Your tax dollars, hard at work:
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
I Believe Anita Hill
Long time, no blog. Sorry, folks. Life gets busy, internet stops working. Doubts creep in. Is feminism really what needs to be at the forefront of our minds right now? Gay teenagers are being bullied into committing suicide in disturbingly high numbers. Climate change feels like a noose tightening around our neck. What good is a blog, for crying out loud?
Still, I knew I had to write after Virginia Thomas demanded Anita Hill's apology to her husband, Clarence. (She called this “an olive branch.” Hmmm.) Why, you ask, would such a thing wake me from a two-month, blog-free slumber? I was still a kid when the Clarence Thomas hearings happened, and it made a huge impression on me. It was more than just the first time I realized why there was a need for feminists; it was when I started identifying as one.
My thought process at the time went much the same as now: What does Anita Hill have to gain personally by doing this? People claimed she was “put up to it.” Maybe she was encouraged to speak up- but so what? The reward that Hill got for her bravery was vilification and accusation of falsification. And now Virginia Thomas has the gall to ask for an apology?!
No, no. Let me.
I'm sorry that this has been so painful for you, Ms. Thomas. Honestly, I can't imagine what you must have felt standing by a man who sexually harassed other women. I'm sorry that your drama played out on a public stage, and that back then, leaving your husband was even less of an option than it is today. I can't imagine the pressure you must have felt to stay and play the role of the trusting wife, to keep up appearances despite any doubts you may have held. Obviously, this ordeal has been stewing for 19 years, and for whatever reason, it boiled over a few days ago, resulting in the ultimate act of denial: asking for an apology from one of your husband's victims. It's a shame for you that you didn't get what you wanted. But I would be lying if I said I didn't cheer when I heard of her refusal to make your desperate action seem legitimate.
You want to know what really makes me feel sorrow? When women like Anita Hill are bold enough to take their harassers to task and garner nothing but disbelief. I'm truly sorry that you, like much of our world, don't seem to understand that there is nothing for these women but threats, name-calling and a small possibility of seeing the person who wronged them brought to justice. Do you and all the others who question the validity of a woman's statement every time she is attacked, abused or harassed, really believe that she wants to add to her misery? Do you think women enjoy that kind of attention? Or is it just too horrible to hear that such things can and do happen? I couldn't be more sorry that they do. I'm sorry that it's easier to live in a state of denial than to admit that, for as they say, admitting the problem is the first step. I'm sorry that you don't recognize just how brave women who stand up for their rights really are. It seems to me like a basic thing, freedom from harassment. I'm sorry that you, and so many others, have failed to recognize that.
I know that I don't need to say it, but obviously it hasn't been said enough: I still believe Anita Hill.
Still, I knew I had to write after Virginia Thomas demanded Anita Hill's apology to her husband, Clarence. (She called this “an olive branch.” Hmmm.) Why, you ask, would such a thing wake me from a two-month, blog-free slumber? I was still a kid when the Clarence Thomas hearings happened, and it made a huge impression on me. It was more than just the first time I realized why there was a need for feminists; it was when I started identifying as one.
My thought process at the time went much the same as now: What does Anita Hill have to gain personally by doing this? People claimed she was “put up to it.” Maybe she was encouraged to speak up- but so what? The reward that Hill got for her bravery was vilification and accusation of falsification. And now Virginia Thomas has the gall to ask for an apology?!
No, no. Let me.
I'm sorry that this has been so painful for you, Ms. Thomas. Honestly, I can't imagine what you must have felt standing by a man who sexually harassed other women. I'm sorry that your drama played out on a public stage, and that back then, leaving your husband was even less of an option than it is today. I can't imagine the pressure you must have felt to stay and play the role of the trusting wife, to keep up appearances despite any doubts you may have held. Obviously, this ordeal has been stewing for 19 years, and for whatever reason, it boiled over a few days ago, resulting in the ultimate act of denial: asking for an apology from one of your husband's victims. It's a shame for you that you didn't get what you wanted. But I would be lying if I said I didn't cheer when I heard of her refusal to make your desperate action seem legitimate.
You want to know what really makes me feel sorrow? When women like Anita Hill are bold enough to take their harassers to task and garner nothing but disbelief. I'm truly sorry that you, like much of our world, don't seem to understand that there is nothing for these women but threats, name-calling and a small possibility of seeing the person who wronged them brought to justice. Do you and all the others who question the validity of a woman's statement every time she is attacked, abused or harassed, really believe that she wants to add to her misery? Do you think women enjoy that kind of attention? Or is it just too horrible to hear that such things can and do happen? I couldn't be more sorry that they do. I'm sorry that it's easier to live in a state of denial than to admit that, for as they say, admitting the problem is the first step. I'm sorry that you don't recognize just how brave women who stand up for their rights really are. It seems to me like a basic thing, freedom from harassment. I'm sorry that you, and so many others, have failed to recognize that.
I know that I don't need to say it, but obviously it hasn't been said enough: I still believe Anita Hill.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Sex in Public
I'm a little out of touch with popular culture, hence the reason I was “reading” an issue of Rolling Stone from June of 2010. And honestly, I was a little shocked. Until this wake-up call, I thought the avalanche of writings about sexualized advertisements was overdone. “Surely we're moving beyond that now,” I thought. “Yes, you see the occasional over-sexed ad, but things are getting better!”
Turns out I was wrong.
Everywhere you turn, the magazine is selling you sex- and something else that you could actually buy. Orbit gum “unwraps” both itself and its blonde model. TV show ads display women lounging in tight, cleavage-bearing dresses. Midway through the magazine, there is a series of ads for Absolut Vodka, featuring famous women in various degrees of undress. The crowning achievement is the ad for “Absolut Crush”, where Kate Beckinsale dons a tiny gold loin cloth and large gold high heels, towering sexily above a flimsy-looking city.
"Perhaps Rolling Stone is still a boys club, just as much of the music it covers is," I thought. But upon further reflection, I realized that most TV shows, advertisements, movies, and even book covers show women as sex objects. Even magazines marketed to women demonstrate this trend. Women are the attention-getters, wearing make-up and the latest fashions (or not wearing them, as is often the case). And apparently, wanting nothing more than to attract men. What else do these women want? We don't know. And that's a lot of the problem.
Important questions are raised by thinking about women in advertisement, such as how airbrushing can effect a women's psyche, how skinny models should be, or whether they make women feel pressure to wear make-up. But the question it raises most in my mind is this: when is it OK? As a person whose beliefs often align with third wave feminism (you may have noticed), I believe that we should encourage women to express themselves. Yes, sometimes sexually. But sometimes it just feels forced or disrespectful. Degrading.
Sexuality can be very powerful, and there is obviously more than one reason to strut one's stuff. But where is the line drawn? When does expressing yourself become detrimental? There's no real way to answer this for everyone, of course, and no way to know when it becomes exploitative for the individual involved.
For me, personally, stripping down to sell something seems like the first thing to avoid. You are shedding your identity and losing control of your image to someone else's gain. Perhaps it's partially that you can't really sell sexuality- though many advertisers seem to think you can, or at least, can entwine the sexual and the material in people's minds. But this goes beyond advertising. Gratuitous sex and nudity in movies and TV can often generate enough buzz to boost viewership. Virtually all pop stars are sexualized to help sell records. Or perhaps it's become so common that it's expected of women in mainstream music.
The flip side of this is that sometimes, on a smaller scale, this is how women make a living. Is stripping OK? Depending upon circumstances, perhaps. As Kathleen Hanna sang: “I can sell my body if I wanna/God knows you've already sold your mind./I may sell my body for money sometimes/but you can't stop the fire that burns inside of me.” Indeed.
Many questions can be asked of a woman in any situation that might call this issue into question. What are the reasons? Do you enjoy what you're doing? Do you feel obligated? Is it for attention (a common accusation)? It can be hard to tease all of this apart. Do women feel sexual in one way because that's how they've been socialized? Or is their brand of sexuality merely a reaction to the status quo? Is it possible to truly show the world who you are in a culture of media bombardment? No wonder so many women have decided to keep sexuality out of public life. It is so much easier in so many ways.
Somehow, even though women's sexuality is always on display, women aren't supposed to want to be that way. Wearing a short skirt garners accusations. Women's motives are called into question. If you are a teacher or a mother, it's even worse. Why is our culture scared of sexuality? This makes me think that women who want to should definitely be showing off. Perhaps we should take on the question of when public sexuality is appropriate or damaging.
It seems to boil down to control. If you are expressing yourself how you want, when you want, for the reasons you want, then it is OK with me. If you feel coerced, obligated, or uncomfortable, then perhaps it isn't the right circumstance.
Women can be sexy and still be in control. I'll use the example of a friend of mine. She owns low-cut dresses and leather boots, but wears pants just as often as not. Her sole motivation is not to be seen as sexy, though she isn't afraid to be cast in that light. She doesn't conform to society's ideas about sexuality all the time, but isn't hesitant to pick conventional ideas that also match her own. Even though she is neither a supermodel-type nor obsessed about looks, more men speak of her beauty and attractiveness than almost any other woman I know. Why? She's confident. She projects her sexuality without needing attention. And perhaps most importantly, she's being who she is. Her sexuality is for no one but herself. And that, dear readers, is hot.
Turns out I was wrong.
Everywhere you turn, the magazine is selling you sex- and something else that you could actually buy. Orbit gum “unwraps” both itself and its blonde model. TV show ads display women lounging in tight, cleavage-bearing dresses. Midway through the magazine, there is a series of ads for Absolut Vodka, featuring famous women in various degrees of undress. The crowning achievement is the ad for “Absolut Crush”, where Kate Beckinsale dons a tiny gold loin cloth and large gold high heels, towering sexily above a flimsy-looking city.
"Perhaps Rolling Stone is still a boys club, just as much of the music it covers is," I thought. But upon further reflection, I realized that most TV shows, advertisements, movies, and even book covers show women as sex objects. Even magazines marketed to women demonstrate this trend. Women are the attention-getters, wearing make-up and the latest fashions (or not wearing them, as is often the case). And apparently, wanting nothing more than to attract men. What else do these women want? We don't know. And that's a lot of the problem.
Important questions are raised by thinking about women in advertisement, such as how airbrushing can effect a women's psyche, how skinny models should be, or whether they make women feel pressure to wear make-up. But the question it raises most in my mind is this: when is it OK? As a person whose beliefs often align with third wave feminism (you may have noticed), I believe that we should encourage women to express themselves. Yes, sometimes sexually. But sometimes it just feels forced or disrespectful. Degrading.
Sexuality can be very powerful, and there is obviously more than one reason to strut one's stuff. But where is the line drawn? When does expressing yourself become detrimental? There's no real way to answer this for everyone, of course, and no way to know when it becomes exploitative for the individual involved.
For me, personally, stripping down to sell something seems like the first thing to avoid. You are shedding your identity and losing control of your image to someone else's gain. Perhaps it's partially that you can't really sell sexuality- though many advertisers seem to think you can, or at least, can entwine the sexual and the material in people's minds. But this goes beyond advertising. Gratuitous sex and nudity in movies and TV can often generate enough buzz to boost viewership. Virtually all pop stars are sexualized to help sell records. Or perhaps it's become so common that it's expected of women in mainstream music.
The flip side of this is that sometimes, on a smaller scale, this is how women make a living. Is stripping OK? Depending upon circumstances, perhaps. As Kathleen Hanna sang: “I can sell my body if I wanna/God knows you've already sold your mind./I may sell my body for money sometimes/but you can't stop the fire that burns inside of me.” Indeed.
Many questions can be asked of a woman in any situation that might call this issue into question. What are the reasons? Do you enjoy what you're doing? Do you feel obligated? Is it for attention (a common accusation)? It can be hard to tease all of this apart. Do women feel sexual in one way because that's how they've been socialized? Or is their brand of sexuality merely a reaction to the status quo? Is it possible to truly show the world who you are in a culture of media bombardment? No wonder so many women have decided to keep sexuality out of public life. It is so much easier in so many ways.
Somehow, even though women's sexuality is always on display, women aren't supposed to want to be that way. Wearing a short skirt garners accusations. Women's motives are called into question. If you are a teacher or a mother, it's even worse. Why is our culture scared of sexuality? This makes me think that women who want to should definitely be showing off. Perhaps we should take on the question of when public sexuality is appropriate or damaging.
It seems to boil down to control. If you are expressing yourself how you want, when you want, for the reasons you want, then it is OK with me. If you feel coerced, obligated, or uncomfortable, then perhaps it isn't the right circumstance.
Women can be sexy and still be in control. I'll use the example of a friend of mine. She owns low-cut dresses and leather boots, but wears pants just as often as not. Her sole motivation is not to be seen as sexy, though she isn't afraid to be cast in that light. She doesn't conform to society's ideas about sexuality all the time, but isn't hesitant to pick conventional ideas that also match her own. Even though she is neither a supermodel-type nor obsessed about looks, more men speak of her beauty and attractiveness than almost any other woman I know. Why? She's confident. She projects her sexuality without needing attention. And perhaps most importantly, she's being who she is. Her sexuality is for no one but herself. And that, dear readers, is hot.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
(S)he Who Is Without Sin
It's been many weeks since I meant to write this. This is a delicate topic, so how to start?
By telling you the good stuff. I have many friends who are Roman Catholic or who resonate with Catholic beliefs in some way. They are amazing folks who lead incredibly helpful and loving lives. Their doctrines guide them. They make the world a better place. They are the best possible example of how religion can be enriching to both individuals and society at large. They are the embodiment of all that is positive about Catholicism.
