...about "empowerment."
A word I promise never, ever to use because of how recklessly it's been tossed around. Think about it the next time someone says that an experience is "empowering," particularly if it's used in the same sentence as "feminism/feminist." Think about power as something that follows the law of conservation of energy: power, too, is constant over time in a closed system and therefore cannot be created nor destroyed-- simply transferred from one person/thing/entity to another. Say, for example, college is an "empowering" experience because you are on your own for the first time in your life. But where does this power come from? You take a little from your parents, your guardians, your hometown, whatever you were rooted in before. It's an empowering experience because you seize the power that your parents or your hometown used to have over you, and you take a little of it with you to college to redistribute to whatever relationships or attachments you make in this new chapter of your life. Still following?
My point is that it seems silly to assume that this power is just self-generated, out of nowhere: if so, empowerment seems so trivial, and disempowered people (people living in poverty, etc.) are, by implication, people that just suck at empowering themselves. While empowerment has to be accepted and undertaken by yourself (and is almost always a moment of inward reflection), power also has to be taken from elsewhere.
...and THAT is why being "empowered" by something seems like everything, but really means nothing. Realizing that you all of a sudden have a little more power than before is great news, don't get me wrong, but think a little further and tell me where this power came from and how you got it.
Super generic example #1:
Woman poses nude, finds the experience to be empowering. Fine, I can't and won't argue with her, but just saying that this experience was "empowering" turns a political/institutional/historical situation into a personal experience (more on this personalization later). I need to know more about where this power came from. Is it empowering because you seized control of your sexuality, in a world where women's sexualities are often owned by husbands or fathers? Is it empowering because you felt confident being nude, instead of being overwhelmed by media messages about what women's bodies should look like? Or is it empowering because you are presenting your nudity in a very raw form, not passive or shy (like most ads of women are) but assertive and unforgiving? When this woman can answer those questions, it is time to ask about how that power that she seized will be distributed. Something as simple as having the photo posted on facebook will take that power and turn it into someone else's power: it doesn't matter if she doesn't care about the consequences of this nude photo, it matters how the power is distributed in the system as a whole. Who holds the copyright over this nude photo? Did the photographer make any personal decisions (cropping, angle, accentuating body parts) that compromised the woman's intentions? Will a teenager use this photo as a pornographic opportunity or will this photo be strictly used with artistic purposes? Very very simple example, but avoiding the word "empowerment" and talking more about where that power is coming from, whether or not it's a fleeting moment of power that instantly gets redistributed, or whether it's simply an illusion power are all much more important questions to ask. What I'm sure of, over anything else, is that power is a very politically charged thing. It has been used to persecute people, to exterminate populations, to imprison entire communities, to justify injustice. How is it that this extremely volatile, political thing can put on a pretty hat and call itself a personal experience?
Friday, November 12, 2010
Fabric Feminism
I made a shop on zazzle! I've found a surprising lack of witty/clever/any-substance-at-all feminist clothing, apart from the "this is what a feminist looks like" tees (which, might I mention, are usually typographically challenged and printed in something as horrific as Comic Sans... yes, I have strong opinions about font). Introducing The Local Feminist, your not-so-local resource for feminist merchandise.
Friday, September 3, 2010
"I'm not a feminist, but..."
Please do me a favor and don't use that disclaimer before your pro-feminist ideas.
Rant pending...
Rant pending...
Saturday, July 10, 2010
feminist vs. equalist
So this is a much-delayed post that I promised my friend Katherine a while ago. Sorry Katherine! I'm on top of it, I promise. So this has come up before, and I've only talked about it briefly in other posts, but there's a lot of casual debate over the word "feminist" being sexist to begin with. I used to be in the camp that liked to call themselves "equalists," but had a major change of mind once I got into the field. So thanks again for the heads up, Katherine! Here is the video that inspired this post:
So. Makes sense right? Being an "equalist" is being the change you wish to see in the world, right?
But no. Think about it. There's a lot of different arguments you can make about being against the term "equalist," but what convinced me was realizing that feminist issues directly affect women. Rape is a hate crime that targets women. Abortion is a policy that is barred from women. The glass ceiling, sexual harassment in the workplace, unequal pay.. these are all directly enforced to disadvantage women. If misogyny directly impacts women, then the fight is obviously going to be for and about women. As simple as that.
Going into it a bit more, leaving it at "equalist" also leaves it at the mercy of a world that is already androcentric/man-centered. Think about it, even at the really really really basic level. Even things that you might not even considered before. The world is essentially designed by men, for men. Making this claim always gets me bombarded with so-called exceptions to androcentrism (I'm still a little bitter), so I'm going to address the most common "exceptions" right off the bat:
-Yes, department stores have mostly women's stores.
