & book launch immediately took off and the Girls Night Out series thus began, spreading to more markets as its popularity with consumers and brands continued to grow. Nine years later, Girls Night Out is still the largest consumer shopping event in the nation.

BLAST: How often does it occur? Where do you host it?

CC: Shecky’s hosts up to 80 days of girlfriend-fun events across America in up to 20 cities, depending on the market interest from our national brand partners. Girls Night Out is our signature event series, but we host other events like Beauty Night Out, Holiday Night Out and a new food & wine event called Toasts & Tastings.

BLAST: How do you know the vendors you have featured? How did you convince them to join you?

CC: Shecky’s has been around for many years and we offer the largest girlfriend experience events in America, reaching 350,000+ highly engaged and targeted 21-39 year old fashionable, female consumers. We are considered to be a very unique marketing and sales opportunity for small businesses (designers, artisans, local boutiques, etc.) and big Fortune 500 brands who want to reach and speak to women consumers. With the recent launch of the new Sheckys.com, we are hoping to grow to an audience of millions over the next few years.

BLAST: What would you tell other young women trying to start out in this world?

CC: Stay tuned for that answer. I’ve got a book with pages of advice that I’ve been brewing for a while.

The Twilight Saga is an important part of Blast’s coverage. We have a page dedicated to it. We cover every rumor, news item, do every interview and promote discussion of every aspect of the universe. It is, indeed, the 21st century female Star Wars.

But counter to all that giggling and squealing comes a certain amount of disdain.

The most popular article in the history of Blast and its dozen or so blogs is and remains titled “Twilight sucks… And not in a good way.”

In that article Blast reporter Kellen Rice argues about the writing style of the series, citing “sickeningly purple prose (and) the lack of general writing quality.” But the biggest part of Rice’s passionate argument came not as a literary critic but as a woman.

“The books present a female heroine who can hardly take a step without needing some boy to rescue her,” Rice wrote. “In fact, the books represent sexist views in almost every way, from the fact that Bella gives up her ambitions and plans for college to get married to Edward, the fact that she is portrayed as a modern Eve, begging the noble, moral gentleman for sex while he desires to preserve their virtue, the fact that their relationship is dangerously unhealthy, and finally to the fact that nearly every single female character in the book is a hopelessly negative caricature.”

Kellen got a lot of responses. More than 3,600 comments as of Sunday night have come in the past 13 months, (its follow-up article has more than 1,000). These comments included women saying to her: “All of your opinions are completely FALSE!” and “YOU JUST THINK TOO MUCH JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE !”

And this: (punctuation cleaned up)

“Why don’t you goddamn feminists go shave your legs,” wrote a commenter named Kristen. “If you don’t like the idea of women needing help, then DON’T read the books or go out into the real world, because women should just stay in the kitchen and clean. I’m a girl, and I think women usually do need a man to help them with things, and that’s why we aren’t all lesbians. … Seriously, no man wants a girl who’s all about womens’ rights, so shut up and be happy you can vote.”

At first glance, these comments beg for remarks about the girls eventually attending college to get their “MRS” degree and pump out a few kids. They’re laughable, and to come the comments are contemptible.

But are they wrong?

This back and forth argument is nothing new.

Northwestern University communications professor Janice Radway 1984 book “Reading the Romance” is one of the seminal looks at how women are affected by romantic literature.

Radway’s arguments, written before most “Twilight” fans were born, illustrated that both sides are correct. Romance novels, she argued, have the ability to provide escapism and empowerment for woman, allowing them to dream of and aspire to a “a different life,” or “revolt against male domination,” wrote critical theorist Douglas Kellner, in his essay “Cultural Studies, Multiculturalism and Media Culture.” At the same time, however, the books may be understood by some as enforcing traditional gender roles on woman, forcing them to live in a world of female submission to “prince charming” — which is universally seen as an attractive male force.

In contemporary American literature and cinema, no where is this conflict more visible than in “New Moon,” the second installment in the Twilight Saga, due in theaters in November.

In “New Moon,” the male hero, Edward, leaves the female protagonist, Bella, for “her own safety.” Distraught, she goes on autopilot for months, disengaging from reality and eventually putting herself through life-threatening, self-destructive acts to get her man back.

Analysis of Bella’s dangerous rebellion — and author Stephenie Meyer’s writing thereof — can go both ways as well. Some will see “New Moon” as anti-woman and vehemently anti-feminist, while others will see (and have read) Bella’s actions as heroic and empowered.