Weren't expecting that, we're you? I'm not anti-religion or anti-spirituality. I would never question how a person's religious beliefs can and do benefit them. It seems to me like everyone could use some sort of personal spirituality, be it meditating, taking a walk in nature, or going to church. But that being said...
How could this go on for so long? So many children. Priests sheltered. We all know the story. The Catholic church dropped the ball in absolutely the worst possible way. I'll throw in a little trigger warning before saying it: These priests raped, molested, and abused children. Children. Precious few things in this world could be more terrible.
The argument about whether or not the church should have to answer to police and other authorities is a tricky one, but no matter what your stance, this much can probably be agreed upon: these acts were in no way compatible with Catholic doctrine. Why did these men get shelter rather than being instantly defrocked and put into rehabilitation? Why didn't the church step up and try to help these children rather than ignoring their complaints?
And now, folks, we come to the reason these thoughts have been placed on a feminist forum. The church finally made an official policy to deal with child molesters. Then in the same breath, they redoubled their efforts to condemn females. Both raping children and ordaining women were classified as grave sins against the church. The punishment for attempting female priesthood for both ordainer and ordainee? Excommunication.
So let me get this straight. Child molesters get defrocked and forgiven but women get excommunicated? Hmmm. One group has sexual relations with children (outside the bonds of marriage, I hasten to add), wrecking lives at a very young age. The other group tries to get more deeply in touch with their spirituality and their God, and to give back to their spiritual community. Which one would you forgive? And which would you excommunicate?
Perhaps the Vatican is just using some extremely poor distraction tactics. Otherwise... well, they didn't quite come out and say that female = bad. But they have implied that men who are willing to assert their sexual dominance over children are more worthy of becoming priests than women. Could they have possibly chosen a distraction that wasn't completely offensive, hateful, and baseless? Almost anything else would do. Seriously.
What exactly makes men and women so spiritually different that one can inherently be a leader and one cannot? According to many religions, all people have souls, no matter what their gender. How can anatomy get in the way of the spiritual development of a person? How can reproductive organs and hormones limit one's capacity to lead a congregation?
And here come the onslaught of Bible verses, proof positive. Look, don't even think about quoting the Bible to me. I can do that, too. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you've worn mixed fabrics (Lev. 19:19) or eaten shellfish (Lev. 11:10). Maybe you even built a fire on Sunday (Exodus 35:3). I'll give you some leeway if you're a snake handler (Mark 16:17-18) but otherwise, enough of your picking and choosing. We wouldn't do many things in the Bible today: stone people to death, sell our daughters into slavery, or commit genocide. Why are women still being kept down?
One can only hope for a schism. The old church can continue to stand for corruption and sexism if it wants. I wait for a branch of Catholicism which recognizes the innate spiritual capacity of all people.
By telling you the good stuff. I have many friends who are Roman Catholic or who resonate with Catholic beliefs in some way. They are amazing folks who lead incredibly helpful and loving lives. Their doctrines guide them. They make the world a better place. They are the best possible example of how religion can be enriching to both individuals and society at large. They are the embodiment of all that is positive about Catholicism.
Weren't expecting that, we're you? I'm not anti-religion or anti-spirituality. I would never question how a person's religious beliefs can and do benefit them. It seems to me like everyone could use some sort of personal spirituality, be it meditating, taking a walk in nature, or going to church. But that being said...
How could this go on for so long? So many children. Priests sheltered. We all know the story. The Catholic church dropped the ball in absolutely the worst possible way. I'll throw in a little trigger warning before saying it: These priests raped, molested, and abused children. Children. Precious few things in this world could be more terrible.
The argument about whether or not the church should have to answer to police and other authorities is a tricky one, but no matter what your stance, this much can probably be agreed upon: these acts were in no way compatible with Catholic doctrine. Why did these men get shelter rather than being instantly defrocked and put into rehabilitation? Why didn't the church step up and try to help these children rather than ignoring their complaints?
And now, folks, we come to the reason these thoughts have been placed on a feminist forum. The church finally made an official policy to deal with child molesters. Then in the same breath, they redoubled their efforts to condemn females. Both raping children and ordaining women were classified as grave sins against the church. The punishment for attempting female priesthood for both ordainer and ordainee? Excommunication.
So let me get this straight. Child molesters get defrocked and forgiven but women get excommunicated? Hmmm. One group has sexual relations with children (outside the bonds of marriage, I hasten to add), wrecking lives at a very young age. The other group tries to get more deeply in touch with their spirituality and their God, and to give back to their spiritual community. Which one would you forgive? And which would you excommunicate?
Perhaps the Vatican is just using some extremely poor distraction tactics. Otherwise... well, they didn't quite come out and say that female = bad. But they have implied that men who are willing to assert their sexual dominance over children are more worthy of becoming priests than women. Could they have possibly chosen a distraction that wasn't completely offensive, hateful, and baseless? Almost anything else would do. Seriously.
What exactly makes men and women so spiritually different that one can inherently be a leader and one cannot? According to many religions, all people have souls, no matter what their gender. How can anatomy get in the way of the spiritual development of a person? How can reproductive organs and hormones limit one's capacity to lead a congregation?
And here come the onslaught of Bible verses, proof positive. Look, don't even think about quoting the Bible to me. I can do that, too. In fact, I'm willing to bet that you've worn mixed fabrics (Lev. 19:19) or eaten shellfish (Lev. 11:10). Maybe you even built a fire on Sunday (Exodus 35:3). I'll give you some leeway if you're a snake handler (Mark 16:17-18) but otherwise, enough of your picking and choosing. We wouldn't do many things in the Bible today: stone people to death, sell our daughters into slavery, or commit genocide. Why are women still being kept down?
One can only hope for a schism. The old church can continue to stand for corruption and sexism if it wants. I wait for a branch of Catholicism which recognizes the innate spiritual capacity of all people.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Feminism and "Literature": The Twilight Saga
July has been literature month here at Leda's Revenge, and except for a foray into the world of children's books, it's been pretty serious. Here's a more lighthearted post to wrap it all up.
I'd like to return to my distaste for Stephanie Meyer's best-selling vampire books by sharing an old but awesome video. In the words of its creator, this remix exposes "some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal... themes embedded in the Twilight Saga." For those who haven't yet seen it, here's feminist icon Buffy the Vampire Slayer vs. manipulative stalker (and vampire) Edward Cullen. Enjoy.
I'd like to return to my distaste for Stephanie Meyer's best-selling vampire books by sharing an old but awesome video. In the words of its creator, this remix exposes "some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal... themes embedded in the Twilight Saga." For those who haven't yet seen it, here's feminist icon Buffy the Vampire Slayer vs. manipulative stalker (and vampire) Edward Cullen. Enjoy.
Feminism and Literature: Tough Topics
[trigger warning]
“But if she were in an abusive relationship, she would have called the police, right?”
Or wait, maybe it's: “Why did she drop the charges if he really raped her?”
There are a lot of reasons why women (and men) who have been abused or assaulted don't speak out or press charges. Our culture of victim-blaming isn't exactly conducive to sympathy. But beyond that, they may feel ashamed or afraid. They may be too young to properly understand the situation. They may still be in the relationship, with their abuser threatening them or making them think no one will believe them. They may feel that their most intimate details shouldn't be shared. They may be concerned about making their marginalized group (minorities or LGBT folks, for example) look bad. And of course, testimonies can get retracted after attacks on the victim's character or threats from the perpetrator's allies.
What does this mean for literature? Well, odds are that everyone reading this knows at least one person whose life has been affected by sexual assault or domestic violence. No one wants to ask about this very personal topic, and even fewer want to discuss the details of their experience. But no matter how private or none-of-my-business we believe domestic violence and sexual assault to be, the truth is, we should all be aware of these situations. We need to understand assault and abuse so we can work toward ending them. What would a world without violence or coercion look like? How can we create that world?
One way to learn more is to read. Studying statistics and combing over research can be dry reading that is easily forgettable. However, in the hands of the right author, a memoir or piece of fiction can illuminate a situation and make it oh so memorable- perhaps a little too memorable for folks who have undergone a similar experience. But for friends, family, and other support people, below is a very short list of books dealing with rape, incest, and abuse. Perhaps one of these fictional accounts mirrors a situation we've encountered in real life and can help us begin to comprehend what our loved one is going through. Read one, read all, or suggest more in the comments section.
Bastard Out of Carolina by Dorothy Allison- Ruth Ann “Bone” Boatwright is born to an unwed, 15-year-old mother who is constantly struggling to make ends meet. Her mother marries "Daddy Glen", and soon Bone's stepfather is physically and sexually abusing her. Based on Dorothy Allison's real-life experiences, Bastard Out of Carolina examines age, gender and social class as factors in abusive situations.
The Color Purple by Alice Walker- This Pulitzer Prize winner tells the story of a poor, black woman in 1930s Georgia. Celie writes letters from the age of 14 on, describing first incest, then her forced marriage to an abusive man. A very well-written but very explicit book.
My Year of Meats by Ruth Ozeki- One woman, Jane Takagi-Little, deals with stereotypes of women while making television shows for the meat industry. Another, Akiko Ueno, watches the finished products while attempting to dodge abuse from her husband. The book focuses on women's issues and on the imperfections of the meat industry, and somehow manages to tie them together.
The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros- Esperanza (meaning “hope”) tells us tales of trapped women in a series of vignettes about her poor, hispanic neighborhood. One friend is abused by her father; Esperanza herself is assaulted by a group. She vows to get out of her neighborhood, but to return to help those left behind.
“But if she were in an abusive relationship, she would have called the police, right?”
Or wait, maybe it's: “Why did she drop the charges if he really raped her?”
There are a lot of reasons why women (and men) who have been abused or assaulted don't speak out or press charges. Our culture of victim-blaming isn't exactly conducive to sympathy. But beyond that, they may feel ashamed or afraid. They may be too young to properly understand the situation. They may still be in the relationship, with their abuser threatening them or making them think no one will believe them. They may feel that their most intimate details shouldn't be shared. They may be concerned about making their marginalized group (minorities or LGBT folks, for example) look bad. And of course, testimonies can get retracted after attacks on the victim's character or threats from the perpetrator's allies.
What does this mean for literature? Well, odds are that everyone reading this knows at least one person whose life has been affected by sexual assault or domestic violence. No one wants to ask about this very personal topic, and even fewer want to discuss the details of their experience. But no matter how private or none-of-my-business we believe domestic violence and sexual assault to be, the truth is, we should all be aware of these situations. We need to understand assault and abuse so we can work toward ending them. What would a world without violence or coercion look like? How can we create that world?
One way to learn more is to read. Studying statistics and combing over research can be dry reading that is easily forgettable. However, in the hands of the right author, a memoir or piece of fiction can illuminate a situation and make it oh so memorable- perhaps a little too memorable for folks who have undergone a similar experience. But for friends, family, and other support people, below is a very short list of books dealing with rape, incest, and abuse. Perhaps one of these fictional accounts mirrors a situation we've encountered in real life and can help us begin to comprehend what our loved one is going through. Read one, read all, or suggest more in the comments section.
Bastard Out of Carolina by Dorothy Allison- Ruth Ann “Bone” Boatwright is born to an unwed, 15-year-old mother who is constantly struggling to make ends meet. Her mother marries "Daddy Glen", and soon Bone's stepfather is physically and sexually abusing her. Based on Dorothy Allison's real-life experiences, Bastard Out of Carolina examines age, gender and social class as factors in abusive situations.
The Color Purple by Alice Walker- This Pulitzer Prize winner tells the story of a poor, black woman in 1930s Georgia. Celie writes letters from the age of 14 on, describing first incest, then her forced marriage to an abusive man. A very well-written but very explicit book.
My Year of Meats by Ruth Ozeki- One woman, Jane Takagi-Little, deals with stereotypes of women while making television shows for the meat industry. Another, Akiko Ueno, watches the finished products while attempting to dodge abuse from her husband. The book focuses on women's issues and on the imperfections of the meat industry, and somehow manages to tie them together.
The House on Mango Street by Sandra Cisneros- Esperanza (meaning “hope”) tells us tales of trapped women in a series of vignettes about her poor, hispanic neighborhood. One friend is abused by her father; Esperanza herself is assaulted by a group. She vows to get out of her neighborhood, but to return to help those left behind.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Feminism and Literature: Art vs Artist
Surely everyone (myself included) has experienced disappointment when they found out a celebrity that they liked did something atrocious. Some people choose to live in denial- witness the throngs of Mel Gibson defenders for a recent example- but some wonder if they should divorce themselves from their love and financial support of the offending celeb. It can be difficult to call. One can likely watch Mad Max with impunity, as movies are a collaborative effort. Surely not everyone involved was such a hater.
But what about writers? They are, with some notable exceptions, solely responsible for their output. Do we want to give our money to a person who is known as a misogynist? A racist? Or can we still enjoy a work of literature that was written by someone who we strongly dislike?
I'm not talking about content here. It's easy to feel uncomfortable when the prose itself is sexist. We've heard all about Roth and Updike, Hemingway and Faulkner. I'm talking about behind the scenes. Like Norman Mailer famously stabbing his second wife with a penknife. Like V.S. Naipaul, his racist rants, and the way he used women without giving them anything in return. What does it say about us if we enjoy literature born of these unattractive personalities?
Maybe nothing. Many great artists have something unpalatable in their histories- just like everyone. Some are alcoholics, some are rude, some egotistical, some selfish. Self-aggrandizement or self-destruction can be off-putting, but then again, fame does strange things to people, and notoriety can be quite a curse. But there's a special kind of turn off that comes from harming or discriminating against others. I can understand the many motivations behind drinking to excess, but stabbing your wife... well, that's something else entirely.
