These are questions that I have had for a long time but the bloggers over at racialicious brought a whole new level of analysis to this discussion that was very much needed. I strongly encourage you all to read it.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
On the marriage of racism and sexism at Halloween
These are questions that I have had for a long time but the bloggers over at racialicious brought a whole new level of analysis to this discussion that was very much needed. I strongly encourage you all to read it.
Monday, October 29, 2007
On Ron Paul's Scary Cross-Over Appeal
I am increasingly concerned about the relative popularity of republican candidate Ron Paul amongst progressive and liberal people. This Saturday I went to a peace rally and marched down the streets of downtown Chicago. Of course, such a rally was bound to be rife with people pushing presidential candidates. The ones that I saw the most of were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Hell, Ron Paul's people even had an aerial banner! The general feeling that I got from these pacifists, hippies, liberals, and general anti-war types was support for this anti-war constitutionalist. Dr. Paul is a dangerous candidate precisely because of his growing cross-over support. Here is a some of the scary stuff I found over at his campaign website:
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
I have already discussed my concern with his popularity amongst liberal television personalities. But I should also say that I am concerned with the depoliticization of reproductive rights issues. I did a little bit of research and had a hard time coming up with a position on women's issues and LGBT issues on the part of ALL of the candidates. Why are liberal folks turning their back on Roe v. Wade? I know it is a messy political area but we need protection now more than ever and I have to say, none of these candidates are really sounding very good to me.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
I have already discussed my concern with his popularity amongst liberal television personalities. But I should also say that I am concerned with the depoliticization of reproductive rights issues. I did a little bit of research and had a hard time coming up with a position on women's issues and LGBT issues on the part of ALL of the candidates. Why are liberal folks turning their back on Roe v. Wade? I know it is a messy political area but we need protection now more than ever and I have to say, none of these candidates are really sounding very good to me.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Victim-Blaming on The Dr. Phil Show
Image ViaAnyway, last week I caught an episode about O.J. Simpson’s new book If I Did It. Now, I was only ten years old when most of the murder trial and media storm took place. So, naturally, I didn’t have much of an opinion on the situation when it occurred. However, as a grown-up feminist, I can see, quite plainly that this man was violent and abusive and because of his hyper-masculine, hyper-violent personality, he decided to teach his wife a lesson in male dominance.
And as if beating her throughout their marriage, murdering her and her friend, and facing no consequences were not bad enough, he has now decided to publish a hypothetical book about what he would have done if he had committed the murders. To which I, and probably anyone who witnessed that trial, say a loud and resounding “Ha!”
Of course he did it. That is really a moot point now because he cannot be tried again. However, the ghostwriter of the book, Pablo Fenjves, had some very interesting things to say to Dr. Phil. Fenjves maintains his belief that Simpson is guilty because of the attitude that he displayed when discussing Nicole Brown.
Fenjves told Dr. Phil that O.J.’s attitude was “If I did it, she had it coming.”
To this Dr. Phil said, O.J. is obviously guilty because he was trying to justify murdering Nicole. He then said what a tragedy it was that an innocent man had to die.
Because she was not innocent? Her friend was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, but she was a bad wife so she deserved it? That was the attitude of Dr. Phil throughout the show. Now I am not sure if he was just pandering to the family of the deceased man (the one’s who actually had the book published) or if this is actually what he believes. Because of his record on women’s issues in the past, I am inclined to believe the latter.
Almost 15 years after her death and she is still being blamed. Sheesh.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Body Poltics of Britney Spears
For the longest time I have avoided this topic mostly out of disinterest but also because I was not sure exactly how I felt. Well the tides have turned and I MUST say something.
A few days ago one of my very close feminist friends informed me that Britney Spears had lost custody of her children and what a good thing that is. It was more than a bit disconcerting to hear someone for whom I have a great deal of respect so openly revel in the pain and suffering of a woman who lost her children.
I'll be completely honest, I have not kept up with this story so feel free to inform me if I am misstating something. But I wonder why Americans are so delighted by Britney Spears' very public destruction.
