Childlessness

Not my nephew.

I do not encounter many children in my day-to-day life in Chicago. I cannot believe how much I have taken that for granted. It is easy to forget why I do not want children of my own when I never see them.

As I may have mentioned, I am in Green Bay with family indefinitely and unfortunately that means lots and lots of time with my 16 month old nephew. Now don't get me wrong, I love him very much and nothing makes me happier these days than seeing his chubby smiling little face. However, OMG he is so annoying!!!

Every morning I am rudely awakened at about seven by his screaming if he is unhappy or his squealing if he is happy. Then constantly for the rest of the day it is one or the other of those two. I have been popping ibuprofen like vitamins. AND if he is not making noise he constantly needs to be watched because he can get into anything. Because he requires their undivided attention, I have not had a decent conversation with my parents since I got here.

I don't want this to just be a laundry list of complaints about the child. Again, I am his aunty and I love him but it was really great to get this reminder of why I am so dedicated to childlessness in my own life. I just do not have the patience or temperament for it. Of course, I might reconsider this decision if I could have a wife....

Green Bay Blogging

Still in Green Bay so I figured I'd do some local blogging.

The big controversy here is over a nativity scene located at the entrance of city hall. A Madison based group, the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," called the city on its blatant violation of the ideal of seperation of church and state.


Many folks around here, including my parents, think that the Madison group is making a big deal out of nothing because "no one around here cares!"
I am very glad that someone is finally calling the city on its violation. The nativity scene is a blatantly Christian symbol. Placing it outside of the courthouse suggests a religious bias toward Christianity which is not fair to the many other faiths that make up the population of Brown County.

To make ammends for this decision the city said that if any Jewish group wanted they could put up a menorah. Of course, Hanukkah has been over for a while now..... And that still does not help the myriad other religions that are not represented at this taxpayer funded city building.

Frankly, I too am more than a little shocked that this is such a big deal. It should be obvious that religious symbols have no place in front of a city building.

::sigh::

Back in Green Bay with my family on a hiatus from blogging.... and life in general.

Things are not too great for me right now so I decided to seek professional help. I don't know if it is just because I did that in Green Bay or if this is a trend but my new therapist actually looked me straight in the eye and said "what the heck is women's studies?"

Maybe I should have run right out the door as soon as the words left her mouth but my tremendous anxiety and constant nausea won out and I stayed. I will be seeing her regularly until I decide I can return to Chicago without having a total mental and emotional breakdown.

On the plus side anti-anxiety meds are pretty neat.

Hopefully I will feel up to blogging and/or reading other feminist blogs soon. Those activities used to make me very happy. When I return you can expect at least one more post about "The Office" and of course, Britney's Spears' little sister. I have things to say and hopefully will soon have the energy and presence of mind to say them.

I finally saw Waitress.

It has been a week since I last posted so I figured I should get back to it. Considering how I feel this shall be quite the undertaking. Please bear with me, my posts may not be the greatest for a while. So on that note:


I finally saw Waitress. (Spoilers ahead!!) I have wanted to see it since I heard about it long ago, especially since I had been a waitress all through high school. Anyway, Waitress was a tough film for me to stomach. I just got angrier and angrier throughout the film and kept hoping that it would redeem itself. As is crept toward the birth, I thought there would be no redemption but, alas, there was..... kind of.

The film is about a young woman who is married to a terribly emotionally and physically abusive man. While I understood the necessity of making him so horrible, his character was so awful it was actually quite unbelievable almost like a caricature of every abusive husband one could think of.

Jenna, our protagonist, finds herself pregnant after being drugged and raped by her husband. She is less than thrilled about her pregnancy but in some non-existent scene she decides to carry the pregnancy to term. Similar to Knocked-Up, abortion is never mentioned in this film, not even in the ridiculous joking manner attempted in Knocked-Up. It is just as odd in Waitress because Jenna had long been planning to leave her husband which the pregnancy naturally complicated.

So for the entire movie we watch as abusive husband gets more and more abusive as he discovers her pregnancy and her stash of running away money. At one point he even makes her promise not to love the baby more than him! I nearly vomited through a few scenes.