What if someone you knew did such things? Would you avoid their company? If you somehow caught wind of a neighbor doing something unthinkable, you likely wouldn't give him any show of support, even if you didn't condemn the actions outright. We don't actually know the folks in question, though, so that makes standing against an action seem less necessary.
We can't know everything about everyone. We all unwittingly give financial or other support to people who have disregarded our strongly-held personal values. Do boycotts achieve the desired result (especially since many authors on this list have already passed)? Public humiliation could be effective, if only we didn't operate on the assumption that “any publicity is good publicity.” And ultimately, what happened has already happened. Our reactions can't change that.
We could be focusing our efforts on prevention rather than opposition, but if calling out someone for their actions helps to change the culture, then perhaps it is worth the effort. What if every time someone famous was found to be an abuser, he didn't get away with it? What if over-the-line sexist or homophobic remarks diminished popularity and financial return? Granted, famous people are still just people at their core, but in our culture, we lift them up above normal status. If someone we idolize says or does something terrible, it is permissioned. Considered normal. It's hard enough to call our friends on jokes made in poor taste, so getting folks to disregard media images can seem like an insurmountable challenge. This isn't as prevalent amongst authors, but it does happen. How many young women adore Stephanie Meyer, author of the abusive-relationship-couched-in-sparkly-vampire-terms Twilight Saga? (How I long for the days when 'tweens read about Hermione, the independent and intelligent heroine in the Harry Potter books.)
There is no right answer. Fortunately, there are options for opting out. We can check out books from the library, where we are not directly financially supporting folks whose views or actions make us uneasy. It goes without saying that we don't have to write fan letters. Maybe we can distance ourselves and still enjoy the book.
But what about writers? They are, with some notable exceptions, solely responsible for their output. Do we want to give our money to a person who is known as a misogynist? A racist? Or can we still enjoy a work of literature that was written by someone who we strongly dislike?
I'm not talking about content here. It's easy to feel uncomfortable when the prose itself is sexist. We've heard all about Roth and Updike, Hemingway and Faulkner. I'm talking about behind the scenes. Like Norman Mailer famously stabbing his second wife with a penknife. Like V.S. Naipaul, his racist rants, and the way he used women without giving them anything in return. What does it say about us if we enjoy literature born of these unattractive personalities?
Maybe nothing. Many great artists have something unpalatable in their histories- just like everyone. Some are alcoholics, some are rude, some egotistical, some selfish. Self-aggrandizement or self-destruction can be off-putting, but then again, fame does strange things to people, and notoriety can be quite a curse. But there's a special kind of turn off that comes from harming or discriminating against others. I can understand the many motivations behind drinking to excess, but stabbing your wife... well, that's something else entirely.
What if someone you knew did such things? Would you avoid their company? If you somehow caught wind of a neighbor doing something unthinkable, you likely wouldn't give him any show of support, even if you didn't condemn the actions outright. We don't actually know the folks in question, though, so that makes standing against an action seem less necessary.
We can't know everything about everyone. We all unwittingly give financial or other support to people who have disregarded our strongly-held personal values. Do boycotts achieve the desired result (especially since many authors on this list have already passed)? Public humiliation could be effective, if only we didn't operate on the assumption that “any publicity is good publicity.” And ultimately, what happened has already happened. Our reactions can't change that.
We could be focusing our efforts on prevention rather than opposition, but if calling out someone for their actions helps to change the culture, then perhaps it is worth the effort. What if every time someone famous was found to be an abuser, he didn't get away with it? What if over-the-line sexist or homophobic remarks diminished popularity and financial return? Granted, famous people are still just people at their core, but in our culture, we lift them up above normal status. If someone we idolize says or does something terrible, it is permissioned. Considered normal. It's hard enough to call our friends on jokes made in poor taste, so getting folks to disregard media images can seem like an insurmountable challenge. This isn't as prevalent amongst authors, but it does happen. How many young women adore Stephanie Meyer, author of the abusive-relationship-couched-in-sparkly-vampire-terms Twilight Saga? (How I long for the days when 'tweens read about Hermione, the independent and intelligent heroine in the Harry Potter books.)
There is no right answer. Fortunately, there are options for opting out. We can check out books from the library, where we are not directly financially supporting folks whose views or actions make us uneasy. It goes without saying that we don't have to write fan letters. Maybe we can distance ourselves and still enjoy the book.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Feminism and Literature: Young Fiction
“Peter, Peter, pumpkin eater,
Had a wife and couldn't keep her.
He put her in a pumpkin shell
And there he kept her, very well.”
Do you really want your children reading something like this?
A lot of literature for kids doesn't cast women in the best light. Stories can be overtly sexist, write female characters as two-dimensional, or imply that certain outdated cultural values should be held in the highest regard. Lots of adults get attached to books they knew as children and, when sentimentality prevails over logic, read these women-negative tales to their own kids. Or maybe because fewer books are written for kids than for adults do we delve again and again into nonsense like the nursery rhyme above. It seems that until very recently, strong female representations were few and far between.
Got a kid? Baby sitting? Here are a few suggestions for stories with good feminist ideals. Please read to girls and boys alike.
The Paper Bag Princess by Robert Munsch: This book does play into the girls-reading-about-princesses stereotype, but that's where it ends. Elizabeth is a clever and brave heroine who stands up to a dragon to save her Prince Charming. When he turns out to be obsessed with her looks above all else, she dumps him.
Princess Smartypants by Babette Cole: "Princess Smartypants did not want to get married. She enjoyed being a Ms." No matter how many suitors, she is always able to find a new, impossible challenge for her hand. No one can meet her demands, and the princess stays happily single. Another smart, independent, self-actualized princess for young readers.
Tough Chicks by Cece Meng: Penny, Polly and Molly aren't your typical chicks; they run wild, wrestle the livestock, and tinker with the tractor. The rest of the barnyard is appalled by their behavior, but mama hen believes they are different in a good way. And of course, their independence saves the day in the end.
The Country Bunny and the Little Gold Shoes by DuBose Heyward: Written in 1939 (!), Country Bunny tells the story of Cottontail. She's always dreamed of becoming the Easter Bunny but shelved her aspirations in order take care of her 21 children. She eventually realizes her goal, winning the job with wisdom, kindness, determination... and speed, a skill perfected by chasing her multitude of children. A refreshing take on mothers and their many talents.
Not all books have an explicitly feminist message, but strong females characters can model one of the most important feminist principles of all- be yourself. Some examples: Harriet The Spy by Louise Fitzhugh, Sabriel by Garth Nix, Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren, the Ramona Quimby books by Beverly Cleary, Matilda by Roald Dahl, The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle by Avi.
Is your favorite feminist book for young readers missing? Please suggest more in the comments section.
Had a wife and couldn't keep her.
He put her in a pumpkin shell
And there he kept her, very well.”
Do you really want your children reading something like this?
A lot of literature for kids doesn't cast women in the best light. Stories can be overtly sexist, write female characters as two-dimensional, or imply that certain outdated cultural values should be held in the highest regard. Lots of adults get attached to books they knew as children and, when sentimentality prevails over logic, read these women-negative tales to their own kids. Or maybe because fewer books are written for kids than for adults do we delve again and again into nonsense like the nursery rhyme above. It seems that until very recently, strong female representations were few and far between.
Got a kid? Baby sitting? Here are a few suggestions for stories with good feminist ideals. Please read to girls and boys alike.
The Paper Bag Princess by Robert Munsch: This book does play into the girls-reading-about-princesses stereotype, but that's where it ends. Elizabeth is a clever and brave heroine who stands up to a dragon to save her Prince Charming. When he turns out to be obsessed with her looks above all else, she dumps him.Princess Smartypants by Babette Cole: "Princess Smartypants did not want to get married. She enjoyed being a Ms." No matter how many suitors, she is always able to find a new, impossible challenge for her hand. No one can meet her demands, and the princess stays happily single. Another smart, independent, self-actualized princess for young readers.
Tough Chicks by Cece Meng: Penny, Polly and Molly aren't your typical chicks; they run wild, wrestle the livestock, and tinker with the tractor. The rest of the barnyard is appalled by their behavior, but mama hen believes they are different in a good way. And of course, their independence saves the day in the end.
The Country Bunny and the Little Gold Shoes by DuBose Heyward: Written in 1939 (!), Country Bunny tells the story of Cottontail. She's always dreamed of becoming the Easter Bunny but shelved her aspirations in order take care of her 21 children. She eventually realizes her goal, winning the job with wisdom, kindness, determination... and speed, a skill perfected by chasing her multitude of children. A refreshing take on mothers and their many talents.Not all books have an explicitly feminist message, but strong females characters can model one of the most important feminist principles of all- be yourself. Some examples: Harriet The Spy by Louise Fitzhugh, Sabriel by Garth Nix, Pippi Longstocking by Astrid Lindgren, the Ramona Quimby books by Beverly Cleary, Matilda by Roald Dahl, The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle by Avi.
Is your favorite feminist book for young readers missing? Please suggest more in the comments section.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Feminism and Literature: Tales of Passion
Isabel Allende is an author known for her strong female characters. Since her first novel, The House of the Spirits, Allende's tales of passion have focused on feminism and empowering women. Here she tells tales of tough, brave, inspirational women, but not from her books- these women are real.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The End of Men
Men are on the way out.
The Atlantic has declared that women are taking over everything. Yes, this month's issue officially declares “the end of men”. The telltale signs are all here. More people ask for girls than boys when choosing the sex of their yet-to-be-conceived child. Thirteen of the fifteen fastest growing job categories are dominated by women. Managerial positions are occupied by women more than half (51.4%) of the time. Women earn 60% of all bachelors degrees. Men have failed to adapt to today's harsh economy.
Anyone else seeing the flaws in this “end of men” argument? And why does this sound so familiar? Seems like we've seen enough of the men-getting-the-short-end-of-the-money/career/education-stick argument to last us the rest of our lives. But before taking my place atop my soapbox, a brief disclaimer: talking about women in a positive way is just fine. Please do that, writers. But let's not frame it as a male downfall. Time to poke some holes in these arguments.
First off, let's take a closer look at the content of this story, starting with that management statistic. Fifty one percent of management jobs are held by women? A veritable takeover! How fascinating that women make up... oh... 51% of the population! How about those 13 fast-growing jobs the article talks about? It gives us four examples of the lower-paid, “nurturing” professions women have been stereotyped into working for the past few decades: nursing, home health assistance, child care, food preparation. The article also mentions that 1 in 5 men lost their jobs due to the recession, mostly because their jobs were more project-oriented and less service-oriented. To me, this sounds like no one is a winner. Women may work more, but they are stuck in dead-end jobs to support their families, while men have taken a self-esteem hit because they are unable to work. While we're rethinking our existing paradigms, maybe it's time to admit that in a time when jobs are scarce, tech schools (which more men attend) may be a more secure path than a liberal arts education. Women get 60% of college degrees but still occupy lower-paying and lower-ranking positions; most higher management- or CEO-type positions still go to men. We have yet to change our perceptions, rendering these statistics utterly worthless.
Let me quote some statistics of my own, Atlantic magazine, and then you can tell me whether you still think men are horribly downtrodden. Currently, females hold about 17% of congressional positions; the 17 female of 100 total senators and the 74 women in the 435-member house are both all-time highs. Your own article tells us that between women and men 25-34 with no higher education, there is still a nearly $7,000 per year wage gap. One in four women will be sexually assaulted. Twice as many women as men will be affected by depression in their lifetimes. Need I go on?
This article would have been much more interesting and relevant if it had discussed gender stereotypes instead of claiming that women were taking over the world. Women in well-to-do countries are gaining ground in the traditionally male arena; men, however, are having more difficulty embracing their femininity. Why is that? Could it be because we consistently favor the masculine over the feminine? Oh yes, regular readers have heard this before. If we give permission for women to be more like men, we must also allow men to act more like women. Society must begin to value characteristics traditionally thought of as feminine.
I would love to see women get the equal pay, equal representation, and equal protections I discussed earlier. I would love to see men as stay-at-home parents, or at least valued for their nurturing qualities in addition to their careers. I would love to see men wearing nail polish, crying when they needed to, or commenting on how cute kids are without being seen as abnormal. Most importantly, I would love for any barriers to be removed so that everyone of any gender can fully realize themselves.
Creating a “battle of the sexes” helps no one. Quit sensationalizing things to try to sell magazines. I long for the day we can celebrate women's achievements without falsely accusing them of taking too much.
The Atlantic has declared that women are taking over everything. Yes, this month's issue officially declares “the end of men”. The telltale signs are all here. More people ask for girls than boys when choosing the sex of their yet-to-be-conceived child. Thirteen of the fifteen fastest growing job categories are dominated by women. Managerial positions are occupied by women more than half (51.4%) of the time. Women earn 60% of all bachelors degrees. Men have failed to adapt to today's harsh economy.
Anyone else seeing the flaws in this “end of men” argument? And why does this sound so familiar? Seems like we've seen enough of the men-getting-the-short-end-of-the-money/career/education-stick argument to last us the rest of our lives. But before taking my place atop my soapbox, a brief disclaimer: talking about women in a positive way is just fine. Please do that, writers. But let's not frame it as a male downfall. Time to poke some holes in these arguments.