Here's what I know about Britney:
-she became a star in her early teenage years but had been in the spotlight for some time prior to that
-she [her image, likeness, etc.] is owned by a music production company
-after she became famous, this production company turned her into a sex symbol and cashed in
-she got married had two children and was in the spotlight then for her changing (i.e. not teen-aged) body
-having been in the spotlight for the entirety of her adult life she had a bit of a breakdown (very likely postpartum depression) and chopped off her hair (symbol of her feminine beauty) and became a pariah for people who expect very different behavior from their pop stars
-this and other odd (i.e. non-feminine, non-maternal) behaviors cause her parenting skills to be called into question
-her most recent stage performance was a bit of a disaster and questions about her weight began to circulate [i.e. people calling her "fat" (seriously?? her?)]
-her now ex-husband gains full custody of her two children
This is what I know.
The first thing that pops into my mind is: why do we delight so much in witnessing this young woman's destruction?
The same country that made her a star, the same people who turned her into a sex object and loved watching the sweet, blonde virgin take it all off, the same people who keep buying the magazines, watching the gossip shows and utterly invading her privacy are now stunned and simultaneously pleasured by her destruction.
Now I have never been a fan of Spears' music and I think that her body politic is extraordinarily problematic especially since she is simultaneously marketed to young girls as an idol and to men as a masturbatory fantasy. But note how I write that "she is marketed" as if she is no longer an independent entity but a piece of public property. Not long ago one of my friends and I got into a debate about whether Spears' chose this life path. My friend argued that she deserves what is happening to her because she chose to become a part of the public domain. But remember, she was but a child when she made that choice and she hardly could have anticipated the hyper-sexualization and invasion that would come along with that "choice." Further, does anyone really deserve that kind of dehumanization?
Spears most certainly is owned by a production company who is making a nice tidy profit off of all of this "self-" destruction. One has to wonder if the motives behind her sexy rise to fame and her shocking downfall are not just another part of the scheme to make spectacle-driven Hollywood producers filthy rich at her expense. I for one am skeptical as to whether or not Spears even exists. She would not need to for all of this hubbub to be going on. Just the idea of her is enough.
So I ask that you all challenge the pleasure you receive from watching Spears' destruction and ask why seeing a woman publicly lose her marriage and her children and quite likely suffer from a mental illness is so delightful? It is sickening and, frankly, quite telling.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Chronicles of Jan (Part II)
Image via.
As you already know, I love NBC’s The Office. I love it! So you can imagine how eagerly I awaited the season four premiere last Thursday. The episode did not disappoint. We finally got to see Pam and Jim together! Michael resumed his position as Regional Manager of the Scranton branch and Dwight resumed his positions as Assistant to the Regional Manager.
Perhaps one of the largest changes in the show was that Ryan ‘the temp’ Howard took Jan’s place as Michael’s boss. I mentioned in my last post how upset I was about the drastic and frankly quite unrealistic turn Jan’s character took at the end of the third season. And I was very disappointed to see that the opening of the fourth season offered little hope for Jan.
Before I get into that I should also mention that I listened to the cast commentary on the DVD of the last episode of the third season. I was interested in their interpretation of Jan’s ‘breakdown.’ Melora Hardin is the first one to say how much she loves the way that Jan’s character is ‘developing.’ Most of the cast agrees that they would not have foreseen this in the future for Jan based upon her earlier character. However, no one on the cast challenges why Jan’s character was written this way. In fact, they praise the writers for making her such an interesting and complex character.
Again, I ask: Why do we delight so much in seeing that bitch taken down a notch?
The so-called ‘self-destruction’ of Jan’s character is little more than a culturally condoned backlash against a very strong woman who is no less loveable than say, Donald Trump and we think of him as an icon, a self made man, someone to aspire to.
