Please do me a favor and don't use that disclaimer before your pro-feminist ideas.
Rant pending...
Friday, September 3, 2010
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?).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