First off, let's take a closer look at the content of this story, starting with that management statistic. Fifty one percent of management jobs are held by women? A veritable takeover! How fascinating that women make up... oh... 51% of the population! How about those 13 fast-growing jobs the article talks about? It gives us four examples of the lower-paid, “nurturing” professions women have been stereotyped into working for the past few decades: nursing, home health assistance, child care, food preparation. The article also mentions that 1 in 5 men lost their jobs due to the recession, mostly because their jobs were more project-oriented and less service-oriented. To me, this sounds like no one is a winner. Women may work more, but they are stuck in dead-end jobs to support their families, while men have taken a self-esteem hit because they are unable to work. While we're rethinking our existing paradigms, maybe it's time to admit that in a time when jobs are scarce, tech schools (which more men attend) may be a more secure path than a liberal arts education. Women get 60% of college degrees but still occupy lower-paying and lower-ranking positions; most higher management- or CEO-type positions still go to men. We have yet to change our perceptions, rendering these statistics utterly worthless.
Let me quote some statistics of my own, Atlantic magazine, and then you can tell me whether you still think men are horribly downtrodden. Currently, females hold about 17% of congressional positions; the 17 female of 100 total senators and the 74 women in the 435-member house are both all-time highs. Your own article tells us that between women and men 25-34 with no higher education, there is still a nearly $7,000 per year wage gap. One in four women will be sexually assaulted. Twice as many women as men will be affected by depression in their lifetimes. Need I go on?
This article would have been much more interesting and relevant if it had discussed gender stereotypes instead of claiming that women were taking over the world. Women in well-to-do countries are gaining ground in the traditionally male arena; men, however, are having more difficulty embracing their femininity. Why is that? Could it be because we consistently favor the masculine over the feminine? Oh yes, regular readers have heard this before. If we give permission for women to be more like men, we must also allow men to act more like women. Society must begin to value characteristics traditionally thought of as feminine.
I would love to see women get the equal pay, equal representation, and equal protections I discussed earlier. I would love to see men as stay-at-home parents, or at least valued for their nurturing qualities in addition to their careers. I would love to see men wearing nail polish, crying when they needed to, or commenting on how cute kids are without being seen as abnormal. Most importantly, I would love for any barriers to be removed so that everyone of any gender can fully realize themselves.
Creating a “battle of the sexes” helps no one. Quit sensationalizing things to try to sell magazines. I long for the day we can celebrate women's achievements without falsely accusing them of taking too much.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Play Like a Girl
Anyone remember that old insult heard on the playground when boys weren't too hot at sports? “You play like a girl.” No wonder so many women feel incapable of athleticism from a very young age. This is annoying in and of itself, and could certainly (and perhaps one day will) constitute its own entry. But today I want to write about the other use of this epithet: music.
My male partner loves Sleater-Kinney. He was watching a video of theirs and happened to read the comment section. There were lots of folks who said they were “pretty good for girls”. This angered my partner, who rightly believed that Sleater-Kinney is just plain good. The gender issue annoyed him even more after reading a story about a woman in an orchestra who became the lead trombonist only after the organization switched to blind auditions. The conductor was flabbergasted that a female was the best trombone player and treated her badly. But in the end, he chose her for the position without realizing she was a woman. So I decided to hold my own "auditions", popular music-style.
My extremely unscientific, simply-to-satisfy-my-own-curiosity, will-never-and-should-never-be-published-anywhere-but-on-a-blog “study” went like this: Participants (AKA my open-minded friends) listened to ten different musical samples, all about thirty seconds long. Five of the artists were men, five were women. If multiple musicians were involved, all people within the sample were the same gender, so as not to confuse things. No vocals appeared at all. Participants were asked to guess the gender of the musicians based only on the instrumental performance and overall sound.
I hypothesized that people would get an average of five correct; this turned out to be a very bad hypothesis. One lucky participant got six right (and he admitted to blindly guessing), but the average fell between three and four. One participant only guessed two correctly. I am pleased that so many folks got these so wrong, because my point has been proven: people simply don't know what gender a recorded musician is unless they sing- and sometimes not even then.
What else did I glean from this “study”? People seemed the most sure of a musician's gender when they were incorrect. One person wrote “definitely a dude” when referring to a guitar solo by Mary Timony. The all-male Fugazi sounded like women to all but one participant. And most importantly, only one person thought that Sleater-Kinney sounded female. Most folks were strongly convinced that they were men. So it turns out that Sleater-Kinney sound exactly the same as any male musicians would. Big surprise.
The moral of the story? Everyone plays like a girl.
My male partner loves Sleater-Kinney. He was watching a video of theirs and happened to read the comment section. There were lots of folks who said they were “pretty good for girls”. This angered my partner, who rightly believed that Sleater-Kinney is just plain good. The gender issue annoyed him even more after reading a story about a woman in an orchestra who became the lead trombonist only after the organization switched to blind auditions. The conductor was flabbergasted that a female was the best trombone player and treated her badly. But in the end, he chose her for the position without realizing she was a woman. So I decided to hold my own "auditions", popular music-style.
My extremely unscientific, simply-to-satisfy-my-own-curiosity, will-never-and-should-never-be-published-anywhere-but-on-a-blog “study” went like this: Participants (AKA my open-minded friends) listened to ten different musical samples, all about thirty seconds long. Five of the artists were men, five were women. If multiple musicians were involved, all people within the sample were the same gender, so as not to confuse things. No vocals appeared at all. Participants were asked to guess the gender of the musicians based only on the instrumental performance and overall sound.
I hypothesized that people would get an average of five correct; this turned out to be a very bad hypothesis. One lucky participant got six right (and he admitted to blindly guessing), but the average fell between three and four. One participant only guessed two correctly. I am pleased that so many folks got these so wrong, because my point has been proven: people simply don't know what gender a recorded musician is unless they sing- and sometimes not even then.
What else did I glean from this “study”? People seemed the most sure of a musician's gender when they were incorrect. One person wrote “definitely a dude” when referring to a guitar solo by Mary Timony. The all-male Fugazi sounded like women to all but one participant. And most importantly, only one person thought that Sleater-Kinney sounded female. Most folks were strongly convinced that they were men. So it turns out that Sleater-Kinney sound exactly the same as any male musicians would. Big surprise.
The moral of the story? Everyone plays like a girl.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Moms as Feminists
It's Mother's Day. Today seems like an apt time to examine motherhood and feminism. Becoming a mother has been much maligned by feminists past and present, but today, perhaps we can look at the reasons that becoming a mother is a feminist thing to do.
Motherhood wasn't really thought of as optional when the earliest feminists were doing their work. The thought of birth control was abhorrent to many folks, and most women had no viable option outside of home and family. So it is easy to see why, when birth control arrived and allowed women to delay or opt-out of having children, many women embraced the opportunity. As women gained more equality and were able to work outside the home, many found this new freedom more important than anything else. Some even dismissed motherhood altogether. The rationale behind it makes sense on the surface- having children makes having a career more difficult, and it had been difficult for long enough. The need to expand the ideas of what a woman could do with her life was also strong. Choosing career over children sent the message that women didn't have to have a family to be legitimate. This is a very important message, and I for one am glad it was sent.
Women have gotten past the misperception that they must stay home and not have careers. Today's fights are for more subtle things like equal opportunities, equal pay and more family leave. It seems as though women can safely have children without precluding them from a fulfilling career, or from any other pursuits outside the home. I am thankful that many women sacrificed so that we can have choices. Choices are one of the best things to have come from the feminist movement. The fact that most women in many countries now get to decide whether to have children is amazing and wonderful. We should take advantage of our capacity for choice! Deciding to have a child (or not) is exercising your options- and either one is a feminist thing to do.
Some folks say that focusing on a family puts women in a stereotypical role, trapping them, continuing to view them as nurturers above all else. I suppose that could be true for many people. I definitely understand the fears of loss of self or loss of aspirations. This is a tricky issue for which there is no easy answer. Being a mom is hard enough; staying true to yourself through it all is a feat that many cannot pull off. But telling a woman who loves to cook not to do so because it reinforces stereotypes is limiting her options in a different way. Yes, it is good to examine our motivations and actions, but we should also accept that motherhood is desirable to many people, societal norm or not.
I would hope that all moms have enough support to have children and identity, but that just isn't the case for everyone. Perhaps the next issues we should tackle will be ones surrounding support of mothers and families: adequate family leave, affordable childcare, more flexible workplaces, and so on. We don't have to tell women not to be mothers, but we should support them more. In the meantime it falls more to mothers to nurture their kids and still retain their sense of identity. Fighting against an unspoken societal norm is no small task. Have you told your mother how awesome she is?
While we're at it, let's make it normal for men to be nurturers, too. Why should women be the ones who are pigeonholed into that role? More and more, men want to be seen in that light- there are more stay-at-home dads and partners taking equal responsibility for childcare. Every gender has the capacity to be loving and caring. Let's not say that nurturing is only a feminine quality, but make nurturing the norm for all genders. Men also deserve to connect with their children without being seen as weird.
Many folks would disagree with this, but I believe that giving birth- one of the earliest events for a mother- is something to be celebrated. In my mind, birth is often dismissed as a problem, strictly medical, which is just a big inconvenience for everyone involved. It doesn't have to be that way. We should be in awe of those who make it happen. We should realize that birth can be a celebration of the strength of women. Let's stop seeing it as a drag and reclaim it for the amazing feminist event it can be. (Disclaimer: it doesn't make you any less of an awesome mom if you adopted. I'm just presenting all the reasons why being a mother can be a feminist thing to do.)
So a woman has exercised her choice and decided to become a mom. She has a child and has incorporated motherhood into her intact identity. The next step? Raising feminist children. I don't mean that parents have to drill feminism into their children from a very young age. Honestly, that sounds a little creepy and possibly damaging. But showing children what a feminist looks like can be a bold and effective feminist statement. Kids are smart, and they definitely learn by example. This is why I love when feminists have children; those children are likely to grow into feminist adults.
So thanks, moms, for raising all of us feminists. A big shout out to you for doing it all, even when that was really difficult. Raising kids will never be easy, but thanks to women like you, we see that we can have our cake and eat it, too. Happy mother's day to all you moms out there (but especially mine)!
Motherhood wasn't really thought of as optional when the earliest feminists were doing their work. The thought of birth control was abhorrent to many folks, and most women had no viable option outside of home and family. So it is easy to see why, when birth control arrived and allowed women to delay or opt-out of having children, many women embraced the opportunity. As women gained more equality and were able to work outside the home, many found this new freedom more important than anything else. Some even dismissed motherhood altogether. The rationale behind it makes sense on the surface- having children makes having a career more difficult, and it had been difficult for long enough. The need to expand the ideas of what a woman could do with her life was also strong. Choosing career over children sent the message that women didn't have to have a family to be legitimate. This is a very important message, and I for one am glad it was sent.
Women have gotten past the misperception that they must stay home and not have careers. Today's fights are for more subtle things like equal opportunities, equal pay and more family leave. It seems as though women can safely have children without precluding them from a fulfilling career, or from any other pursuits outside the home. I am thankful that many women sacrificed so that we can have choices. Choices are one of the best things to have come from the feminist movement. The fact that most women in many countries now get to decide whether to have children is amazing and wonderful. We should take advantage of our capacity for choice! Deciding to have a child (or not) is exercising your options- and either one is a feminist thing to do.
Some folks say that focusing on a family puts women in a stereotypical role, trapping them, continuing to view them as nurturers above all else. I suppose that could be true for many people. I definitely understand the fears of loss of self or loss of aspirations. This is a tricky issue for which there is no easy answer. Being a mom is hard enough; staying true to yourself through it all is a feat that many cannot pull off. But telling a woman who loves to cook not to do so because it reinforces stereotypes is limiting her options in a different way. Yes, it is good to examine our motivations and actions, but we should also accept that motherhood is desirable to many people, societal norm or not.
I would hope that all moms have enough support to have children and identity, but that just isn't the case for everyone. Perhaps the next issues we should tackle will be ones surrounding support of mothers and families: adequate family leave, affordable childcare, more flexible workplaces, and so on. We don't have to tell women not to be mothers, but we should support them more. In the meantime it falls more to mothers to nurture their kids and still retain their sense of identity. Fighting against an unspoken societal norm is no small task. Have you told your mother how awesome she is?
While we're at it, let's make it normal for men to be nurturers, too. Why should women be the ones who are pigeonholed into that role? More and more, men want to be seen in that light- there are more stay-at-home dads and partners taking equal responsibility for childcare. Every gender has the capacity to be loving and caring. Let's not say that nurturing is only a feminine quality, but make nurturing the norm for all genders. Men also deserve to connect with their children without being seen as weird.
Many folks would disagree with this, but I believe that giving birth- one of the earliest events for a mother- is something to be celebrated. In my mind, birth is often dismissed as a problem, strictly medical, which is just a big inconvenience for everyone involved. It doesn't have to be that way. We should be in awe of those who make it happen. We should realize that birth can be a celebration of the strength of women. Let's stop seeing it as a drag and reclaim it for the amazing feminist event it can be. (Disclaimer: it doesn't make you any less of an awesome mom if you adopted. I'm just presenting all the reasons why being a mother can be a feminist thing to do.)
So a woman has exercised her choice and decided to become a mom. She has a child and has incorporated motherhood into her intact identity. The next step? Raising feminist children. I don't mean that parents have to drill feminism into their children from a very young age. Honestly, that sounds a little creepy and possibly damaging. But showing children what a feminist looks like can be a bold and effective feminist statement. Kids are smart, and they definitely learn by example. This is why I love when feminists have children; those children are likely to grow into feminist adults.