During all of this Jenna begins an odd affair with her married Ob-Gyn. The affair was also totally unbelievable. She just jumped on him out of the blue in front of his office. As the story progressed I became very concerned that the film was going to end with Jenna being "saved" by the kindly (if piggish) Ob-Gyn or that she was going to be trapped with baby and husband. The film did not leave me hopeful for any other outcome.

In the last fifteen minutes, Jenna gives birth to her daughter, tells abusive husband that she never wants to see him again, tells Ob-Gyn that she is not interested in ruining his marriage and causing any unnecessary pain, and falls madly in love with her daughter.

This ending was unexpected and quite relieving. However, I am concerned that the pro-forced pregnancy movement could see this as a great feminist reason to not have an abortion. "See! The baby actually saved her life!" Which, while it was relieving, it was also totally unbelievable. This is just another instance in which Hollywood gives us a taste of feminism, of empowerment, only to snatch it away. Yes she left abusive husband, yes she didn't end up with a man at the end (amazing!), yes she started her own business and lived happily ever after.

BUT

Her new found freedom came from the elderly patriarch who owned the restaurant in which she worked. Upon his death, he left Jenna with a small fortune.

So there it is. Even a somewhat empowering movie still ends with a big old backlashy slap in the face.

Dismembered Female Bodies Are NOT Funny!

Feministing frequently posts about objects that are made to look like dismembered female body parts. (Sadly that sentence could have been MUCH longer.)


I found one to add to the collection today during a random google search. The Butt Buoy floats in the water above one's anchor looking like either a murdered or seriously mangled female body. (You really need to see the site to get the full effect.) It is appallingly acceptable to symbolically annihilate female bodies for a JOKE!!! How is that funny?

Taken in the context of domestic violence, date rape, and the every day objectification that women live with this is so not funny.

"Which Animal is Most Like Having Sex With a Woman?"

My nephew's mother alerted me to the show Manswers on the oh-so-problematic Spike TV. Because I do not have cable I have not had the privilege of actually watching this horrendous show but I have been able to watch some of the clips on their website.

Spike TV is television designed especially for young men. To which I say a resounding HA!! As if ALL television were not designed by and for men. It reminds me of the argument that if there is a BET there should be a WET. Spike TV and its Manswers are just another of many anti-feminist, woman-hating, backlashy shows meant to help hetero white guys get it up.

A few of the clips that I had the pleasure of viewing include: "Are women with fake boobs hornier?" "How to make your pick up a hot lady tub," "Hooker or cop," "Which animal is most like having sex with a woman?" and the oh-so-flattering "Make a stripper your lady?"

A few gems from the show:

"Any time a girl is around another girl there's always a little bit of competition."
"If she gets bigger knockers you get more sex because chicks with fake boobs are hornier."

Shows like this are the reason that we still desperately need feminism. Enough said.

When Will Women Be Considered Whole Human Beings?

Image Via.

The other day I came across this image while doing a google search. Now I am all about eliminating and/or preventing breast cancer. However, I do not like the tendency toward dismembering female bodies in the name of awareness. This shirt makes it seem as if ending breast cancer is for male (or female, I suppose) sexual gratification rather than stopping the unnecessary loss of female lives. Breast cancer sucks. Women suffer horribly and sometimes die from it. It is not sweet and pink! But most of all, it is NOT about men or what gets them off!

This shirt is just one of many like it that I have come across. I Blame the Patriarchy has a fabulous disection of this trend.

The Holidays: A Time for Antiquated Gender Roles

Image Via

The holidays are always a good time to take pause and think about family. I have been thinking a lot about my family because I understand that in order to enact radical change one often has to start with one's self. My family is no feminist haven, in fact, I take the most flak about my beliefs from members of my own family.