The absolute woman hatred that is embedded in the writing of Jan’s character goes unchallenged by nearly everyone involved in the show and, indeed, many viewers of the show. We need to ask ourselves why the writers of such a wildly popular show felt the need to destroy the most powerful (if a bit over the top) female voice on the show. The season four opener saw Jan passed out in Michael’s condo (they conveniently omitted the scene where we see that all of the furniture in the condo is Jan’s). She didn’t make another appearance until the “Michael Scott's Dunder Mifflin Scranton Meredith Palmer Memorial Celebrity Rabies Awareness Pro-Am Fun Run For The Cure.” In that scene Jan bitchily and jealously accuses Pam of trying to steal her man. “He’s mine, okay. So HANDS OFF!”
At this point I feel the need to remind viewers of Jan just a few months earlier. She had a very lucrative career, was freshly divorced, was totally in charge in her relationship with Michael whom she openly detests. Why would a woman with so much culturally valued ‘power’ and capital give it all up for a man as loathsome as Michael?
The answer is that she wouldn’t. But backlash climates allow for all sorts of stretches of reality in order to show women where their real priorities should be: wearing stretch pants, living in the boyfriend’s condo, with fresh breast implants, and plenty of jealous rage toward other women.
Perhaps one of the largest changes in the show was that Ryan ‘the temp’ Howard took Jan’s place as Michael’s boss. I mentioned in my last post how upset I was about the drastic and frankly quite unrealistic turn Jan’s character took at the end of the third season. And I was very disappointed to see that the opening of the fourth season offered little hope for Jan.
Before I get into that I should also mention that I listened to the cast commentary on the DVD of the last episode of the third season. I was interested in their interpretation of Jan’s ‘breakdown.’ Melora Hardin is the first one to say how much she loves the way that Jan’s character is ‘developing.’ Most of the cast agrees that they would not have foreseen this in the future for Jan based upon her earlier character. However, no one on the cast challenges why Jan’s character was written this way. In fact, they praise the writers for making her such an interesting and complex character.
Again, I ask: Why do we delight so much in seeing that bitch taken down a notch?
The so-called ‘self-destruction’ of Jan’s character is little more than a culturally condoned backlash against a very strong woman who is no less loveable than say, Donald Trump and we think of him as an icon, a self made man, someone to aspire to.
The absolute woman hatred that is embedded in the writing of Jan’s character goes unchallenged by nearly everyone involved in the show and, indeed, many viewers of the show. We need to ask ourselves why the writers of such a wildly popular show felt the need to destroy the most powerful (if a bit over the top) female voice on the show. The season four opener saw Jan passed out in Michael’s condo (they conveniently omitted the scene where we see that all of the furniture in the condo is Jan’s). She didn’t make another appearance until the “Michael Scott's Dunder Mifflin Scranton Meredith Palmer Memorial Celebrity Rabies Awareness Pro-Am Fun Run For The Cure.” In that scene Jan bitchily and jealously accuses Pam of trying to steal her man. “He’s mine, okay. So HANDS OFF!”
At this point I feel the need to remind viewers of Jan just a few months earlier. She had a very lucrative career, was freshly divorced, was totally in charge in her relationship with Michael whom she openly detests. Why would a woman with so much culturally valued ‘power’ and capital give it all up for a man as loathsome as Michael?
The answer is that she wouldn’t. But backlash climates allow for all sorts of stretches of reality in order to show women where their real priorities should be: wearing stretch pants, living in the boyfriend’s condo, with fresh breast implants, and plenty of jealous rage toward other women.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Can men be feminists?
I feel the need to discuss something that has been weighing heavily on my mind. It is not directly related to popular culture but it is certainly related to feminism. In my sociology of masculinities course last night we discussed the role of men in feminist movements. This is something that I am personally very conflicted about. I concede that we (feminists) need to unite with men in order to produce radical change. Separatism will solve nothing and will most likely alienate a whole lot of people, women and men alike.
That being said, hearing a man call himself a feminist makes me cringe like nothing else. Allowing men into feminism is dangerous territory because we risk losing hard won power. In class someone suggested that we wouldn't want to have white folks at the forefront of anti-racist movements. Theory written by the oppressor is just further imperialism. Yet wealthy, white and male folks who traditionally have had all of the power have a very hard time forfeiting that power to those they have traditionally subordinated.