So thanks, moms, for raising all of us feminists. A big shout out to you for doing it all, even when that was really difficult. Raising kids will never be easy, but thanks to women like you, we see that we can have our cake and eat it, too. Happy mother's day to all you moms out there (but especially mine)!
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Sticks and Stones
That's so hetero.
That's often what I say after someone uses the phrase “that's so gay” to mean “that's so stupid.” A lot of really awesome folks do it, so I don't mean it as an insult, but rather as an attempt to illuminate how discriminatory language can be. We all get trapped in it. I remember discovering, at age 22 (!), that the word I previously thought to be “jip” was actually spelled “gyp”- derogatory slang for gypsy. I felt so terrible. How had I been using this word?
Language has power. It worms its way into our brains and stays there. We all say things that we probably shouldn't at some points in our lives, and that certainly doesn't make us bad people. But perhaps we should be more aware of the language we're subconsciously choosing and what the ramifications are.
Take language and gender. Some languages are obvious about gender divisions, making every noun either masculine or feminine. English doesn't go quite that far, but there are definitely gendered words. And sometimes, I'm not such a fan. For example, a man who has lots of sex is a “stud” or a “don Juan”; a woman who does the same thing gets called “slut” or “whore”. OK, sometimes men are called “man sluts”, but to my way of thinking, that's no improvement. Or consider a man who is showing weakness getting called a “pussy”. And speaking of pussy, did you know that the word “vagina” actually means “sheath”, as in a sheath for a sword? There has to be a better word, people.
We usually don't notice when this sort of language pops up in conversation. But after hearing such insults for years, women start to internalize them, just as we internalize the barrage of ads featuring impossibly perfect models. Fortunately, many feminists and sociologists have called out these visuals for how they affect a woman's psyche. Unfortunately, language is rarely thought of as a problem of the same magnitude, and in fact, those who remind us about language are thought of as overly PC or nit picky. It is pretty difficult to call out the word without sounding as though you are criticizing the speaker or their ideals. A friend of mine did this effectively by saying “I agree with the sentiment, if not the word choice.” That tended to start a conversation rather than alienating the speaker or getting herself branded a “humorless feminist.”
But why even bother bringing attention to it? Language can be indicative of a larger societal problem, so even though we don't usually process the intention behind words, they still reinforce the narrow mindedness they were born from. People can call women (and other marginalized folks) all sorts of subtle insults that masquerade as common parlance, meaning that no matter how much negativity is put behind those words, it is still socially acceptable to use them. I'm not just talking about men unintentionally disrespecting women. I'm always surprised to hear a woman calling another a “whore” because she is wearing a low-cut shirt or otherwise displaying that she may occasionally be in touch with her sexuality. I suppose that for some, “good” girls don't do things like that. But where's the in between?
Discriminatory language only serves to pit stereotype against stereotype. Rather than innocently use words that have an underlying divisiveness, we could consciously choose words that foster understanding and promote individuality and equality. It may be a small step, but it is a step nonetheless. And hopefully, when we change our language, our perceptions of what we're describing will subtly shift.
I'll leave you with a quote from a recent Savage Love. Thank you, Dan, for this perspective:
“You are a huge pussy, CTOAC- excuse me, sorry. Pussies are powerful; they can take a pummeling and spit out a brand new human being. What you are, CTOAC, is weak, vulnerable, easily manipulated, and far too sensitive for your own good.
What you are is a ball-sack.”
That's often what I say after someone uses the phrase “that's so gay” to mean “that's so stupid.” A lot of really awesome folks do it, so I don't mean it as an insult, but rather as an attempt to illuminate how discriminatory language can be. We all get trapped in it. I remember discovering, at age 22 (!), that the word I previously thought to be “jip” was actually spelled “gyp”- derogatory slang for gypsy. I felt so terrible. How had I been using this word?
Language has power. It worms its way into our brains and stays there. We all say things that we probably shouldn't at some points in our lives, and that certainly doesn't make us bad people. But perhaps we should be more aware of the language we're subconsciously choosing and what the ramifications are.
Take language and gender. Some languages are obvious about gender divisions, making every noun either masculine or feminine. English doesn't go quite that far, but there are definitely gendered words. And sometimes, I'm not such a fan. For example, a man who has lots of sex is a “stud” or a “don Juan”; a woman who does the same thing gets called “slut” or “whore”. OK, sometimes men are called “man sluts”, but to my way of thinking, that's no improvement. Or consider a man who is showing weakness getting called a “pussy”. And speaking of pussy, did you know that the word “vagina” actually means “sheath”, as in a sheath for a sword? There has to be a better word, people.
We usually don't notice when this sort of language pops up in conversation. But after hearing such insults for years, women start to internalize them, just as we internalize the barrage of ads featuring impossibly perfect models. Fortunately, many feminists and sociologists have called out these visuals for how they affect a woman's psyche. Unfortunately, language is rarely thought of as a problem of the same magnitude, and in fact, those who remind us about language are thought of as overly PC or nit picky. It is pretty difficult to call out the word without sounding as though you are criticizing the speaker or their ideals. A friend of mine did this effectively by saying “I agree with the sentiment, if not the word choice.” That tended to start a conversation rather than alienating the speaker or getting herself branded a “humorless feminist.”
But why even bother bringing attention to it? Language can be indicative of a larger societal problem, so even though we don't usually process the intention behind words, they still reinforce the narrow mindedness they were born from. People can call women (and other marginalized folks) all sorts of subtle insults that masquerade as common parlance, meaning that no matter how much negativity is put behind those words, it is still socially acceptable to use them. I'm not just talking about men unintentionally disrespecting women. I'm always surprised to hear a woman calling another a “whore” because she is wearing a low-cut shirt or otherwise displaying that she may occasionally be in touch with her sexuality. I suppose that for some, “good” girls don't do things like that. But where's the in between?
Discriminatory language only serves to pit stereotype against stereotype. Rather than innocently use words that have an underlying divisiveness, we could consciously choose words that foster understanding and promote individuality and equality. It may be a small step, but it is a step nonetheless. And hopefully, when we change our language, our perceptions of what we're describing will subtly shift.
I'll leave you with a quote from a recent Savage Love. Thank you, Dan, for this perspective:
“You are a huge pussy, CTOAC- excuse me, sorry. Pussies are powerful; they can take a pummeling and spit out a brand new human being. What you are, CTOAC, is weak, vulnerable, easily manipulated, and far too sensitive for your own good.
What you are is a ball-sack.”
Friday, April 30, 2010
Rape Questions
[trigger warning]
A friend of mine made this video about how rape is shown in the media. Obviously, the perspective is a bit skewed. At any rate, I wanted to share it with you.
A friend of mine made this video about how rape is shown in the media. Obviously, the perspective is a bit skewed. At any rate, I wanted to share it with you.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Dear Oklahoma
Dear Oklahoma Congress,
Yes, Utah got a letter, and yes, perhaps it is a tired old gimmick of mine. But you have done plenty to deserve it. First off, this was awfully sneaky. While folks have been focused on the controversial new law in Arizona, you passed these. I refer, of course, to HB 2656 and HB 2780, your new abortion laws, for which you overrode the governor's veto.
We're dealing with two objectionable bills, the first of which states that all women who choose an abortion must have a sonogram while the screen is facing them. They must then hear a description of the fetus- its fingers, toes, heartbeat. No woman is allowed to have an abortion until she has heard and seen this, and doctors who fail to provide this information can be held liable. But do you really think, HB 2780 supporters, that women haven't already considered this information carefully? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that a woman hasn't thought of every angle before going to the clinic? Abortion is obviously not an optimal option; women do not make the decision lightly. No one just pops in off the street. If you understand that, as most rational adults do, then you must see that you are playing the guilt trip card. A woman is likely to be in a state of heightened emotion going into this procedure. Doesn't this seem a little manipulative? You say it's all about informed consent. This isn't about having all the information, this is about shocking a woman into keeping her baby.
And you know what, the lack of exceptions for women who were raped or cases of incest is just the icing on the cake. You say this won't effect many people? In this culture of woman-blaming that you are helping to perpetuate, rape and sexual abuse victims are made to feel guilty for just having been there. These crimes are grossly underreported as a result. The numbers say that a small percentage of women who choose abortion are victims of rape, but off the record, the number is probably much higher. So let's get this straight. It's OK to re-traumatize a rape victim because... Well, I can't think of any reason. This was not her fault. If you want to blame someone, track down her assailant and shame him. But for goodness sake, show some compassion. If you really want to stop abortions due to rape and incest, then do some damn work to prevent them in the first place. Don't blame the victim.
This brings me to part two. Part one is disgusting, but part two is just flat out horrific. If a doctor thinks a woman might consider an abortion because of her child's medical issues, that doctor can withhold information or even lie to that woman about her child's health. So not only does Oklahoma guilt women, it also doesn't have any reverence for medicine? Or, for that matter, you have no consideration for families? Let's face it, you can make laws against women all you want, but both parents will feel the effects of not being prepared for a child that needs extra care or a child who won't live much past birth. So will any siblings. Wouldn't it be better for families to have the chance to seek out support from family and friends, to choose caretakers who can best help their new baby, to prepare older siblings for the increased responsibilities they will hold? Wouldn't it be kind to give families the chance to come to grips with the fact that this child might not live to adulthood? And finally, how healthy is it for mothers to always be questioning the information their doctors give them? No family can rest easy knowing their assumptions about their newest member's health could be based on a lie. That kind of worry and stress is not healthy for pregnant women or unborn children.
Step back, Oklahoma. Step back from your black and white view of this issue and see the subtleties. Realize that whether you believe abortion should be legal or not, what you have done is not helping anyone on any side of this debate.
Yours in outrage,
Astrid of Leda's Revenge
Yes, Utah got a letter, and yes, perhaps it is a tired old gimmick of mine. But you have done plenty to deserve it. First off, this was awfully sneaky. While folks have been focused on the controversial new law in Arizona, you passed these. I refer, of course, to HB 2656 and HB 2780, your new abortion laws, for which you overrode the governor's veto.
We're dealing with two objectionable bills, the first of which states that all women who choose an abortion must have a sonogram while the screen is facing them. They must then hear a description of the fetus- its fingers, toes, heartbeat. No woman is allowed to have an abortion until she has heard and seen this, and doctors who fail to provide this information can be held liable. But do you really think, HB 2780 supporters, that women haven't already considered this information carefully? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that a woman hasn't thought of every angle before going to the clinic? Abortion is obviously not an optimal option; women do not make the decision lightly. No one just pops in off the street. If you understand that, as most rational adults do, then you must see that you are playing the guilt trip card. A woman is likely to be in a state of heightened emotion going into this procedure. Doesn't this seem a little manipulative? You say it's all about informed consent. This isn't about having all the information, this is about shocking a woman into keeping her baby.
And you know what, the lack of exceptions for women who were raped or cases of incest is just the icing on the cake. You say this won't effect many people? In this culture of woman-blaming that you are helping to perpetuate, rape and sexual abuse victims are made to feel guilty for just having been there. These crimes are grossly underreported as a result. The numbers say that a small percentage of women who choose abortion are victims of rape, but off the record, the number is probably much higher. So let's get this straight. It's OK to re-traumatize a rape victim because... Well, I can't think of any reason. This was not her fault. If you want to blame someone, track down her assailant and shame him. But for goodness sake, show some compassion. If you really want to stop abortions due to rape and incest, then do some damn work to prevent them in the first place. Don't blame the victim.
This brings me to part two. Part one is disgusting, but part two is just flat out horrific. If a doctor thinks a woman might consider an abortion because of her child's medical issues, that doctor can withhold information or even lie to that woman about her child's health. So not only does Oklahoma guilt women, it also doesn't have any reverence for medicine? Or, for that matter, you have no consideration for families? Let's face it, you can make laws against women all you want, but both parents will feel the effects of not being prepared for a child that needs extra care or a child who won't live much past birth. So will any siblings. Wouldn't it be better for families to have the chance to seek out support from family and friends, to choose caretakers who can best help their new baby, to prepare older siblings for the increased responsibilities they will hold? Wouldn't it be kind to give families the chance to come to grips with the fact that this child might not live to adulthood? And finally, how healthy is it for mothers to always be questioning the information their doctors give them? No family can rest easy knowing their assumptions about their newest member's health could be based on a lie. That kind of worry and stress is not healthy for pregnant women or unborn children.
Step back, Oklahoma. Step back from your black and white view of this issue and see the subtleties. Realize that whether you believe abortion should be legal or not, what you have done is not helping anyone on any side of this debate.
Yours in outrage,
Astrid of Leda's Revenge
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Good for... Britney?
I never thought I'd say this, but kudos to Britney Spears. She was brave enough to release some unretouched original photos alongside the "finished" versions she modeled for the latest Candie's campaign. Granted, she does have makeup and lighting on her side, but there is still a noticeable difference between airbrushed and original.
I can't think of a better person to do this than Britney Spears, who is blond, thin, and by most Western pop-culture standards, a real beauty. To many, she is as beautiful as humanly possible. But humanly possible isn't enough anymore. Now advertisements cannot look like anything less than a fantasy that no woman will ever live up to. No wonder so many folks have body image issues.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Mascots
Let's do an experiment. First, name three college mascots. Now name the mascots of three professional sports teams. Finally, name three female mascots. Which one did you have the most trouble with? An informal discussion with friends failed to produce any stand-alone female mascots at all. What do I mean by “stand-alone”? Sometimes, schools will have a male mascot with a lesser-known female counterpart who gets trotted out at women's sporting events or for the occasional half time skit. Sometimes you see a gender-neutral (or gender-lacking) mascot such as an inanimate object, a meteorological event, or a group of animals. But when do you ever see a lone female as a team's or school's representative? Some internet research unearthed Athena, the mascot of Claremont McKenna, and Rosie the Elephant from the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. It also turned up this. Sigh.
