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:

"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."

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.

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/

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...

amazies

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.

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.