...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.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
walk like a virgin, talk like a whore
or walk like a whore, talk like a virgin? I'm not sure. I don't think that title really worked out here but it was worth a shot. Annnyyywayyy..
So I am super frustrated with these "It's okay not to have sex" ads.
Okay let's stick with Exhibit A for now, because there's just too much to say about this one. Don't be deceived by the wording... but think about what it's actually reinforcing. The real work, in any advertisement, is in reading what is not OBVIOUSLY stated; in finding the hidden "therefore..." to it. So while this campaign may seem to be innocently telling girls "sexy ≠ having sex," I can't help to think what happens to everyone else who falls somewhere outside of that alignment: "already having sex = ?", or "not sexy = ?".. or both, "not sexy & having sex = ?".
Sooooooooo.
Have you heard about the virgin-whore expectation? If so, move along, if not keep reading. Firstly, girls nowadays grow up with the knowledge that it's much, much, much easier to get what you want when you're beautiful/sexy. Before anyone brings up how difficult their sorry lives are because "nobody takes them seriously as an attractive woman," let's just say this: without your beauty, you would be down right invisible. Being 'taken seriously' is part 2 to being noticed, so let's agree on that first. Secondly, girls are also told just how important virginity is to (A) their self-worth, and (B) the worth that the rest of the world attributes to them. Beginning with creeptastic purity balls, and constantly policed with slut-shaming from parents, friends, and the-general-rest-of-the-world. I'll go into slut-shaming more another day, but just keep in mind the consequences for a young girl or woman who has sex. All hell breaks loose. So let's piece this together: (1) must be sexy at all times to even get my foot in the door, (2) must be virginal. What we get is the virgin-whore complex. This is something that starts young and gets told to women from all different kinds of places--keep in mind that it's also not always with bad intentions, either. When I say that slut-shaming comes from parents, for example, it's not to say that parents are intentionally trying to make their daughters feel like shit. It's just showing you how deep this idea runs.
MOVING ON... can you see now, why I have a problem with the campaign? While abstinence is not a bad thing, this isn't the way to 'promote' it. This is only reinforcing the age-old idea that women, you are worthless without your virginity, and invisible with your sexiness. So here's an impossible tight-rope to walk. Oh yeah, and if you happen to fall off of it, you're a giant slut for it.
I have to take a break from this frustration, but will add more soon!
In the meantime, here is an awesome-on-top-of-awesome article by Jessica Valenti on why we really, really need to throw out the campaign for virginity.
So I am super frustrated with these "It's okay not to have sex" ads.
Exhibit A
Okay let's stick with Exhibit A for now, because there's just too much to say about this one. Don't be deceived by the wording... but think about what it's actually reinforcing. The real work, in any advertisement, is in reading what is not OBVIOUSLY stated; in finding the hidden "therefore..." to it. So while this campaign may seem to be innocently telling girls "sexy ≠ having sex," I can't help to think what happens to everyone else who falls somewhere outside of that alignment: "already having sex = ?", or "not sexy = ?".. or both, "not sexy & having sex = ?".
Sooooooooo.
Have you heard about the virgin-whore expectation? If so, move along, if not keep reading. Firstly, girls nowadays grow up with the knowledge that it's much, much, much easier to get what you want when you're beautiful/sexy. Before anyone brings up how difficult their sorry lives are because "nobody takes them seriously as an attractive woman," let's just say this: without your beauty, you would be down right invisible. Being 'taken seriously' is part 2 to being noticed, so let's agree on that first. Secondly, girls are also told just how important virginity is to (A) their self-worth, and (B) the worth that the rest of the world attributes to them. Beginning with creeptastic purity balls, and constantly policed with slut-shaming from parents, friends, and the-general-rest-of-the-world. I'll go into slut-shaming more another day, but just keep in mind the consequences for a young girl or woman who has sex. All hell breaks loose. So let's piece this together: (1) must be sexy at all times to even get my foot in the door, (2) must be virginal. What we get is the virgin-whore complex. This is something that starts young and gets told to women from all different kinds of places--keep in mind that it's also not always with bad intentions, either. When I say that slut-shaming comes from parents, for example, it's not to say that parents are intentionally trying to make their daughters feel like shit. It's just showing you how deep this idea runs.
MOVING ON... can you see now, why I have a problem with the campaign? While abstinence is not a bad thing, this isn't the way to 'promote' it. This is only reinforcing the age-old idea that women, you are worthless without your virginity, and invisible with your sexiness. So here's an impossible tight-rope to walk. Oh yeah, and if you happen to fall off of it, you're a giant slut for it.
I have to take a break from this frustration, but will add more soon!
In the meantime, here is an awesome-on-top-of-awesome article by Jessica Valenti on why we really, really need to throw out the campaign for virginity.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
creepy quotes 'R' us
"You know what, I am never going to quit speaking on behalf of the unborn."