Most schools or teams chose mascots before we as a society started thinking about marginalized groups. Often, there is no representation, or the portrayal of said group is terrible. Let's take all the Native American-derived mascots for example. Remember Chief Wahoo? I'd rather have no females than to have them cast in the same insensitive light. But with awareness increasing ever more, one wonders why more recently-created teams haven't branched out.
At this point, it is worth examining the concept of a mascot. True, it is a symbol, a representative of sorts. But mascots are also seen as side-kicks, tag-alongs, cute cartoons with no real personality. How much prestige is there in a mascot? The issue here is not so much the burning desire to have women seen in that form- women have been used to sell us things for years. The problem is in the ways of thinking that have led to the lack of women as representatives of athletic or intellectual institutions.
Women often don't take offense at being represented by a male because we are used to it, not only in the case of images, but in many languages and religions. Men are generally chosen as the sole representative of a group of people who are usually of mixed gender, just as white skin is usually considered “the norm” in many Western cultures. But if the tables are turned, would men be just as happy to be represented by a female? Probably not. This isn't because men are terrible, just because it isn't a situation they have been put in before.
And then there's my whole theory of denigration of the feminine, which I'll surely return to again and again in the course of my writings. Of course women are OK with being represented by a male mascot, or more broadly, of course they want to wear pants and have careers. Why wouldn't anyone want to be like a man? Manliness is a worthy aspiration. But why would men want to wear skirts or learn to sew? Well, some men DO want those things, but society as a whole thinks that trying to be more feminine is weird or undesirable. Male has been the gold standard in so many societies for so long that we just can't imagine it any other way.
Qualities that we ascribe to mascots- leadership, strength, speed, endurance, intelligence- are usually considered to be more masculine qualities. This makes it a real bummer to have a woman as a mascot.
Things are changing, but there is a long way to go. Wouldn't it be great to have a respectfully-represented female, transsexual or minority as the mascot of an elementary school? Or better yet, what about a variety of mascots from all walks of life? Maybe someday, we won't feel the need to present ourselves to the world in such a simplistic manner. But until then, we can teach children that people from all walks of life are valuable.
Most schools or teams chose mascots before we as a society started thinking about marginalized groups. Often, there is no representation, or the portrayal of said group is terrible. Let's take all the Native American-derived mascots for example. Remember Chief Wahoo? I'd rather have no females than to have them cast in the same insensitive light. But with awareness increasing ever more, one wonders why more recently-created teams haven't branched out.
At this point, it is worth examining the concept of a mascot. True, it is a symbol, a representative of sorts. But mascots are also seen as side-kicks, tag-alongs, cute cartoons with no real personality. How much prestige is there in a mascot? The issue here is not so much the burning desire to have women seen in that form- women have been used to sell us things for years. The problem is in the ways of thinking that have led to the lack of women as representatives of athletic or intellectual institutions.
Women often don't take offense at being represented by a male because we are used to it, not only in the case of images, but in many languages and religions. Men are generally chosen as the sole representative of a group of people who are usually of mixed gender, just as white skin is usually considered “the norm” in many Western cultures. But if the tables are turned, would men be just as happy to be represented by a female? Probably not. This isn't because men are terrible, just because it isn't a situation they have been put in before.
And then there's my whole theory of denigration of the feminine, which I'll surely return to again and again in the course of my writings. Of course women are OK with being represented by a male mascot, or more broadly, of course they want to wear pants and have careers. Why wouldn't anyone want to be like a man? Manliness is a worthy aspiration. But why would men want to wear skirts or learn to sew? Well, some men DO want those things, but society as a whole thinks that trying to be more feminine is weird or undesirable. Male has been the gold standard in so many societies for so long that we just can't imagine it any other way.
Qualities that we ascribe to mascots- leadership, strength, speed, endurance, intelligence- are usually considered to be more masculine qualities. This makes it a real bummer to have a woman as a mascot.
Things are changing, but there is a long way to go. Wouldn't it be great to have a respectfully-represented female, transsexual or minority as the mascot of an elementary school? Or better yet, what about a variety of mascots from all walks of life? Maybe someday, we won't feel the need to present ourselves to the world in such a simplistic manner. But until then, we can teach children that people from all walks of life are valuable.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Mandatory Motherhood
The criteria for becoming an astronaut in China are rough. Got a scar? You're disqualified. Bad breath? Ineligible. Yes, snoring is also forbidden. Oh, and if you're a woman, you must be married and have children.
Don't worry about that last requirement, though; China says the reasoning behind it isn't sexist. After all, it isn't known how space flight will affect a person's fertility. And married mothers are obviously more mature than single women.
How interesting.
Following China's logic, a 16-year-old mother is more grown-up than a woman ten years her senior who is putting off having children so she can focus on her education and career for awhile. This could be the case, but more likely, it's not. It is true, major experiences can and usually do change lives, but not necessarily in a way that creates maturity (or readiness for space travel). And by making these requirements for women alone, China is implying that men aren't altered by marriage and parenthood. It almost goes without saying that men have an equal capacity for growth. To deny that would be insulting to one half of the population.
But let's return to China's insult of women for a minute. Never mind this article from TIME Magazine which states that short flights are safe for either sex's reproductive systems, and that male fertility could potentially be more damaged by venturing into space than female. Even if that weren't the case, China is basically telling women that their highest calling is as a wife and mother.
Being a wife and/or a mother can be a wonderful thing. I know some amazing feminists who are married with children (check out the blog Mamma Femminista for an excellent example). I also know many women who have chosen not to have children or get legally married for one reason or another, and that's wonderful, too. The best part is that most women have the choice. Career can take precedence over children or vice versa. Or a woman can have both. It seems a shame to have a family prerequisite before a woman can embark on another life adventure. And it seems a shame to define a woman's worth by her role in the family first and foremost when there are so many ways she can contribute to society.
There are other things that make this policy problematic. Does China make exceptions for women who are, for whatever reason, incapable of having their own children? Does adoption count? Do the chosen moms even get to spend time with the families they are so valued for having? Being an astronaut is a high-stress career, especially if you aren't even allowed to have bad breath.
Let's hope that China sees the error of their ways. Perhaps when the powers that be realize they could be missing out on some amazing candidates because of a discriminatory policy, they'll reverse it. In the meantime, those of us who are able can take advantage of one of the best things the feminist movement has given us: choice.
Don't worry about that last requirement, though; China says the reasoning behind it isn't sexist. After all, it isn't known how space flight will affect a person's fertility. And married mothers are obviously more mature than single women.
How interesting.
Following China's logic, a 16-year-old mother is more grown-up than a woman ten years her senior who is putting off having children so she can focus on her education and career for awhile. This could be the case, but more likely, it's not. It is true, major experiences can and usually do change lives, but not necessarily in a way that creates maturity (or readiness for space travel). And by making these requirements for women alone, China is implying that men aren't altered by marriage and parenthood. It almost goes without saying that men have an equal capacity for growth. To deny that would be insulting to one half of the population.
But let's return to China's insult of women for a minute. Never mind this article from TIME Magazine which states that short flights are safe for either sex's reproductive systems, and that male fertility could potentially be more damaged by venturing into space than female. Even if that weren't the case, China is basically telling women that their highest calling is as a wife and mother.
Being a wife and/or a mother can be a wonderful thing. I know some amazing feminists who are married with children (check out the blog Mamma Femminista for an excellent example). I also know many women who have chosen not to have children or get legally married for one reason or another, and that's wonderful, too. The best part is that most women have the choice. Career can take precedence over children or vice versa. Or a woman can have both. It seems a shame to have a family prerequisite before a woman can embark on another life adventure. And it seems a shame to define a woman's worth by her role in the family first and foremost when there are so many ways she can contribute to society.
There are other things that make this policy problematic. Does China make exceptions for women who are, for whatever reason, incapable of having their own children? Does adoption count? Do the chosen moms even get to spend time with the families they are so valued for having? Being an astronaut is a high-stress career, especially if you aren't even allowed to have bad breath.
Let's hope that China sees the error of their ways. Perhaps when the powers that be realize they could be missing out on some amazing candidates because of a discriminatory policy, they'll reverse it. In the meantime, those of us who are able can take advantage of one of the best things the feminist movement has given us: choice.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Film-inist
Anyone remember The Long Kiss Goodnight? For those who haven't seen it, the set-up is this: Geena Davis plays Samantha, a happy suburban teacher and mother with amnesia. She's been trying to figure out her former profession, but to no avail. As the movie unfolds, she slowly begins to remember her time as a CIA assassin. A typical action movie premise.
And, unfortunately for some feminists, it's a typical action movie execution, as well. Part of what jogs Samantha's awakening is some underwater torture- while she's wearing a see-through white dress, of course. She cuts her long red hair and dyes it blond to fully embrace her re-entry into spydom. She flashes men, smokes, talks fast and kills faster. In short, she's the quintessential male fantasy. But wait, even though she can overcome almost any obstacle, when it comes to ridding herself of her villainous ex, she's at a loss. She is totally incapable of picking him off just like everyone else, and it definitely isn't because she's having mixed feelings about it.
Some folks will think The Long Kiss Goodnight is a feminist movie, and to some degree, it is. But it follows an all-too-common pattern of female characters in mainstream action movies. Skinny, beautiful women in trendy clothing, but very little of it. Sweaty, wet, sexy eye candy. They can fight pretty good for girls, but when push really comes to shove, they need a little help from their male partner or lover.
Even though this archetype is annoying, it's heads above the old one: skinny, beautiful women in trendy clothes who get kidnapped and scream a lot and have to have their men come and save them. Action movies are obviously progressing. But how can they catch up to other genres which have been able to portray sexy and/or tough women as more than one-dimensional? (At this point, it's obligatory to mention that Geena Davis also starred in Thelma and Louise, widely recognized as an essential feminist film.) Granted, characters are usually secondary to the action in action movies. Go figure.
It doesn't have to be this way. Let's take the Kill Bill movies, for example. First, we'll set aside all the clumsy, caricatured portrayals of race, and forget about some of Tarantino's less-than-feminist moments in other films. That being said, the Bride is an action hero(ine) most women can live with. Yes, she's blond and thin, but this fact is acknowledged several times throughout the course of the movies. Yes, she stalls a bit before killing Bill, but she is always shown as a human who makes mistakes. It definitely uses elements of the female action hero stereotype, but it is progress. The film also touches briefly on a few feminist issues, such as rape and motherhood, so even though the movie is probably not attempting to be a feminist statement, it has had an impact. Here's one great example found online: “it was from that movie where i learnt that motherhood is actually a cool thing” and that there is “courage and passion in it.” Rock on.
Action movies really aren't the place to make feminist statements. And let's face it, women definitely don't have to be violent to be tough or admirable. But as long as action movies are being made, they could at least cast women in a more positive, less stereotypical light. Filmmakers, take note.
And, unfortunately for some feminists, it's a typical action movie execution, as well. Part of what jogs Samantha's awakening is some underwater torture- while she's wearing a see-through white dress, of course. She cuts her long red hair and dyes it blond to fully embrace her re-entry into spydom. She flashes men, smokes, talks fast and kills faster. In short, she's the quintessential male fantasy. But wait, even though she can overcome almost any obstacle, when it comes to ridding herself of her villainous ex, she's at a loss. She is totally incapable of picking him off just like everyone else, and it definitely isn't because she's having mixed feelings about it.
Some folks will think The Long Kiss Goodnight is a feminist movie, and to some degree, it is. But it follows an all-too-common pattern of female characters in mainstream action movies. Skinny, beautiful women in trendy clothing, but very little of it. Sweaty, wet, sexy eye candy. They can fight pretty good for girls, but when push really comes to shove, they need a little help from their male partner or lover.
Even though this archetype is annoying, it's heads above the old one: skinny, beautiful women in trendy clothes who get kidnapped and scream a lot and have to have their men come and save them. Action movies are obviously progressing. But how can they catch up to other genres which have been able to portray sexy and/or tough women as more than one-dimensional? (At this point, it's obligatory to mention that Geena Davis also starred in Thelma and Louise, widely recognized as an essential feminist film.) Granted, characters are usually secondary to the action in action movies. Go figure.
It doesn't have to be this way. Let's take the Kill Bill movies, for example. First, we'll set aside all the clumsy, caricatured portrayals of race, and forget about some of Tarantino's less-than-feminist moments in other films. That being said, the Bride is an action hero(ine) most women can live with. Yes, she's blond and thin, but this fact is acknowledged several times throughout the course of the movies. Yes, she stalls a bit before killing Bill, but she is always shown as a human who makes mistakes. It definitely uses elements of the female action hero stereotype, but it is progress. The film also touches briefly on a few feminist issues, such as rape and motherhood, so even though the movie is probably not attempting to be a feminist statement, it has had an impact. Here's one great example found online: “it was from that movie where i learnt that motherhood is actually a cool thing” and that there is “courage and passion in it.” Rock on.
Action movies really aren't the place to make feminist statements. And let's face it, women definitely don't have to be violent to be tough or admirable. But as long as action movies are being made, they could at least cast women in a more positive, less stereotypical light. Filmmakers, take note.
Friday, March 19, 2010
White Girl
You may notice the long break between entries. Part of this was due to a vacation, but in part, I was mulling over a comment, unready to respond. You see, an activist friend whom I greatly respect recently said that she stopped calling herself a feminist when she realized that the term was mostly used by white academics. I've wanted to fully respond for a long while, but was left at a loss for words.