A typical Thanksgiving in my family involves my aunt(s), mother, grandmother and myself in the kitchen preparing our feast while my father, brother and uncle sit in the living room watching football. I am told that this is not at all uncommon in other families. As the women served up the dinner that they had spent the entire morning, nay WEEK, preparing for, my uncle and father could not even pry themselves away from the television for long enough to eat with the family. No, instead we all had to watch the game while we ate and tried to converse with on another over the clamor of glorified male violence.

After dinner, the men retired back to the living room to continue the game-watching. At this point I abandoned my post in the kitchen and went out to talk to my uncle. My uncle fancies himself a liberal minded yuppy, but still has a very difficult time understanding my disdain for marriage (he says this to me as he is reclining with a beer watching football being served desert by his wife). He tells me that he has an egalitarian marriage (his wife is the primary caretaker of their twin three year olds despite the fact that she too works full time) and cannot understand why I don't think I could have the same.

Well for starters even women who are determined to step out of their prescribed gender roles seem to fall right back into them after marriage. (At least that appears to be the case of my aunt). The words 'egalitarian' and 'marriage' seem mutually exclusive to me. How can women ever be equal or even safe in an institution that was designed to enslave them? Anyway, my point is that his own enormous level of privilege is completely invisible to my uncle and I find that devastating.

I am saddened by the knowledge that I cannot change even my own family. How on earth do I expect to change the world? If I suggested that the men and women switch roles for a holiday, I am sure I'd be cast right out of my family.

Because Making Fun of Childbirth is Hilarious

Just found this on AOL. Sheesh. I guess it is just really easy for some men to make fun of anything that is equated with femininity.

Feminists and the Men who Love Them

I don't know if men can be feminists but I sure do know that they can support feminist ideas and goals. A friend and classmate sent me this link to her partner's blog. I read about this study on feministing and it makes me very happy. But it makes me even happier to hear men proudly proclaim that they love feminists (or one in particular) without fear or shame.

Upon reading the post at faithfully liberal I decided to investigate my own relationship and discovered that some men do indeed love dating feminist women. Here is what my partner said when I linked him to the study:

"I believe it. And I tell my friends that too. No mind games. You tell me what you want."

Yay!

It is more than a little bit pathetic that we need a study to tell us that feminism makes for happier relationships. It should be obvious. But since it isn't, I am glad for this study and even more glad for men like Aaron who love feminists.

"The Gendercator" and Transphobia

Image Via

Tonight I went to a screening of the independent film The Gendercator at the Center on Halsted. This film has been causing quite a stir amongst transpeople across the country and in the queer blogosphere. The film has actually been banned from a few LGBT(qai...) film festivals for supposedly being anti-trans.

I will say that I do not think that this film was anti-trans. I do not think it had anything to do with transgender issues AT ALL. Before I go into an analysis I will give you a brief synopsis. A young non-gender normative lesbian woman falls asleep at a party in the 1970s after smoking much marijuana (or what appeared to be marijuana). She wakes up 75 years later to find that the religious right has taken over. A person can only be a man or a woman and MUST fit into rigid gender categories, brave-new-world-style.

One can have surgery to fit the gender that they prefer but once they are in their new body they MUST comply with the rigid gender roles. This young woman is forced by medical professionals to be surgically transformed into a man. This petrifies her because while she likes women she also likes her androgynous body. In something of a cop-out (on the director's part) the sequence ends up being a dream and she wakes up again to find the 'real' world. Fin.

Anyway, the controversy has arisen because many people see this film as being transphobic. I do not see that. I think the film is a dystopian fantasy in which we see what would happen if the religious right had their way and choice was taken away. This film is very much about force and removal of choice. The surgery in this film was not a result of some deeply felt yearning or life long struggle with one's body image not matching her/his gender identity. This surgery was about a woman being forced to become a man because of her clothing and her sexual object choice. That is something very different indeed.

After screening the film there was a panel discussion with the director, Catharine Crouch, and five other activists/theorists in the gender queer field. The discussion was fascinating. Judith Halberstam was on the panel! She had the most insightful comments, I wish I could have heard more from her. I have long been a fan of her work.