Kellner touched on the idea of rebellion as well when he cited media scholar John Fiske in writing about how teenage girls in the 1980s saw Madonna’s rebellious fashion statements as empowering examples of how to express themselves.

The only logical conclusion is therefore the same conclusion we can draw in most social science theory: No one’s totally right.

At first glance, Juliette Frette looks like a typical Playboy Playmate: clear skin, long blond hair, and gigantic breasts. Frette began working with Playboy four years ago doing occasional spreads, which eventually evolved into her participation as a full-on Playmate. Last year she was named Miss June, and she currently travels around the country doing promotions and showing off her phenomenal body.

“Playboy has provided me with a lot of opportunities,” she said, boasting that she often gets to travel overseas as well. What most people probably don’t know about Frette, though, is her reasoning behind working with Playboy.

“When I did my first project with Playboy it was to write about (it) for my senior thesis project,” said Frette, 25. A women’s studies major at the University of California, Los Angeles, Frette wanted to write about her experience with playboy to examine the way women are portrayed in the media and how it affects their empowerment.

Frette considers herself a feminist, an artist, and a writer.

Her most recent endeavor will combine two of these aspects as she begins her position as the national women’s issues columnist at Examiner.com.

“I’ll be addressing pretty much anything that relates to women’s well being. That could range from health to political issues,” Frette said about the column, and added that her main purpose is to provide “better awareness about women’s issues and hopefully clarity on those issues.”

“I’d like to make people think about issues that haven’t been brought to light enough.”

The seemingly contradictory nature of Frette’s position doesn’t bother her. She recognizes that it’s unusual but called it the whole package. “That’s just who I am,” Frette said. She even sees her connection with Playboy as possibly being a positive thing for the column.

“Playboy might facilitate extra traffic to the page. Anything that can get people to read about important issues is a good thing. It’s kind of an interesting perspective I guess to present to a large audience. There are a lot of playmates that share my views but don’t really have the chance to present themselves as feminists so I’m glad I have the opportunity to do this,” Frette said.

Frette found a position at the Examiner while freelancing for other magazines. At first she took a different position, but after some discussions with the editors, decided that writing for the women’s issues column would be a better fit for her. Frette is excited to spread awareness and hopefully pose some new questions regarding women’s issues. She also welcomes feedback from readers about topics and opinions. “If it seems like an interesting suggestion, I’ll write a column about it,” she added.

Another hidden side of Frette is her artistic nature. She loves to paint particularly but said she loves to “create” anything. Frette’s website showcases some of her creations. “That has actually taken a backseat to my writing recently,” Frette said. “I feel that concentrating on more than one kind of art at once is very draining.”

In addition to her column, Frette also plans on publishing a book based on her senior thesis project at UCLA, which was called “Posing for Playboy from a Feminist Perspective: How Media Images Impact Women’s Empowerment.” It focuses on her feminist interpretation of her experiences as a playmate.

Her personal experiences and studies, Frette believes, will greatly assist her in giving advice and analyzing issues. Her first piece of advice for women? “Don’t worry about how practical a job or a college major is. If you chose something that might be profitable it’s just going to lead you down a road that you won’t enjoy. Create your own path.”

Juliette Frette has done just that.

So I’ve been reading all about this controversy with the cover of Ms Magazine lately.

“I Can Haz Feminism?”

Jezebel had a post today about an ongoing dispute between Ms. magazine and other self described feminists. Basically these “super feminists” are pissed that Barack Obama is on the cover of Ms. because of how he was portrayed as “Superman” which is…not feminism. Some feminists feel that, well, they could have put anyone up there other than Barack Obama. I can’t say I disagree, we as a nation had two women who made huge strides in the “feminist movement” and they chose…Barack Obama who…hasn’t really done anything outstanding for feminism in my opinion. The argument against it is a little ridiculous but I think Naomi Wolff says it best in this video by disagreeing and yet agreeing with the overall point.