My first response to this was to feel indignant that someone would eschew the feminist moniker. I mean, come on. Half of the population has been getting the short end of the stick for how long? How could you not identify with the desire for equally for all genders?
It's time for a disclaimer: I'm white. My partner is a man. My circumstance growing up might not be described as “well off”, but I was fortunate enough to win a scholarship that allowed me to attend college. I seem to be a walking feminist stereotype. Perhaps I should question my initial bristling.
An oft-leveled criticism is that feminism is a movement for middle-class white women by middle-class white women. Some might add “straight”, though I would argue that the feminist and LGBTQI movements have a tentative alliance. There are many famous feminists that don't fit the bill: bell hooks, Dorothy Allison and Angela Davis come to mind immediately. Still, when I think of all the folks I know personally who embrace the term feminist, I can't help but notice how white, middle-class and well-educated they are.
Certain circumstances may compound gender discrimination or trump it altogether. I certainly can't claim to know what it is like to experience violence or hatred based on the color of my skin. I am lucky enough to live in a well-to-do country, have never known starvation or civil war. My world is very insular and I am well aware of it. I have always had difficulty finding a common “sisterhood” even within Western culture, let alone the world. However, I do believe that certain feminist issues- like equal pay or an end to domestic violence- will benefit a lot of folks. Perhaps because feminism could potentially help so many, its definition has been broadened to encompass countless points of view. Does this dilute the meaning? Probably. Does it mean that anyone- male or female, gay or straight, black or white- can embrace this term? Absolutely.
With so many allies to choose from, why is feminism so popular among white academics? Maybe because we have more time and resources- luxuries needed to lobby for change. I really have no idea. But now, longtime coming, the point:
So what?
So what if I'm a white woman? Is my viewpoint null and void? No. I don't claim to speak for every woman. No movement has ever successfully spoken for all of those that it seeks to benefit.
So what if I'm fighting for my own equality? Should I step aside and stop being such a whiner? A resounding no. Some have it better than others, but that doesn't mean they should become complacent.
So what if feminist isn't a perfect term? Should it be abandoned or replaced? Of course not. All that it has come to mean and all past struggles should not be forgotten. And how exactly will people of a different bent come to embrace the term if we don't keep it and all it stands for?
I will continue to call myself a feminist, and you should, too. Even if you're not a white academic.
My first response to this was to feel indignant that someone would eschew the feminist moniker. I mean, come on. Half of the population has been getting the short end of the stick for how long? How could you not identify with the desire for equally for all genders?
It's time for a disclaimer: I'm white. My partner is a man. My circumstance growing up might not be described as “well off”, but I was fortunate enough to win a scholarship that allowed me to attend college. I seem to be a walking feminist stereotype. Perhaps I should question my initial bristling.
An oft-leveled criticism is that feminism is a movement for middle-class white women by middle-class white women. Some might add “straight”, though I would argue that the feminist and LGBTQI movements have a tentative alliance. There are many famous feminists that don't fit the bill: bell hooks, Dorothy Allison and Angela Davis come to mind immediately. Still, when I think of all the folks I know personally who embrace the term feminist, I can't help but notice how white, middle-class and well-educated they are.
Certain circumstances may compound gender discrimination or trump it altogether. I certainly can't claim to know what it is like to experience violence or hatred based on the color of my skin. I am lucky enough to live in a well-to-do country, have never known starvation or civil war. My world is very insular and I am well aware of it. I have always had difficulty finding a common “sisterhood” even within Western culture, let alone the world. However, I do believe that certain feminist issues- like equal pay or an end to domestic violence- will benefit a lot of folks. Perhaps because feminism could potentially help so many, its definition has been broadened to encompass countless points of view. Does this dilute the meaning? Probably. Does it mean that anyone- male or female, gay or straight, black or white- can embrace this term? Absolutely.
With so many allies to choose from, why is feminism so popular among white academics? Maybe because we have more time and resources- luxuries needed to lobby for change. I really have no idea. But now, longtime coming, the point:
So what?
So what if I'm a white woman? Is my viewpoint null and void? No. I don't claim to speak for every woman. No movement has ever successfully spoken for all of those that it seeks to benefit.
So what if I'm fighting for my own equality? Should I step aside and stop being such a whiner? A resounding no. Some have it better than others, but that doesn't mean they should become complacent.
So what if feminist isn't a perfect term? Should it be abandoned or replaced? Of course not. All that it has come to mean and all past struggles should not be forgotten. And how exactly will people of a different bent come to embrace the term if we don't keep it and all it stands for?
I will continue to call myself a feminist, and you should, too. Even if you're not a white academic.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Revolution Girl Style Now
In the past few months, folks seem to have rediscovered punk rock revolutionaries like Bikini Kill, Bratmobile, Heavens to Betsy, and Huggy Bear. Riot grrrls and their predecessors have been getting a lot of press recently: Bikini Kill has a new archive on the web, the book Girl Power: The Nineties Revolution in Music was released, Kathleen Hanna has resurfaced for interviews, the Sundance Film Festival held three screenings of The Runaways (Joan Jett is often cited as an influence for many of these musicians).
At a time when few women even came out for rock shows, the riot grrrls were a a no-holds-barred voice for women. They took feminism from the inaccessible world of theory and criticism and dropped it into music and popular culture. They made it relevant for a younger generation, bringing third wave feminist thinking to the forefront. And they did so amidst cries of “show us your tits” and threats of violence from the audience. The resulting media firestorm painted them as adversarial attention-seekers but ignored their core messages: women can be empowered, they can play music just as well as men, sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, sexual and domestic violence must stop. They opened up the doors for women in the music world, both concertgoers and musicians alike. We can thank them in part for the feminist groups that followed, such as Sleater-Kinney, The Gossip and Le Tigre.
Unfortunately, popular culture is slow to change. Google “women in music” and you'll find proof that many still place more emphasis on women's looks than talent. It can be discouraging to see young female musicians play into someone else's idea of sexuality rather than being able to establish their own. Girl power has become a commodity.
There is still hope. One of the many goals of the riot grrrl movement was to have women create a culture they could feel good about. They made music and zines without much money or outside support, proving that DIY culture could have a widespread influence. Though their message is still misinterpreted, the fact remains that we benefit from their work today. Feminist zines have turned into feminist blogs, and rock and roll camps for girls have sprung up. The framework the riot grrrls established still exists, ready and waiting. Perhaps the world is finally ready for another feminist movement in popular culture. We don't need to be famous, we don't need money, we don't need anything more than determination and desire. But one thing is for sure: we still need revolution girl style now.
At a time when few women even came out for rock shows, the riot grrrls were a a no-holds-barred voice for women. They took feminism from the inaccessible world of theory and criticism and dropped it into music and popular culture. They made it relevant for a younger generation, bringing third wave feminist thinking to the forefront. And they did so amidst cries of “show us your tits” and threats of violence from the audience. The resulting media firestorm painted them as adversarial attention-seekers but ignored their core messages: women can be empowered, they can play music just as well as men, sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of, sexual and domestic violence must stop. They opened up the doors for women in the music world, both concertgoers and musicians alike. We can thank them in part for the feminist groups that followed, such as Sleater-Kinney, The Gossip and Le Tigre.
Unfortunately, popular culture is slow to change. Google “women in music” and you'll find proof that many still place more emphasis on women's looks than talent. It can be discouraging to see young female musicians play into someone else's idea of sexuality rather than being able to establish their own. Girl power has become a commodity.
There is still hope. One of the many goals of the riot grrrl movement was to have women create a culture they could feel good about. They made music and zines without much money or outside support, proving that DIY culture could have a widespread influence. Though their message is still misinterpreted, the fact remains that we benefit from their work today. Feminist zines have turned into feminist blogs, and rock and roll camps for girls have sprung up. The framework the riot grrrls established still exists, ready and waiting. Perhaps the world is finally ready for another feminist movement in popular culture. We don't need to be famous, we don't need money, we don't need anything more than determination and desire. But one thing is for sure: we still need revolution girl style now.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Dear Utah
Dear Utah lawmakers,
I know you don't read a lot of blogs, and especially not mine. But perhaps you should read the previous post about trusting women with birth. I regret now that I didn't explicitly extend my post to include trusting a woman for the entire nine months of pregnancy leading up to it, because obviously there is some confusion on your part.
Let's face it, a seventeen year old paying to get herself beaten in an attempt to miscarry her baby is pretty unusual. The vast majority of pregnant women care enough about their future children to change their dietary and lifestyle habits in hopes of giving them the best start possible. So it seems a little weird to me that you even deemed it necessary to write H.B. 12- a bill with vague language which is intended to limit what constitutes a legal abortion- let alone pass it by such a wide margin. Your failure to define “knowing”, “reckless”, or “criminal intent” leaves this bill open to interpretation. The thing that bothers me most is that it really isn't clear where miscarriage will end and criminal homicide will begin.
Here are some facts that you might not know. According to the Mayo Clinic, 10-20 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Most of those are due to chromosomal abnormalities, which is a five-dollar term meaning that something has naturally gone wrong in development. The Mayo Clinic also says that certain health conditions such as thyroid problems or uncontrolled diabetes could cause a miscarriage. I guess we could get into a debate about the affordability of health care, but that would be a long letter and I have a feeling I know where you all stand on that issue. Does a woman who can't afford medical treatment engage in knowing and reckless behavior? In fact, unless it's an exceptional case, how can you prove criminal intent in the majority of miscarriages given the information above?
Did you intend for this bill to be widely applied? What if a woman falls down the stairs and gets arrested? I'm sure you saw the headlines about the case in Iowa. Does it put a woman under suspicion if she expresses surprise or disappointment about finding herself pregnant? I imagine that in your haste to pass the bill, you didn't realize that you were being such jerks. Losing a child is a terrible thing. Making a woman prove her intentions after such a loss is despicable.
And just in case you think we missed it, we can all see that this is an attempt to bolster fetal rights and weaken the abortion laws. I hope you weren't trying to be subtle about that.
You could have written a bill to ensure that every pregnant woman in your state gets excellent prenatal care. You could have guaranteed that women have the financial support they need to raise their children. You could crack down on domestic abuse. You could have done any number of things to help a woman feel confident- rather than desperate- going into motherhood. Instead of helping families, you've passed a bill that blames and punishes women. That is a disgraceful thing to be remembered for.
Yours in frustration,
Astrid of Leda's Revenge
I know you don't read a lot of blogs, and especially not mine. But perhaps you should read the previous post about trusting women with birth. I regret now that I didn't explicitly extend my post to include trusting a woman for the entire nine months of pregnancy leading up to it, because obviously there is some confusion on your part.
Let's face it, a seventeen year old paying to get herself beaten in an attempt to miscarry her baby is pretty unusual. The vast majority of pregnant women care enough about their future children to change their dietary and lifestyle habits in hopes of giving them the best start possible. So it seems a little weird to me that you even deemed it necessary to write H.B. 12- a bill with vague language which is intended to limit what constitutes a legal abortion- let alone pass it by such a wide margin. Your failure to define “knowing”, “reckless”, or “criminal intent” leaves this bill open to interpretation. The thing that bothers me most is that it really isn't clear where miscarriage will end and criminal homicide will begin.
Here are some facts that you might not know. According to the Mayo Clinic, 10-20 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Most of those are due to chromosomal abnormalities, which is a five-dollar term meaning that something has naturally gone wrong in development. The Mayo Clinic also says that certain health conditions such as thyroid problems or uncontrolled diabetes could cause a miscarriage. I guess we could get into a debate about the affordability of health care, but that would be a long letter and I have a feeling I know where you all stand on that issue. Does a woman who can't afford medical treatment engage in knowing and reckless behavior? In fact, unless it's an exceptional case, how can you prove criminal intent in the majority of miscarriages given the information above?
Did you intend for this bill to be widely applied? What if a woman falls down the stairs and gets arrested? I'm sure you saw the headlines about the case in Iowa. Does it put a woman under suspicion if she expresses surprise or disappointment about finding herself pregnant? I imagine that in your haste to pass the bill, you didn't realize that you were being such jerks. Losing a child is a terrible thing. Making a woman prove her intentions after such a loss is despicable.
And just in case you think we missed it, we can all see that this is an attempt to bolster fetal rights and weaken the abortion laws. I hope you weren't trying to be subtle about that.
You could have written a bill to ensure that every pregnant woman in your state gets excellent prenatal care. You could have guaranteed that women have the financial support they need to raise their children. You could crack down on domestic abuse. You could have done any number of things to help a woman feel confident- rather than desperate- going into motherhood. Instead of helping families, you've passed a bill that blames and punishes women. That is a disgraceful thing to be remembered for.
Yours in frustration,
Astrid of Leda's Revenge
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Birth Power
If you ever need proof of how strong and empowered a woman can be, watch a birth. I myself was fortunate enough to witness one, to reaffirm my belief in the powers of women.
All women have different experiences of birth. Some feel self-assured, some nervous, some are focused on the pain. Some have their children quickly, some slowly, some yell and moan, some are quiet. All of them should be admired, commended, respected. Giving birth is a test of physical and mental endurance for which there is no way to prepare. Yet no matter what the circumstances or how difficult the birth, women are able to tap into strength they may not have even known they had. Most female-bodied folks possess the superpower of bringing another human being into the world.
