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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)