Randy Neugebauer (R - TX), on his anti-choice efforts to represent the humanoid-looking cluster of cells growing inside women's bodies. And yes, this is also the guy who called Bart Stupak a baby-killer on the House floor (I still don't get it... anyone?).
Randy Neugebauer (R - TX), on his anti-choice efforts to represent the humanoid-looking cluster of cells growing inside women's bodies. And yes, this is also the guy who called Bart Stupak a baby-killer on the House floor (I still don't get it... anyone?).
the book club
This is where books with good intentions go wrong.
From Margaret McGuire's The Quotable Douchebag...
Keep in mind, though, that this book is condemning (and not endorsing) these quotes. Also keep in mind that I had to specify that (I'll bring it up later in Problem #3).
From Margaret McGuire's The Quotable Douchebag...
Keep in mind, though, that this book is condemning (and not endorsing) these quotes. Also keep in mind that I had to specify that (I'll bring it up later in Problem #3).
Problem #1: The "Ignore Him, He's Just Stupid" Take
I know, right? We can thank Clayton Williams, the Republican candidate for governor of Texas in 1990, for this gem. There's not much I can say about the quote itself, except for the fact that twenty years later, we still hear this kind of hopeless stupidity from people in positions of authority that really can't afford it (actually, we're the ones who can't afford it). The danger here is the Just Another argument: it's just another racist, it's just another misogynist, or it's just another crazy and misinformed person. That may be true on an individual scale, but these ideas are reflective of the cultural climate that we live in, and the widespread availability of misogyny. These attitudes towards rape weren't plucked out of thin air, but were readily available and purchased by Williams from the cues that we drop and the equations that we write about women. Williams is responsible for the articulation, but the rest of us are neck-deep in a society that produces and endorses the blueprints of his logic.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
language matters
A right-on post about language, and why it's a big deal.
Something that is so often ignored, so often discredited.
Hint hint, word work..
On calling female athletes 'girls', and why we shouldn't shrug this off as just-plain-vanilla semantics:
Something that is so often ignored, so often discredited.
Hint hint, word work..
On calling female athletes 'girls', and why we shouldn't shrug this off as just-plain-vanilla semantics:
"The language of any culture not only reflects the ideological biases that characterize it; it replicates and reinforces them. And while the attempt to oppose this particular phenomenon of calling, in all spheres of society, adult women "girls"... seems now to be regarded as an irrelevant or passé "old wave" concern, reality... reveals it to be more urgent than ever. What we need be attuned to is the fact that the way we speak is, to some extent, inextricable from the way we act, both as individuals and as a society. That men - and women - persist in calling adult females "girls," cannot, legitimately, be decoupled from such disturbing cultural trends as the media sexualization of increasingly younger girls, or from the rise of eternal prepubescence (slim, hairless) as the expected standard of adult women's bodies, nor, ultimately, even from such horrors as honor killings and aerobics room shooting sprees."
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
at women's expense
A good message... but did we really have to make it memorable/dignified at the "guilty" girl's expense? Because calling someone out isn't enough-- you also have to insult their clothing (cue humiliation factor) to make it a worthy punch. It is a relief to see celebrities acknowledging the grammar behind discrimination, but was belittling female relationships (and making cattiness not only trendy but also righteous) really the path to take? Let's move away from sacrificing young women for the sake of righteous causes-- being a woman does not come second to being a moral person.
A nudge to PETA (save the animals first) and American Apparel (save sweat-shop laborers first) as well. Because we can always dignify women later-- only if it's trendy and boob-related, though.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
2.13.2010
It really, really pisses me off being on this feminist island. I have so much respect for feminist authors and activists that are out there, taking the hate mail, explaining themselves over and over again, and just being torn apart viciously by all the smug little Anonymouses of the internet. This rant is inspired by the hollow comments posted by my housemate (see "word work" post below). I deleted the worst of them, but the arrogance just pisses me off beyond belief. Sure, every writer gets questioned, challenged, and criticized harshly, but most of these anti-feminist comments on other blogs are just outright personal attacks from people that a) don't think outside of their own bubbles of privilege, b) don't understand how to chew an idea before swallowing it, b) are so blinded by a concrete wall of traditional thinking that they can't imagine the possibility of a world outside that wall. Or, better yet, the possibility of a world without the wall.
Here is a brilliant collection on Feministing.com of all the cemented crap that people think about feminists (and women in general, actually): http://www.feministing.com/anti-feminist-mailbag/
Here is a brilliant collection on Feministing.com of all the cemented crap that people think about feminists (and women in general, actually): http://www.feministing.com/anti-feminist-mailbag/
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Superbowlshit
My friend Matt and I watched the Superbowl together, calling out the commercials and noting whenever a blatantly misogynistic commercial made someone laugh. Seriously? Thank god for this experience, or I would've thought I was sitting on my lonely feminist island again (I think any feminist will be all-too-familiar with the island syndrome). Some of my favorite call-outs of Superbowl ridiculosity below...