This is not to say that you must give birth to be a “real” woman or to feel confident and strong; there are just as many ways to tap into your own powers as there are women in the world. Likewise, we shouldn't devalue women who, for whatever reason, are unable to give birth despite their wishes to do so. However, as a society, we can respect the birthing process and, in doing so, respect the intrinsic power of women.
The predominant attitude in our culture is that birth is a strictly medical event where something could go wrong at any second. Birth is unique in that regard. While birth is a high-stakes event where medical interventions can certainly be necessary and life-saving, many other high-stakes events are not nearly as mistrusted. People do extreme (and extremely dangerous) sports without constant monitoring. Some people hold jobs that put them at risk for serious injury or even death and are rightly praised for their bravery and selflessness instead of being fretted over at every moment. So why do we assume the worst of birth? Do we still see women as too fragile? Women have been successfully giving birth for thousands of years, even before humans developed sophisticated birthing technology. Women are capable.
When a woman is in control of her own birth, she is empowered. This doesn't have to mean a natural birth; if a woman wants an epidural, she should have one. No matter what the particulars, being in control means being trusted, encouraged, and allowed space and time to labor in her own way. She must be the star of her own birth, for she- not her technological assistance- is responsible for the momentous occasion when another human being is brought into the world. If a woman loses that control, she will still end up with a healthy child, but something else is lost. An opportunity is missed. A woman leaves with a bad taste in her mouth, even though she has a beautiful baby. Birth is not just about the end result.
Women are capable. We can do this. Trust us. As Laura Stavoe Harm said, "we have a secret in our culture, and it's not that birth is painful; it's that women are strong."
All women have different experiences of birth. Some feel self-assured, some nervous, some are focused on the pain. Some have their children quickly, some slowly, some yell and moan, some are quiet. All of them should be admired, commended, respected. Giving birth is a test of physical and mental endurance for which there is no way to prepare. Yet no matter what the circumstances or how difficult the birth, women are able to tap into strength they may not have even known they had. Most female-bodied folks possess the superpower of bringing another human being into the world.
This is not to say that you must give birth to be a “real” woman or to feel confident and strong; there are just as many ways to tap into your own powers as there are women in the world. Likewise, we shouldn't devalue women who, for whatever reason, are unable to give birth despite their wishes to do so. However, as a society, we can respect the birthing process and, in doing so, respect the intrinsic power of women.
The predominant attitude in our culture is that birth is a strictly medical event where something could go wrong at any second. Birth is unique in that regard. While birth is a high-stakes event where medical interventions can certainly be necessary and life-saving, many other high-stakes events are not nearly as mistrusted. People do extreme (and extremely dangerous) sports without constant monitoring. Some people hold jobs that put them at risk for serious injury or even death and are rightly praised for their bravery and selflessness instead of being fretted over at every moment. So why do we assume the worst of birth? Do we still see women as too fragile? Women have been successfully giving birth for thousands of years, even before humans developed sophisticated birthing technology. Women are capable.
When a woman is in control of her own birth, she is empowered. This doesn't have to mean a natural birth; if a woman wants an epidural, she should have one. No matter what the particulars, being in control means being trusted, encouraged, and allowed space and time to labor in her own way. She must be the star of her own birth, for she- not her technological assistance- is responsible for the momentous occasion when another human being is brought into the world. If a woman loses that control, she will still end up with a healthy child, but something else is lost. An opportunity is missed. A woman leaves with a bad taste in her mouth, even though she has a beautiful baby. Birth is not just about the end result.
Women are capable. We can do this. Trust us. As Laura Stavoe Harm said, "we have a secret in our culture, and it's not that birth is painful; it's that women are strong."
Friday, February 12, 2010
Take That, Pop Culture
The first ad aired during the Superbowl. The second is a much-needed response.
Dodge Charger Manly Man Ad - watch more funny videos
Thursday, February 11, 2010
In the Driver's Seat
With all the talk about the 38th anniversary of Title 9 earlier this month, I heard a lot of interesting anecdotes about women and sports. A quote from Susan B. Anthony that the bicycle “has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world” really piqued my interest. Why the bicycle?
In the 1890s, a bicycling craze was sweeping the nation, and many of the purchasers of new bikes were female. Women hugely benefited from the increased freedoms the bike could bring. They were no longer dependent upon men for travel, and able to explore areas beyond their neighborhood. Additionally, increased athleticism required a change of clothes. Bicycling didn't lend itself to restrictive clothing such as corsets and hoop skirts, so in the name of exercise and mobility, women began to don bloomers (skirts cinched at the knee). This predictably sparked controversy about whether such garments were ladylike, but marked the beginning of practicality over fashion for many women. Bicycling also allowed women to be athletic, to have a little adventure in life, to experience nature- all things they were largely denied until the end of the 19th century. In short, the bicycle brought a lot of positive change for women in the span of a few years.
Today, only about a quarter of regular cyclists are women. It's time to reclaim the bike as liberated transportation! As Susan B. Anthony said, "It gives a woman a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. The moment she takes her seat she knows she can't get into harm unless she gets off her bicycle, and away she goes, the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood."
In the 1890s, a bicycling craze was sweeping the nation, and many of the purchasers of new bikes were female. Women hugely benefited from the increased freedoms the bike could bring. They were no longer dependent upon men for travel, and able to explore areas beyond their neighborhood. Additionally, increased athleticism required a change of clothes. Bicycling didn't lend itself to restrictive clothing such as corsets and hoop skirts, so in the name of exercise and mobility, women began to don bloomers (skirts cinched at the knee). This predictably sparked controversy about whether such garments were ladylike, but marked the beginning of practicality over fashion for many women. Bicycling also allowed women to be athletic, to have a little adventure in life, to experience nature- all things they were largely denied until the end of the 19th century. In short, the bicycle brought a lot of positive change for women in the span of a few years.
Today, only about a quarter of regular cyclists are women. It's time to reclaim the bike as liberated transportation! As Susan B. Anthony said, "It gives a woman a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. The moment she takes her seat she knows she can't get into harm unless she gets off her bicycle, and away she goes, the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood."
Monday, February 8, 2010
Shame On You, Johnny
[Sensitive stuff. Read with caution.]
Johnny Depp is the newest addition to a long list of Roman Polanski apologists. (For those who don't know, Polanski was arrested last year on 30-year-old charges of statutory rape. More info here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html) Here's what he had to say earlier this month: “Why now? Obviously there is something going on somewhere. Somebody has made a deal with someone. Maybe there was a little money involved, but why now? ... Roman is not a predator. He's 75 or 76 years old. He has got two beautiful kids, he has got a wife that he has been with for a long, long time. He is not out on the street."
Come on, Johnny. Not you, too.
First of all, a person's age, marital status or parental responsibilities have nothing to do with it. A married man is just as capable of committing a rape as a non-married man, a father equally as able as a childless man. As for age, most 43-year-old men aren't (and shouldn't be) interested in 13-year-old girls. Polanski has proven that age is not, and was never, a deterrent. Many men who rape seem safe to the victims beforehand. And then there's the obvious: just because he's seemingly mellowed out doesn't excuse him from having had sex with a minor in the first place.
Anyone making these claims would be spreading false information, but it becomes a much bigger issue when the person is famous. Celebrities are paid more attention than your average citizen. The media publicizes their statements. People look up to them. Perhaps, then, they should exercise a little responsibility. If you have the nation's ear, you had better say something thoughtful and accurate. You should not claim that what happened was not “rape-rape” (Whoopi Goldberg), or that rape is a “so-called crime” (Harvey Weinstein).
Polanski's victim has publicly stated that she has forgiven him and doesn't want him charged. Why? No one knows for sure, but a guess could be hazarded. Imagine having the worst experience you can think of, and then having it highly publicized for all the world to see. Imagine a throng of celebrities saying that your attacker is really a good guy, that he didn't mean anything by it, that what happened wasn't really all that bad, anyhow, so what's the problem. It is hard enough for any woman to stand up in this culture where being raped is wrongfully perceived as a shameful thing for the victim. Roman Polanski is an acclaimed film director, and no one has ever heard of Samantha Geimer. We should applaud her for having the nerve to press charges in the first place. Why aren't these folks standing up for victim instead of rapist? Unfortunately, these celebrities are echoing common sentiments in our society. In many sexual assault cases, even when the perpetrator is not famous, the victim is not believed or is blamed for what happened. At a time in her life when she needs support, she is criticized and distrusted. She'd likely get more sympathy if her purse had been stolen.
Even if we're not famous, our words have weight and we have to use them wisely. Let's not automatically assume that a victim is lying when she says she's been sexually assaulted. Let's not blame the crime on her. Let's choose words to describe the crime that accurately reflect its severity. Let's create a climate where it is safe for a woman to speak out rather than having to suffer through her trauma on her own.
Shame on you, Johnny Depp, and shame on your fellow apologists. You defended a rapist, and everyone listened.
Johnny Depp is the newest addition to a long list of Roman Polanski apologists. (For those who don't know, Polanski was arrested last year on 30-year-old charges of statutory rape. More info here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskicover1.html) Here's what he had to say earlier this month: “Why now? Obviously there is something going on somewhere. Somebody has made a deal with someone. Maybe there was a little money involved, but why now? ... Roman is not a predator. He's 75 or 76 years old. He has got two beautiful kids, he has got a wife that he has been with for a long, long time. He is not out on the street."
Come on, Johnny. Not you, too.
First of all, a person's age, marital status or parental responsibilities have nothing to do with it. A married man is just as capable of committing a rape as a non-married man, a father equally as able as a childless man. As for age, most 43-year-old men aren't (and shouldn't be) interested in 13-year-old girls. Polanski has proven that age is not, and was never, a deterrent. Many men who rape seem safe to the victims beforehand. And then there's the obvious: just because he's seemingly mellowed out doesn't excuse him from having had sex with a minor in the first place.
Anyone making these claims would be spreading false information, but it becomes a much bigger issue when the person is famous. Celebrities are paid more attention than your average citizen. The media publicizes their statements. People look up to them. Perhaps, then, they should exercise a little responsibility. If you have the nation's ear, you had better say something thoughtful and accurate. You should not claim that what happened was not “rape-rape” (Whoopi Goldberg), or that rape is a “so-called crime” (Harvey Weinstein).
Polanski's victim has publicly stated that she has forgiven him and doesn't want him charged. Why? No one knows for sure, but a guess could be hazarded. Imagine having the worst experience you can think of, and then having it highly publicized for all the world to see. Imagine a throng of celebrities saying that your attacker is really a good guy, that he didn't mean anything by it, that what happened wasn't really all that bad, anyhow, so what's the problem. It is hard enough for any woman to stand up in this culture where being raped is wrongfully perceived as a shameful thing for the victim. Roman Polanski is an acclaimed film director, and no one has ever heard of Samantha Geimer. We should applaud her for having the nerve to press charges in the first place. Why aren't these folks standing up for victim instead of rapist? Unfortunately, these celebrities are echoing common sentiments in our society. In many sexual assault cases, even when the perpetrator is not famous, the victim is not believed or is blamed for what happened. At a time in her life when she needs support, she is criticized and distrusted. She'd likely get more sympathy if her purse had been stolen.
Even if we're not famous, our words have weight and we have to use them wisely. Let's not automatically assume that a victim is lying when she says she's been sexually assaulted. Let's not blame the crime on her. Let's choose words to describe the crime that accurately reflect its severity. Let's create a climate where it is safe for a woman to speak out rather than having to suffer through her trauma on her own.
Shame on you, Johnny Depp, and shame on your fellow apologists. You defended a rapist, and everyone listened.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Not Another Feminist Blog
[trigger warning]
Oh no. Not again. Isn't feminism all over, anyway?
Why do we need another feminist forum?
-We need a another forum because women are still raped and assaulted, and then told they were “asking for it”;
-because many women are not safe from violence, even in their own homes;
-because mothers and families are still not supported by our government or our society;
-because there is still a wage gap between men and women doing the same jobs;
-because female athletes and musicians are still considered “good for a girl”, even when they excel as much as or more than their male counterparts;
-because women are still judged on how beautiful they are rather than how talented they are;
-because women are so sexualized that they can't nurse their children in public without being called “obscene”;
-and because when we assign gender roles, everyone loses, not just women.
The list could go on, unfortunately.
We still need feminism. It's not over. In fact, it seems the message of equal rights, protections, and opportunities for women is getting lost somehow. It's important to keep mentioning that message over and over. The more these concepts make it into our culture, the more weight they will hold. If an inane YouTube video can “go viral”, why not feminist concepts? That is the idea behind creating yet another feminist blog. Hopefully, it will inspire other feminists to spread their vision of feminism far and wide.
Oh no. Not again. Isn't feminism all over, anyway?
Why do we need another feminist forum?
-We need a another forum because women are still raped and assaulted, and then told they were “asking for it”;
-because many women are not safe from violence, even in their own homes;
-because mothers and families are still not supported by our government or our society;
-because there is still a wage gap between men and women doing the same jobs;
-because female athletes and musicians are still considered “good for a girl”, even when they excel as much as or more than their male counterparts;
-because women are still judged on how beautiful they are rather than how talented they are;
-because women are so sexualized that they can't nurse their children in public without being called “obscene”;
-and because when we assign gender roles, everyone loses, not just women.
The list could go on, unfortunately.
We still need feminism. It's not over. In fact, it seems the message of equal rights, protections, and opportunities for women is getting lost somehow. It's important to keep mentioning that message over and over. The more these concepts make it into our culture, the more weight they will hold. If an inane YouTube video can “go viral”, why not feminist concepts? That is the idea behind creating yet another feminist blog. Hopefully, it will inspire other feminists to spread their vision of feminism far and wide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)