My point is, how do we know that letting men call themselves feminists will not result in them taking the reins and writing the canon? How do we know that they will not further silence women's voices?
These are things for which I have no answer. I do like to hear men call themselves pro-feminist or feminist advocates. In fact, in class last night I mentioned how I have never met a man who actively called himself a feminist. After class a young man approached me and said "Hi. My name is Randy. I am a feminist." I laughed at him and had a very difficult time believing that he was not patronizing me. After several minutes of conversation it became clear: this young man was sincere. Or as sincere as a member of the privileged class can be.
I guess I will let Randy show me his feminism before I castigate him too severely...
That being said, hearing a man call himself a feminist makes me cringe like nothing else. Allowing men into feminism is dangerous territory because we risk losing hard won power. In class someone suggested that we wouldn't want to have white folks at the forefront of anti-racist movements. Theory written by the oppressor is just further imperialism. Yet wealthy, white and male folks who traditionally have had all of the power have a very hard time forfeiting that power to those they have traditionally subordinated.
My point is, how do we know that letting men call themselves feminists will not result in them taking the reins and writing the canon? How do we know that they will not further silence women's voices?
These are things for which I have no answer. I do like to hear men call themselves pro-feminist or feminist advocates. In fact, in class last night I mentioned how I have never met a man who actively called himself a feminist. After class a young man approached me and said "Hi. My name is Randy. I am a feminist." I laughed at him and had a very difficult time believing that he was not patronizing me. After several minutes of conversation it became clear: this young man was sincere. Or as sincere as a member of the privileged class can be.
I guess I will let Randy show me his feminism before I castigate him too severely...
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Why is choice not an important issue for 'liberal' TV show hosts?
I have been watching "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show" online rather than doing my homework. In so doing, I have noticed something very disconcerting. There is a certain amount of admiration for republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, yes he opposes the war, yes he opposes government intervention into people's private lives, and yes he says he is a constitutionalist and will fight to maintain the integrity of the American constitution. Liberal guys like Jon Stewart seem to be just eating up Ron Paul's rhetoric.
What they continually fail to mention is that Dr. Paul is strongly anti-choice. He claims that he wants to uphold the constitution and that he wants to keep the government out of private affairs but yet he stops short of considering women to be people. Women do not deserve bodily integrity or bodily privacy. This MAJOR discrepancy continually goes un-noticed. And that is not a first for Colbert and Stewart who love to stir the political stew but don't want to bring gender issues onto the table.
I love both of these shows and am very disappointed by this trend.
What they continually fail to mention is that Dr. Paul is strongly anti-choice. He claims that he wants to uphold the constitution and that he wants to keep the government out of private affairs but yet he stops short of considering women to be people. Women do not deserve bodily integrity or bodily privacy. This MAJOR discrepancy continually goes un-noticed. And that is not a first for Colbert and Stewart who love to stir the political stew but don't want to bring gender issues onto the table.I love both of these shows and am very disappointed by this trend.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
The Chronicles of Jan
Image of Melora Hardin via.NBC's version of "The Office" is undoubtedly one of my favorite television shows. It is hilarious and engaging. That is why it is very difficult for me to be critical of it. But there are a few things about this amazing show that make my stomach turn.
Early in the second season there is an entire episode about sexual harassment. Sexual harassment happens on "The Office" a lot but most of it is very satirical. I can dig satire especially since it is somewhat subversive. The harassment is depicted very ludicrously.
I anxiously awaited the third season finale. This episode revealed who got the job at 'corporate' and Pam and Jim finally appear to be hooking up. Yay!
But early in the episode we discover that the corporate job is available because Jan (Michael's boss in NYC) got fired. The level of glee that people felt over seeing that bitch get knocked down a peg is really quite telling. From the very beginning I was impressed that the person with the most power in this show was a woman. She is the boss of the boss. But she has consistently been depicted as an angry, castrating bitch. Only women who reject any shred of stereotypical femininity can make it in the corporate world. Or at least that is the image that we are inundated with.