-Yes, women have doors held open for them, checks paid for them, etc.
-Yes, women get lesser jail sentences.
-Yes, women were never drafted into the military.
All true, but not exactly feminist victories. These faux victories, I'm going to call them, are all based on some fundamental assumptions about women that have contributed to the ongoing oppression of women. Women have so many shopping options because their value is so often determined by their looks: women have historically been treated as property, so naturally, you have to make that property as alluring as possible to attract a breadwinning husband. Men, on the other hand, are valued for their abilities: intelligence, athleticism, etc. Men are valued for doing, while women are for showing/looking. Again, hardly a feminist victory. The other faux victories are all based on assumptions that women are less reliable, weaker, less capable of violence, more sympathetic, etc. Women are actively barred from serving in combat positions in the military, and are still actively fighting for the right to do so*. Sure, the draft sucks, but making it illegal for women to serve in combat positions is hardly a privilege. Same goes for prison. Nobody is fighting to go to prison, that's for sure, but the reason why women receive lesser jail sentences is because they're perceived as naturally submissive, naturally incapable of violence. In other words, women are historically perceived as marshmallow baby-makers and cake-bakers. This is the same sort of attitude that keeps women from being hired for leadership positions, or within the math and sciences fields-- they're thought of as weak and cooperative, family-oriented, and unable to make the right sacrifices/choices for the job. The key is to keep in mind that those faux victories always have an underlying reason to them: it's not a bunch of old white men sitting in a room choosing to favor those sweet young girls. It is a very predictable pattern of pigeonholing women and keeping them confined to a very narrow definition of femininity.
Anyway, I forget where I was going with that. My point is that fighting for women's rights requires specificity. Yes, the goal is for gender equality, but until we get there, the debate has to be about women. From a logistical point of view, it would be just damn right confusing not to specify women. Equalism? What kind of equality are you talking about? Human equalism? Oh so, equalism between humans in general? So women are disproportionately raped, discriminated against, most likely to be murdered by intimate partners than by anyone else, and we're still talking about how offensive it is that the ideology of the women's rights movement specifies.. women? How is this for a benchmark.. when we achieve gender equality, you'll know it because people will no longer be freaked out by words that imply that maybe, just maybe, women have a say in this world.
*I actually had someone on reddit.com tell me that he was sick and tired of feminists because they "want rights and equal pay, yet they can't even get off their selfish asses and fight for their nation." Yes, verbatim. After I told him that it's illegal for women to do so, and that there is an ongoing movement to overturn the policy, he said something about me watching my sarcastic mouth. Yes, yes. Lovely.
So. Makes sense right? Being an "equalist" is being the change you wish to see in the world, right?
But no. Think about it. There's a lot of different arguments you can make about being against the term "equalist," but what convinced me was realizing that feminist issues directly affect women. Rape is a hate crime that targets women. Abortion is a policy that is barred from women. The glass ceiling, sexual harassment in the workplace, unequal pay.. these are all directly enforced to disadvantage women. If misogyny directly impacts women, then the fight is obviously going to be for and about women. As simple as that.
Going into it a bit more, leaving it at "equalist" also leaves it at the mercy of a world that is already androcentric/man-centered. Think about it, even at the really really really basic level. Even things that you might not even considered before. The world is essentially designed by men, for men. Making this claim always gets me bombarded with so-called exceptions to androcentrism (I'm still a little bitter), so I'm going to address the most common "exceptions" right off the bat:
-Yes, department stores have mostly women's stores.
-Yes, women have doors held open for them, checks paid for them, etc.
-Yes, women get lesser jail sentences.
-Yes, women were never drafted into the military.
All true, but not exactly feminist victories. These faux victories, I'm going to call them, are all based on some fundamental assumptions about women that have contributed to the ongoing oppression of women. Women have so many shopping options because their value is so often determined by their looks: women have historically been treated as property, so naturally, you have to make that property as alluring as possible to attract a breadwinning husband. Men, on the other hand, are valued for their abilities: intelligence, athleticism, etc. Men are valued for doing, while women are for showing/looking. Again, hardly a feminist victory. The other faux victories are all based on assumptions that women are less reliable, weaker, less capable of violence, more sympathetic, etc. Women are actively barred from serving in combat positions in the military, and are still actively fighting for the right to do so*. Sure, the draft sucks, but making it illegal for women to serve in combat positions is hardly a privilege. Same goes for prison. Nobody is fighting to go to prison, that's for sure, but the reason why women receive lesser jail sentences is because they're perceived as naturally submissive, naturally incapable of violence. In other words, women are historically perceived as marshmallow baby-makers and cake-bakers. This is the same sort of attitude that keeps women from being hired for leadership positions, or within the math and sciences fields-- they're thought of as weak and cooperative, family-oriented, and unable to make the right sacrifices/choices for the job. The key is to keep in mind that those faux victories always have an underlying reason to them: it's not a bunch of old white men sitting in a room choosing to favor those sweet young girls. It is a very predictable pattern of pigeonholing women and keeping them confined to a very narrow definition of femininity.