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
pam tebow needs better logic
I physically cannot stop myself from commenting on the upcoming anti-abortion Superbowl ad. There will never be enough that can be said about a stance that's so ridiculously irrational and blind. Feel free to add to this list, but here is what I have so far:
- Pam Tebow needs to advertise second opinions, not discriminatory legislation.
- Pam Tebow needs to recognize doctors as medical advisers, not as the absolute authorities over her body (refer to the next bulletpoint).
- Pam Tebow needs to acknowledge that it was her ability to choose, to think consciously about a serious procedure, that should be rewarded. Neither doctors nor anti-abortion legislation be in full control.
- Pam Tebow needs to stop talking about abortion like an expensive dental plan. For many women, there are no alternatives.
- Pam Tebow needs to give women (including herself) a better foothold in the world. Women are women, long before they may have the desire or the option to become mothers. Having offspring may feel selfless and life-changing, but validation needs to come from the self, not from a son's athletic achievements. This is not selfishness. It's basic human dignity.
- Pam Tebow needs to reclaim reproductive autonomy, rather than outlawing it. She could begin by taking a three million dollar stance against the forced sterilization of women of color (crash course here).
- Pam Tebow needs to specify. She is sponsored by the organization "Focus on the Family," but let's be explicit that the focus is on the upper-middle class, heterosexual, white family.
- Pam Tebow needs to trust the women across the nation, just as she trusted herself with reproductive choice. The decision was a difficult one for her, just as it will be a difficult one for many of us. Abortion is by no means an easy choice. Trust the rest of us with consciousness.
- Pam Tebow needs to realize that being pro-choice does not outlaw childbirth.
- Pam Tebow needs to meet more women.
EDIT
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I felt compelled to add this little disclaimer after watching the Tebow ad last night. After the commercial got nods of approval from rational thinkers (the ones you would usually expect to read past anti-abortion BS), I think that somewhere along the line, most of us forgot the word work (re: post below) that's at play. What this commercial was going for (and achieved, apparently) was to pit legalized abortion against pregnancy, childbirth, and motherhood. Do you like families? Yes. Do you like children? Yes. Do you like mothers that like their children? Yes. Okay, then go to the Focus on the Family website, and here is some anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-abortion, and pro-religion crap while you're at it. Age-old strategy, of course, but why is it that once subtlety was built into the message ("tastefulness," is the word that's misused in most articles), we all seemed to forget what's at stake? The ad is by no means non-controversial; it's just going into the just-plain-false zone and connecting dots that simply don't belong together. Subtlety does not make misogyny any more mainstream. What's buried underneath the Tebows' creepy Cheshire smiles is this typical argument: abortion = no babies allowed, ever. How is that for apocalyptic feminism?
Try Jesse Taylor's take on the deceptive subtlety.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
word work
My problem of the week is with the assumption that words, words, words are just lying flat, lifeless and exposed. The innocence of words, the truth/transparency of words, the convenience of words. It's hard for me to stomach the suggestion that feminism should be reshaped into "Gender Studies" or "Equality Studies." The task at hand is indeed gender equality, but we're not going to achieve this by throwing specificity out the window. There is intention, political thrust, and an imaginative potential behind and within the title of feminism. What does it mean to specify femininity? Even more thought-provoking is to consider what it means to receive resistance from doing so. Feminism is swimming against the current, nobody will argue that. But how come so few of us have paused to acknowledge the fact that the current exists to begin with? The antagonism towards feminists is perplexing at first: no one, at least in sane academia, signed up for Anti-Male or Anti-Masculinity Studies, so what is all the fuss about? Feminism doesn't deny males or masculinity, rather it seeks to deny inherent maleness through specification (ever notice how the "default" gender is always male? This is what is meant by inherent maleness). The mistake is in assuming that there can be some sort of accommodating "neutrality" within the field of feminism (hence, "equalist" rather than "feminist"). Is standing still an option when you're neck-deep in the river current? It is not even a possibility, let alone an option. Visualize it, I dare you.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Beginnings, Schmeginnings
How do you begin a blog? I finally convinced myself that blogging is a better outlet for my political rants, rather than facebook statuses (I'll miss the one-liner creative process, though). I've been terrified for a while—terrified of sounding uninformed, terrified of being self-important, terrified of using too many dashes, terrified of public bellyflopping. But I am having too good of a time (in living/in books/in reading/in growing) to leave these little pathways of mine unwritten.
So here is to the awkwardness of writing about myself, the embarrassment of retrospect, and to all the not-so-secret forts that we build and inhabit on ze internetz.
So here is to the awkwardness of writing about myself, the embarrassment of retrospect, and to all the not-so-secret forts that we build and inhabit on ze internetz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