Jan gets divorced early in the second season and while on the rebound she has a relationship with Michael. In this relationship Jan is domineering to the point of cruelty. We get the sense that she is totally in control. As this show got more popular, and Jan got more powerful, the writers and producers of "The Office" appeared to be stripping Jan of her power. The last episode is the epitome of this.
Devastated that Michael broke up with her, Jan gets breast implants and begs him to take her back. This is when she loses her job and basically has a total emotional break down.
This reminds me of the episode of "30 Rock" that I watched in which Tina Fey's character (a very powerful television producer) has a total emotional break down and needs to be literally carried off by her co-worker.
I immediately dubbed that an example of backlash but have been much more reluctant to do the same about a show that is so dear to me. The season three finale of "The Office" demonstrates anti-feminist backlash. The powerful women is fired because she is too emotional (which was NEVER demonstrated prior to this episode).
Also notable, when Jim and Karen witnessed Jan's breakdown Karen was delighted because Jan is "crazy" and self-destructive. I am not sure that any of this exemplifies self-destruction as much as the logical conclusion of male domination. Jan was destined to fail from the very beginning because she was a woman in 'a man's world.'
The very best part of all of this (and this completely proves my point that this was intentional misogyny not just good story writing) is that Ryan, the young temp. worker, gets Jan's job at the end of the episode.
Even in a show with egalitarian writers and characters, even in a show that I adore, misogyny is rampant. Still, I eagerly await the season premier. I will most likely address this issue again at that point.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
SVU: WTF?
I watch a lot of TV shows that I hate, like Dr. Phil. And I actually really enjoy watching them. I think the enjoyment comes from the level of rage that they incite in me. It is actually the reason that I started this blog; I needed an outlet (other than my personal blog) for my anger.
Last night I watched two episodes of Law and Order: SVU. I do not know why I enjoy this program but I can say that it never ceases to upset me. The entire premise of SVU is sexual assault in its many forms. It is an excellent platform for politicizing institutionalized abuse of women but is used instead as a cheap ploy to attract and retain viewers. The show is far from challenging or even remotely political.
Many, if not most, of the episodes of this show that I have seen paint women as lairs who manufacture stories about rape for their own selfish benefit. The episode I watched last night, entitled "Design," was about a young women who date-raped men to 'steal' and sell their sperm and then told police that she was raped. The audience sympathy for the rape victim shifts to the poor male victims in an instant.
If you are reading this blog, I do not need to tell you about the absurdity of the premise. Rape is a very real crime that disproportionately affects women. According to RAINN, nine out of ten victims of rape are women. This reality is not reflected on Law and Order: SVU. I do not have exact percentages but I have watched the show enough to tell you that many of their cases end up painting women (particularly adult women) as bitches who set the poor guy up. Another common theme is child sexual predation. This is certainly a problem but I wonder what the ratio of child predation is to instances of sexual violence against women. I imagine sexual violence against women and girls is MUCH more common. Ignoring these realities must make viewers (and therefore, advertisers) feel more comfortable or it would not be so prevalent.
As for depoliticization, shows with neat clean happy endings, that do not challenge prescribed notions of gender, sell more products by making consumers feel safe and comfortable. Who wants to buy an iPod after discovering that rapist are very unlikely to be brought to justice and that vicitms are not always cute little white girls?
The rapists and other assorted criminals are almost always brought to justice on Law and Order: SVU. I have already argued that this does not represent reality at all. But it is also problematic in that it does not challenge institutionalized patriarchy. We all go to bed easily after seeing the evil child molester brought to justice. But how often to we ask why child molesters exist, or why rape is such a prevalent and socially acceptable (treatment of rapists and victims in this country reflects this truth) crime?
Law and Order: SVU would not be a show if we did not live in a patriarchy, yet the show never acknowledges the prevalence of patriarchal ideology. In fact, I would argue that it contributes to patriarchal hegemony by presenting rape victims and rapists very narrowly.
And finally, the popularity of this show certainly raises the question: why are we so fascinated by sex crimes? The delight that viewers get from watching child rapists and deserving bitches get theirs is very telling.