Anyway, I forget where I was going with that. My point is that fighting for women's rights requires specificity. Yes, the goal is for gender equality, but until we get there, the debate has to be about women. From a logistical point of view, it would be just damn right confusing not to specify women. Equalism? What kind of equality are you talking about? Human equalism? Oh so, equalism between humans in general? So women are disproportionately raped, discriminated against, most likely to be murdered by intimate partners than by anyone else, and we're still talking about how offensive it is that the ideology of the women's rights movement specifies.. women? How is this for a benchmark.. when we achieve gender equality, you'll know it because people will no longer be freaked out by words that imply that maybe, just maybe, women have a say in this world.
*I actually had someone on reddit.com tell me that he was sick and tired of feminists because they "want rights and equal pay, yet they can't even get off their selfish asses and fight for their nation." Yes, verbatim. After I told him that it's illegal for women to do so, and that there is an ongoing movement to overturn the policy, he said something about me watching my sarcastic mouth. Yes, yes. Lovely.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
"racebending"
a quick re-post from facebook, on why "Avatar: The Last Airbender" is pushing race representations in a very very problematic way:
Here is a video that speaks for itself: http://www.youtube.com/wat
on the people of color in the cast:
yes they exist, but Dev Patel, Cliff Curtis, and Summer Bishil (our resident people of color) are all cast as Fire Nation characters = villains. packing the villain train full of brown people is nothing to celebrate. not to mention that the original zuko was white ( http://www.thepostgameshow
on the characters being 'race ambiguous' in the cartoon:
A) false. katara and sokka are entirely based on inuits. here's a pic: http://pics.livejournal.co
on top of that, while their names aren't inuit, they're not racially ambiguous-- in fact they're most likely inspired by japanese names. only that "sokka" seems like a whitened spelling of "saka."
B) false for aang as well. aang is a chinese name, although the spelling is also slightly whitened from "ang" (don't know why that had to be whitened, nobody seems to have trouble pronouncing "Ang Lee," the Taiwanese American director). aang's character as well as his trajectory throughout the entire series is based upon the shaolin monks. beginning young, and setting off on a spiritual buddhist journey that involves becoming well trained in chinese martial arts. on top of that, here's what a shaolin monk looks like: http://web.tiscali.it/giov
on other asian representations in the cartoon:
1) WRITING: only mandarin/chinese characters are used throughout the entire cartoon-- you can thank tattoo artists for making them look like exotic symbols, but yes, characters are written language as much as letters or words are in english. the series is headlined with chinese. and each episode begins with chinese characters (NOT japanese kanji) that spell out the four elements. every scroll, every document that is read throughout the series is spoken in english but written in chinese. which is kinda cool of the animators, rather than just scribbling! in fact, just for kicks haha, here is a website that tells you how to practice your chinese calligraphy just by watching avatar: http://hubpages.com/hub/Le
2) BUILDINGS: are all inspired by dinstinctly asian/inuit/pacific islander cultures. a blog i read summed it up well:
"There are no equivalents to African or European cultures in the Avatar world. There are no medieval French castles. There are no Egyptian temples. There are no Viking long houses. There are no Malian mosques." so really, the whole "avatar is all about global diversity" thing is out the window. the youtube video above does a good job of comparing the architecture specifically. not to mention that last city in the earth kingdom (ba sing se?) is entirely based on the forbidden city in beijing, china.
here is a picture of ba sing se in the cartoon: http://dkamayo.files.wordp
here is a picture of the forbidden city: http://home.pacbell.net/ee
here are pictures of the forbidden city watchtowers: http://www.vagabondjourney
even the walkways look almost entirely the same:
http://www.chinatravelcomp
ALSO, the 'lion turtle' that's a recurring theme in avatar (see here: http://images2.wikia.nocoo
....so yes, Avatar is heavily BASED (and not just inspired) on asian & inuit culture. regardless of what race the writers of the show were, or where the show was aired, avatar is still a representation of asian culture. it simply does not make sense to cast white actors in a movie representative of asian culture, especially since asian actors are already restricted to the few roles that they can play. jet li, jackie chan, chow yun fat, etc. are successful for a reason. not because they're asian and charismatic, but because they're asian and know very well how to market themselves to fit asian stereotypes (read: learn kunfu). this is not 'overanalyzing it'. this is contributing to a very, very long history of blackface/yellowface and in making people of color INVISIBLE even when they're most directly represented.