I think the argument should be focused less on the fact that he’s a man (Ms. has had men on their cover before) and more because well…what has he DONE for feminism? Having the “ear of the administration” as Ms. Watts said is a huge stride after the past eight years of anti-woman policies from the Bush Administration. But does that explain how when he was a state senator he voted present on a few “horrnedous anti-abortion” votes instead of voting no? If these women who put him up there are the ones who largely define feminism by your stance on reproductive rights then they made a big mistake because while he calls himself “pro-choice” I wouldn’t say he’s voted like he’s proudly pro-choice. A feminist – male or female -‚  should be PROUD of it, proud of all of his/her opinions in regards to ALL women’s issues. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t but to a lot of us feminists, maybe he hasn’t quite proven it. Overall though, Amy Siskind was right – men can be feminists.

Still though, Barack Obama’s questionable feminist status aside, how 70′s angry butch feminist of us to say men can’t be feminist, while I realize this isn’t exactly what they’re saying- I think anyone devoted to “equalizing” rights (though I personally think they’re all pretty equal as it is) or committed to electing women to office – you know the whole “breaking the glass ceiling?” and creating policies that affect women in positive ways. I think that’s feminism.

Feminism (at least to me) is not just about reproductive rights, it’s not just about the Lilly Ledbetter Act. It’s about equality and empowerment and setting goals and accomplishing them because we’re not in the 1900′s anymore and we can vote, we can run for office and we can have careers and The Man can’t stop us. We’ve come a long way since Jeanette Rankin my friends. What Sarah Palin wasn’t a feminist? She was/is a successful governor, the vice presidential candidate of a party criticized for being the party of middle aged white men and so what if she’s pro-life…she values life over choice – surprisingly a decent sized percentage of this nation is split on this issue and not as pro-choice as we think ourselves to be (much more moderate than many “feminists” would like to think- and that’s their right. But the point is politics aside, that’s the great thing about our nation, we have the RIGHT to opinions. Sarah Palin is still a woman and she broke barriers, like it or not. Hillary Clinton is no more of a feminist than Condi Rice, or Sarah Palin or anyone else I forgot to mention. 80 some-odd years ago women couldn’t even vote and now we’ve had two women run as vice presidential candidates, a woman run for the presidential nomination and lose to a black man (who made strides in his own right which is admirable). All of these women are feminist heros in their own rights. In my humble opinion at least.

People are too quick to define feminism in black and white as a single issue cause. My problem with this is the”feminism is only reproductive rights” feminists.

I am pro-choice however, my feminism is not defined by my pro-choice opinion. I’m not as far left as groups like NARAL, but rather a bit more moderate. How can you be moderate and pro-choice? I value that it’s a decision we as women have the right to make. However I am not gung-ho pro-abortion as many pro-choice women are perceived to be.

This is why I think reproductive rights do not define feminism. They don’t. Feminism is about more than that. I like Amy Siskind’s idea of a fourth wave of feminism for anyone – man or woman regardless of politics – who is “focused on electing a woman “" any woman “" to public office regardless of her stance on issues.”

Why? Because, women deserve to represented by their peers. Women deserve to have equal representation. How many women are in the House of Representatives or in the US Senate? Certainly not 50% of either house is female – yet 50% or so of our population is comprised of women. Go figure. Women deserve to break that so-called glass ceiling. Shatter the s**t out of it if you will. But while trying to do this we should not oppress men just because they “oppressed” us. We should be equal, doing otherwise would simply make us hypocrites.

Feminism doesn’t need a face. If you say “I’m a feminist” and you know what it means to you, and you want to empower women? Then that’s freakin’ awesome. If you think you’re a feminist only on the basis that you’re pro-choice? Good for you I suppose. If you’re a feminist because you think we deserve to not be oppressed by the man and you want to do everything in your power to stop it then so be it. I don’t care if you’re a PhD, or if you don’t even have a GED. Feminism shouldn’t just be defined whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, man or woman, Republican or Democrat. Feminism is about a cause, it always has been dating back to the Suffragists of the early 1900′s. They took a stand for a cause that they believed in. Same with the equal rights movement in the 1960′s, with Roe v. Wade and Title IX in the 70′s. Our issue now? Representation? Equality? Why shouldn’t they both be causes? And why shouldn’t we include anyone who wants to get women to higher places – be it in politics or business – in feminism?

Why not?

I’m proud to be a feminist. Feminism, despite the preconceived notion, is not a dirty word.

commentary cross posted to BlogHer and Blast Magazine

It’s a strangely voyeuristic experience, listening to “Galore,” the debut album from Canadian electro-pop band Dragonette, almost like you’ve accidentally overheard a conversation between singer Martina Sorbara and one of her best friends about her love life.