Last night I watched two episodes of Law and Order: SVU. I do not know why I enjoy this program but I can say that it never ceases to upset me. The entire premise of SVU is sexual assault in its many forms. It is an excellent platform for politicizing institutionalized abuse of women but is used instead as a cheap ploy to attract and retain viewers. The show is far from challenging or even remotely political.
Many, if not most, of the episodes of this show that I have seen paint women as lairs who manufacture stories about rape for their own selfish benefit. The episode I watched last night, entitled "Design," was about a young women who date-raped men to 'steal' and sell their sperm and then told police that she was raped. The audience sympathy for the rape victim shifts to the poor male victims in an instant.
If you are reading this blog, I do not need to tell you about the absurdity of the premise. Rape is a very real crime that disproportionately affects women. According to RAINN, nine out of ten victims of rape are women. This reality is not reflected on Law and Order: SVU. I do not have exact percentages but I have watched the show enough to tell you that many of their cases end up painting women (particularly adult women) as bitches who set the poor guy up. Another common theme is child sexual predation. This is certainly a problem but I wonder what the ratio of child predation is to instances of sexual violence against women. I imagine sexual violence against women and girls is MUCH more common. Ignoring these realities must make viewers (and therefore, advertisers) feel more comfortable or it would not be so prevalent.
As for depoliticization, shows with neat clean happy endings, that do not challenge prescribed notions of gender, sell more products by making consumers feel safe and comfortable. Who wants to buy an iPod after discovering that rapist are very unlikely to be brought to justice and that vicitms are not always cute little white girls?
The rapists and other assorted criminals are almost always brought to justice on Law and Order: SVU. I have already argued that this does not represent reality at all. But it is also problematic in that it does not challenge institutionalized patriarchy. We all go to bed easily after seeing the evil child molester brought to justice. But how often to we ask why child molesters exist, or why rape is such a prevalent and socially acceptable (treatment of rapists and victims in this country reflects this truth) crime?
Law and Order: SVU would not be a show if we did not live in a patriarchy, yet the show never acknowledges the prevalence of patriarchal ideology. In fact, I would argue that it contributes to patriarchal hegemony by presenting rape victims and rapists very narrowly.
And finally, the popularity of this show certainly raises the question: why are we so fascinated by sex crimes? The delight that viewers get from watching child rapists and deserving bitches get theirs is very telling.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Sexism on the CTA (part 1 of 1,000,000,000)
Image via Flickr. Ignore the random dude.These advertisements are all over Chicago. Specifically, all over the CTA. I am posting it here because I think that it is the perfect marriage (excuse the pun) of patriarchy, heterosexism and capitalism. This ad plays off of insecure masculinity. How do you make wedding rings macho? Why, you equate them with testicles of course.
This ad campaign assumes that all women want engagement rings, that only men can (should?) purchase engagement rings, and that only real men get engaged.
The CTA is FULL of sexist advertisements. The first one I saw was for the movie Captivity. There have been several more since then but I couldn't find them online. I am sure there will be more to come.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Labor Inequalities on Labor Day
Via Feministing.
I read an article this leisurely Labor Day morning and felt compelled to comment. The Financial Times website recently discussed a study which concluded that 2 million professionals leave their jobs every year because of covert racism, sexism or homophobia. Of course, the Financial Times is concerned mostly with the economic cost of these departures more so than the social implications. They focus largely on racism, homophobia and ethnocentrism making only a small mention about sexism at the very end.
The authors of this article reveal their own misogyny:
What about female managers? The only mention of sexism was at the end when a woman left her job because she was too harshly criticized for her attire and her "large breasts." Yes, women, you had better not have large breasts lest you fail to comply with office dress code.
In order to survive in the patriarchal, white, business world one must assimilate. Message to minorities and women: you do not belong here.
I read an article this leisurely Labor Day morning and felt compelled to comment. The Financial Times website recently discussed a study which concluded that 2 million professionals leave their jobs every year because of covert racism, sexism or homophobia. Of course, the Financial Times is concerned mostly with the economic cost of these departures more so than the social implications. They focus largely on racism, homophobia and ethnocentrism making only a small mention about sexism at the very end.