Here is a video that speaks for itself: http://www.youtube.com/wat
on the people of color in the cast:
yes they exist, but Dev Patel, Cliff Curtis, and Summer Bishil (our resident people of color) are all cast as Fire Nation characters = villains. packing the villain train full of brown people is nothing to celebrate. not to mention that the original zuko was white ( http://www.thepostgameshow
on the characters being 'race ambiguous' in the cartoon:
A) false. katara and sokka are entirely based on inuits. here's a pic: http://pics.livejournal.co
on top of that, while their names aren't inuit, they're not racially ambiguous-- in fact they're most likely inspired by japanese names. only that "sokka" seems like a whitened spelling of "saka."
B) false for aang as well. aang is a chinese name, although the spelling is also slightly whitened from "ang" (don't know why that had to be whitened, nobody seems to have trouble pronouncing "Ang Lee," the Taiwanese American director). aang's character as well as his trajectory throughout the entire series is based upon the shaolin monks. beginning young, and setting off on a spiritual buddhist journey that involves becoming well trained in chinese martial arts. on top of that, here's what a shaolin monk looks like: http://web.tiscali.it/giov
on other asian representations in the cartoon:
1) WRITING: only mandarin/chinese characters are used throughout the entire cartoon-- you can thank tattoo artists for making them look like exotic symbols, but yes, characters are written language as much as letters or words are in english. the series is headlined with chinese. and each episode begins with chinese characters (NOT japanese kanji) that spell out the four elements. every scroll, every document that is read throughout the series is spoken in english but written in chinese. which is kinda cool of the animators, rather than just scribbling! in fact, just for kicks haha, here is a website that tells you how to practice your chinese calligraphy just by watching avatar: http://hubpages.com/hub/Le
2) BUILDINGS: are all inspired by dinstinctly asian/inuit/pacific islander cultures. a blog i read summed it up well:
"There are no equivalents to African or European cultures in the Avatar world. There are no medieval French castles. There are no Egyptian temples. There are no Viking long houses. There are no Malian mosques." so really, the whole "avatar is all about global diversity" thing is out the window. the youtube video above does a good job of comparing the architecture specifically. not to mention that last city in the earth kingdom (ba sing se?) is entirely based on the forbidden city in beijing, china.
here is a picture of ba sing se in the cartoon: http://dkamayo.files.wordp
here is a picture of the forbidden city: http://home.pacbell.net/ee
here are pictures of the forbidden city watchtowers: http://www.vagabondjourney
even the walkways look almost entirely the same:
http://www.chinatravelcomp
ALSO, the 'lion turtle' that's a recurring theme in avatar (see here: http://images2.wikia.nocoo
....so yes, Avatar is heavily BASED (and not just inspired) on asian & inuit culture. regardless of what race the writers of the show were, or where the show was aired, avatar is still a representation of asian culture. it simply does not make sense to cast white actors in a movie representative of asian culture, especially since asian actors are already restricted to the few roles that they can play. jet li, jackie chan, chow yun fat, etc. are successful for a reason. not because they're asian and charismatic, but because they're asian and know very well how to market themselves to fit asian stereotypes (read: learn kunfu). this is not 'overanalyzing it'. this is contributing to a very, very long history of blackface/yellowface and in making people of color INVISIBLE even when they're most directly represented.
Monday, May 31, 2010
no patience for anti-choicers
P.S.: saying "pro-life" is basically falling into a big ol' trap. Because..
A) it makes us pro-choicers also "anti-life" by implication,
and B) it would be presupposing that fetuses are independent entities (if you have any doubts about this, refer to pic below), and lead to that whole there's-no-way-to-get-out-of-this-because-you've-already-made-some-hazardous-assumptions "abortion is murder" argument...
Let's not go there, to that dark place where the crazies live.
But the point of the post was to share some internet awesomeness:
I can't seem to find the original source, though! My bad.
A) it makes us pro-choicers also "anti-life" by implication,
and B) it would be presupposing that fetuses are independent entities (if you have any doubts about this, refer to pic below), and lead to that whole there's-no-way-to-get-out-of-this-because-you've-already-made-some-hazardous-assumptions "abortion is murder" argument...