Apparently, that’s what Sorbara was going for. Speaking to Blast in the midst of a four-date mini tour of New York and Los Angeles prior to the U.S. release of “Galore” on October 28, the pixie-ish frontwoman described herself as a “different kind of feminist” who writes with her female listeners in mind.

“Feminism is such a weird word right now. I guess you have to not be afraid of using it,” she says. “Nowadays, it’s like, you have to be sexy in‚ this‚ way. Women are liberated and can work all these jobs, but you’d better still look like Paris Hilton.”

“The songs aren’t like, “ËœOoh, baby, I’ll do anything for you,’” she explained. “It’s more of a bedroom slumber party kind of sexy.”

Sorbara’s confessional lyrics lend credence to that description, forcing the listener to assume the role of her confidante. The subject on most of the songs on “Galore” is her relationship with bandmate, songwriting partner and husband, Dan Kurtz. The pair met at a Canadian musical festival where they were each performing in their own musical projects, and when Kurtz was romantically involved with someone else.

Sorbara peppers her tunes with cheeky turns of phrase and sultry innuendos, flaunting her and Kurtz’s dalliance on songs like “I Get Around” and, most blatantly, the sassy, salsa-tinged “Competition”: “She’s got no idea where you’ve been / No idea what you’ve been doing … Your girlfriend’s the competition / Goodness I like this, bein’ your mistress.”

Chronologically speaking, Kurtz and Sorbara’s romantic partnership took off before their musical one. Kurtz continued playing in electronic band The New Deal while Sorbara released solo material. Dragonette was born in 2004, almost by accident, according to Sorbara.

“We wrote a song as a joke, actually, for a friend of ours,” she recalled. “It sounded like Avril Lavigne.”

After that, they tooled around with an early version of what would later become “I Get Around” and sent the demo to Kurtz’s manager at the time, who gave it the thumbs up and offered to sell it to another performer. But the couple decided to keep it for themselves and see what else they could come up with.

While Kurtz leans more toward electronic influences, Sorbara said she’s more swayed by jazz, folk and old country music (“I love old stories,” she says, citing Nick Lowe, Tom Waits and Ani DiFranco as lyrical muses.)

“Neither of us would get to the end of a song without the other one,” she says of their songwriting process. “It’s definitely like a half and half thing.” Eventually, they recruited drummer Joel Stouffer and guitarist Will Stapleton to round out the lineup.

The band’s first foray into the United States came in 2005, when they were tapped to open for Duran Duran on the “Astronaut” tour, at a time when they only had about seven songs under their belt.

“We were so young,” Sorbara said. “Not in age, but in band years. It seems like a whole other world away. … It was almost like an experiment. We had no idea what we were doing.”

Apparently the band members are fast learners. Fast forward to the present, and Dragonette has already toured extensively behind “Galore” in Canada and the UK, where it was released last year. First single “I Get Around” cracked the Canadian Top 20, and Jazz Age-sounding “Get Lucky” (which Sorbara originally penned as a solo song) has been used in several advertising campaigns in the U.S.

As they were writing the songs that would become “Galore,” Sorbara said, she and Kurtz shied away from the minimalist aesthetic of the Toronto indie rock scene.

“It was like, I want to be the opposite of bare minimum,” she explained. “Pop music was like our indie. It was like going out on a limb. … I think we really went there with “ËœGalore.’”

She said coming across the Norwegian singer Annie (whose first single, perhaps not surprisingly, is called “I Know Ur Girlfriend Hates Me”) was a pivotal moment.

“I had just kind of discovered that pop music didn’t necessarily mean Britney Spears,” she said. “I realized you can do this music and not be a dipshit.”

At the same time, Sorbara admits that some detractors might see the band’s fun, dance-able sound as a sign of “Ëœselling out.’

“Some people won’t respect something that’s not introspective,” she said. “To me, it was just like breaking free.”

“(Songwriting) is still a craft,” she’s quick to add. “Every song is autobiographical. … The songs mean a lot to me. Just because I’m having fun writing them doesn’t mean it’s meaningless or disposable.”

Sorbara isn’t the only one having fun. She leads the listener into temptation with her on “Jesus Doesn’t Love Me Anymore,” a gospel-sounding song that would give any clergy member angina with its giddy refrain glorifying “Sex, drugs, rock “Ëœn’ roll.”

“Got a little bit o’ dirty down in my soul,” she sings. Being bad never sounded so good.