The authors of this article reveal their own misogyny:
Compared with heterosexual white men, who account for the majority of US managers, non-white people were three times more likely to claim they had left after being unfairly treated, while homosexuals were twice as likely.
What about female managers? The only mention of sexism was at the end when a woman left her job because she was too harshly criticized for her attire and her "large breasts." Yes, women, you had better not have large breasts lest you fail to comply with office dress code.
In order to survive in the patriarchal, white, business world one must assimilate. Message to minorities and women: you do not belong here.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Another Reason to Abolish Marriage
After my long hiatus I have returned to my blog. I just needed a short break before graduate school starts.
I believe that feministing covered this article (or one similar to it) but my partner sent it to me and I feel the need to comment.
Researchers at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. and North Carolina State University in Raleigh discovered that married men do less housework that live-in boyfriends. This could suggest either one of two things. Either gender roles really are not innate but are rather socially constructed in cultural institutions like marriage. OR couples who do not buy into oppressive social institutions also do no buy into stereotypical gender roles.
I am sure that it is actually a combination of these two factors but it has brightened my day either way. Marriage is a heterosexist, patriarchal, misogynist institution and studies like this one only provide further evidence that marriage is a mindset and women pay the price (as we have for thousands of years).
I'm with Jessica Valenti. I will never wed.
I believe that feministing covered this article (or one similar to it) but my partner sent it to me and I feel the need to comment.
Researchers at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. and North Carolina State University in Raleigh discovered that married men do less housework that live-in boyfriends. This could suggest either one of two things. Either gender roles really are not innate but are rather socially constructed in cultural institutions like marriage. OR couples who do not buy into oppressive social institutions also do no buy into stereotypical gender roles.
I am sure that it is actually a combination of these two factors but it has brightened my day either way. Marriage is a heterosexist, patriarchal, misogynist institution and studies like this one only provide further evidence that marriage is a mindset and women pay the price (as we have for thousands of years).
I'm with Jessica Valenti. I will never wed.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
To Short Skirt or not to Short Skirt
I was on 'vacation' from Chicago sitting in the living room in my parent’s Green Bay home when my father said “You would think that a feminist would wear a shirt that covered her cleavage. You should wear t-shirts and sweatshirts not tank tops like that.” I could not believe my ears, my father is usually fairly liberal guy and I have never heard him criticize me like this before. This elicited quite a debate between both of my parents and I.
My parents seem to believe that when women dress a certain way they make themselves targets for abuse. This is classic victim blame. As if changing the way that women dress would change the entire institution that allows for their systematic abuse to begin with. I have argued, time and again, that all of the pepper spray and self-defense classes in the world are not going to ‘protect’ women. Women will not be safe in this world until we are considered autonomous human beings with full bodily sovereignty as men are.
I am a feminist. I also like to wear low cut shirts, high heels (occasionally), mascara and skirts. I do, of course, understand that these are tools of the patriarchy. I know that painful shoes force women to walk slower and limit their movement. I know that cosmetics are a huge industry that survives by making women feel ugly unless they are made up. I know that low cut shirts might catch male attention and cause some people to take me less seriously. I also know that men are not restricted in these same ways. These are all reasons that some feminists do choose not to adorn themselves that way. But is that really the answer?
This is one of the many gross double standards that plague women every day. Are my parents right, should I not wear revealing clothing because it puts me at risk? Or should I not allow the terror tactics of the proverbial man to keep me down? It seems to me that most women are not consciously aware of the subtle ways that they alter their lives to protect themselves from male violence. Yet we still live by a strictly prescribed ‘rape schedule.’ As much as I fought my parents on this issue, I know that when I am at home in Chicago I will not wear my mini-skirt out at night. I know that I will not wear low cut tops when I have to walk alone. I know that I will carry my pepper spray in one hand and my cell phone in the other every time I hop on the L after dark.