Let's not go there, to that dark place where the crazies live.
But the point of the post was to share some internet awesomeness:
I can't seem to find the original source, though! My bad.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Is the fashion industry our's?
A while ago, this photo made it's way over to Reddit.
Surprise surprise, the predominantly male Reddit community tore these non-makeup-wearing women apart. Feel free to read some of the comments if you have the heart to. It's your garden variety degradation of women, which begins with some sort of insult (e.g. "...lips that look like they got stuck in a vacuum cleaner hose until they bled"), something about which ones are fuckable, and then concluding with more insult. The gentlest comment will probably forgo the fuckability part and just go with two solid insults in a row. Anyway, here is a much better article from Jezebel on why these men feel entitled to ridicule these supermodels (P.S. these are all the highest paid supermodels in the world).
Surprise surprise, the predominantly male Reddit community tore these non-makeup-wearing women apart. Feel free to read some of the comments if you have the heart to. It's your garden variety degradation of women, which begins with some sort of insult (e.g. "...lips that look like they got stuck in a vacuum cleaner hose until they bled"), something about which ones are fuckable, and then concluding with more insult. The gentlest comment will probably forgo the fuckability part and just go with two solid insults in a row. Anyway, here is a much better article from Jezebel on why these men feel entitled to ridicule these supermodels (P.S. these are all the highest paid supermodels in the world).
The main point the writer stresses is that the fashion industry is one that 'belongs' to women. An industry that is predominantly female, doesn't rely on men's critiques, and certainly doesn't serve men's tastes. I never thought of it that way. Sure, the fashion industry has it's own messed up standards of thinness (cue Karl Lagerfeld), but I can't disagree that it is relatively dry of the mainstream male's gaze. We always talk about this 'gaze' in class.. Think about it. Almost everywhere you look, the world is framed in the eyes/opinions of a man. It's hard to see only because we've gotten so used to it, but this is a pretty damn good explanation of why women are only visible in public in the most stereotypical ways. Even with the so-called Ugly Betties of television (e.g. Ugly Betty herself, or the nerdy girl from Community, or even that other nerdy girl from Glee), what you're really seeing is a smokin' hot Maxim girl wearing glasses, braces, and a cardigan. Even when the character is somewhat quirky, television shows still feel the need to find a very stereotypically beautiful actress to "dumb down" her hotness for the role.
Click "read more" for the actresses' pictures side by side.
And don't even start with the whole, "Well, it's the magic of makeup and lighting." Sure, there is a lot of magic going on, but I bet you could find a huge population of women who won't look like that even with a team of professionals. The point is that the "male gaze" stops you from seeing possibilities outside of those that are created by the image of a big-boobed, sultry-eyed babe. EVEN when that image dresses itself up as Ugly Betty. P.S.: Here is an awesome article about pretending that the hot women of television aren't hot. The author calls it the "Liz Lemon" effect, haha.
This would also help to debunk the myth that having women on a production/casting/whatever team intervenes in the male gaze. The gaze is soooooooo ingrained in all of us that it's hard to be successful without surrendering to it. Even if you are ideologically against the male gaze, have fun trying to make it big in Hollywood. It's possible, thank god, but it will be a pain in the ass.
SOOOOOOOOOO. My question stands. Is the fashion industry reproducing a male gaze? Is it reproducing some mutated version of it? Or is it an exclusively "our's"? I still don't know if I can answer this one.
Click "read more" for the actresses' pictures side by side.
And don't even start with the whole, "Well, it's the magic of makeup and lighting." Sure, there is a lot of magic going on, but I bet you could find a huge population of women who won't look like that even with a team of professionals. The point is that the "male gaze" stops you from seeing possibilities outside of those that are created by the image of a big-boobed, sultry-eyed babe. EVEN when that image dresses itself up as Ugly Betty. P.S.: Here is an awesome article about pretending that the hot women of television aren't hot. The author calls it the "Liz Lemon" effect, haha.
This would also help to debunk the myth that having women on a production/casting/whatever team intervenes in the male gaze. The gaze is soooooooo ingrained in all of us that it's hard to be successful without surrendering to it. Even if you are ideologically against the male gaze, have fun trying to make it big in Hollywood. It's possible, thank god, but it will be a pain in the ass.
SOOOOOOOOOO. My question stands. Is the fashion industry reproducing a male gaze? Is it reproducing some mutated version of it? Or is it an exclusively "our's"? I still don't know if I can answer this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