Whether we like it or not, fear of male violence infiltrates almost every aspect of women’s lives. Even seasoned feminists have to maintain a delicate balance between fighting the patriarchy and protecting ourselves from it. Until the day that women are considered to be autonomous human beings capable of giving and denying consent, until we live in a world that is free of male sexualized violence against women, until women are no longer the sex class, we will never be able to wear our mini-skirts and cleavage bearing tops without even a shred of fear.
I wonder how other women deal with this double bind....
My parents seem to believe that when women dress a certain way they make themselves targets for abuse. This is classic victim blame. As if changing the way that women dress would change the entire institution that allows for their systematic abuse to begin with. I have argued, time and again, that all of the pepper spray and self-defense classes in the world are not going to ‘protect’ women. Women will not be safe in this world until we are considered autonomous human beings with full bodily sovereignty as men are.
I am a feminist. I also like to wear low cut shirts, high heels (occasionally), mascara and skirts. I do, of course, understand that these are tools of the patriarchy. I know that painful shoes force women to walk slower and limit their movement. I know that cosmetics are a huge industry that survives by making women feel ugly unless they are made up. I know that low cut shirts might catch male attention and cause some people to take me less seriously. I also know that men are not restricted in these same ways. These are all reasons that some feminists do choose not to adorn themselves that way. But is that really the answer?
This is one of the many gross double standards that plague women every day. Are my parents right, should I not wear revealing clothing because it puts me at risk? Or should I not allow the terror tactics of the proverbial man to keep me down? It seems to me that most women are not consciously aware of the subtle ways that they alter their lives to protect themselves from male violence. Yet we still live by a strictly prescribed ‘rape schedule.’ As much as I fought my parents on this issue, I know that when I am at home in Chicago I will not wear my mini-skirt out at night. I know that I will not wear low cut tops when I have to walk alone. I know that I will carry my pepper spray in one hand and my cell phone in the other every time I hop on the L after dark.
Whether we like it or not, fear of male violence infiltrates almost every aspect of women’s lives. Even seasoned feminists have to maintain a delicate balance between fighting the patriarchy and protecting ourselves from it. Until the day that women are considered to be autonomous human beings capable of giving and denying consent, until we live in a world that is free of male sexualized violence against women, until women are no longer the sex class, we will never be able to wear our mini-skirts and cleavage bearing tops without even a shred of fear.
I wonder how other women deal with this double bind....
Monday, August 20, 2007
Racism and misogyny reunited again.
A professor of mine just e-mailed me the above cartoon. Apparently, it caused quite a stir in Jacksonville, Florida.I understand that editorial cartoons are often sarcastic and call attention to problems by over-dramatizing them but this seems a bit over the top even for the editorial pages.
Having done a good deal of research on hip-hop culture and on its general misogyny, I can say that the word "ho" is far from uncommon, I can even understand how this cartoonist meant to sarcastically draw attention to it. Where he loses me is in his ignorance of location politics.
A critique as blatant as this needs more sensitivity and more attention to the voice of the cartoonist. In a piece like this his race, class, gender, ethnicity, and more are relevant. I wonder how often little girls are called 'hos' in hip hop culture. I suppose it is not a huge stretch, but does this cartoonist really have the authority to say that?
The cartoonist was critiquing a so-called "no-snitching" culture. Hip-hop certainly plays a role in perpetuating a mistrust of authority but one also has to ask are authorities always deserving of trust? In a community where police abuse is rampant mistrust seems natural. Perhaps a cartoon about police brutality would make more of a statement about the "no-snitching" mentality.
I also wonder why the use of the word "ho" was even necessary here. The cartoonist might be calling attention to the fact that young people are increasingly influenced by the imagery of hip-hop and that they are perpetuating mistrust after hearing their favorite rappers talk about it. But, again, what does calling a little girl a "ho" have to do with any of that?
The use of language in this cartoon is just plain racist. The word "ho" was unnecessary and probably misused, a mistake an ignorant white guy might easily make. I think that Isaiah Rumlin was right on when he said that if this paper has more African American staff making these big decisions, this cartoon never would have been published. It is something to consider.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Yay for being ahead of the news!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)