The director defended her film saying that it was meant as a resistance to medicalization of bodies and that straight women are socialized to believe that if they do not look like Barbie they are value-less and that plastic surgery is a way to fit into that norm is scary. She also said that transmen are forced into FTM surgery in order to fit into a gendered norm. Because their bodies are not stereotypically masculine they are not valued as males in our culture. Her argument seemed to be that people should be content with their bodies and not seek surgery as a way of copping out of dealing with non-normative gender.

This is where she got herself into a bit of hot water. NONE of the above things were in her film. These are statements that she has made while on her national tour with this film. The other panelists were rightly upset at the notion that transmen are somehow depoliticized just by virtue of their maleness. Choosing a male body is not a way of avoiding feminism! It is not a way of gaining privilege. It might be a side-effect sometimes, but I seriously doubt that that is the reason many transpeople transition.

One of the things that I enjoyed the most was the reappropriating of the directors notion of medicalization as a tool of the patriarchy. While I agree that it has been used that way (especially in the case of intersexed peoples) it seems to deny transpeople the agency that they deserve. Halberstam argued that medicalization is just a much a tool for trans liberation as it is a tool of the patriarchy.

Image Via

Halberstam was clearly annoyed with Crouch. Crouch seemed to be rather ignorant on trans issues and this is what is getting her into trouble. She is going around the country in the name of starting a dialogue and than openly admitting that she has no idea what trans identity is! She certainly should not be a spokesperson for this community by any means. The film was not anti-trans but the director might well be. As Halberstam suggested, she would do well to read much, much more queer theory before taking on such an ambitious tour.

Finally, I want to say that I think this film is mis-named a satire. There is nothing satirical about it, it is a dystopian fantasy about an extraordinarily conservative regime. Possible? Maybe. Likely? Probably not. All I know after listening to this panel is that Crouch ought not claim to have made a movie about transpeople when it clearly is not. And she probably would do well to pick up some queer theory.

I am so appalled I am nearly speachless.

I just saw what is perhaps the most upsetting thing I have ever seen on TV. Ever.

Dr. Phil had a special episode in which he discussed race and… birth control. Not really sure what the connection there is. I had to fast forward through the race discussion because it was so unbearable. (A giant white man lecturing Master P on his racism!!!)

They moved on to a discussion about the merits of dispensing birth control to middle and high schoolers. So who would you think Dr. Phil would get to help him with this discussion? Perhaps a gynecologist, a Planned Parenthood outreach coordinator, or even a women’s studies professor? Nope. Bishop T.D. Jakes. Another middle aged man. Of course! Because he is qualified to lecture viewers about female sexuality (without any mention of male sexuality other than Dr.Phil's 'joke' that those boys should be kicked in the rear end). Ridiculous.


Let me just say, I do not necessarily disagree with what they were saying. Yes I think parents should be more involved in their children’s lives. Yes I think that many teenagers have sex before they are ready. Yes I believe that our society creates a horrible sense of confusion for young people with messages of sexual liberation along with abstinence only sex ed. (this, of course, they did not discuss). Yes I think that birth control should not be distributed in schools without a very serious and lengthy discussion about the consequences of sexual behavior. However, I am appalled by the overt sexism of having two middle-aged men not only lecture but shame young women into behaving in accordance with some antiquated notion of sexual propriety.

I am so shocked and appalled that I cannot even think of anything else to say about this. This is classic backlash.

Pushing Daisies and Anti-Feminist Backlash

Image Via

Since I started this blog I figured I really ought to start watching more prime time TV shows. As it is way too late for me to get into Grey's Anatomy or Desperate Housewives, I figured I'd pick a new show. All of the billboards on CTA intrigued me to watch Pushing Daisies. A detective with the ability to reawaken the dead seemed like a unique concept to me. And it is. It is like a much jollier version of Law and Order. Well, maybe not. But I like detective dramas so it was worth a shot. Aside from the somewhat cheesy relationship between Ned the pie maker and Charlotte "Chuck," the show is thoroughly enjoyable. However, after watching all five available episodes I noticed something a little upsetting.

Now I know that feminists are often accused of taking things too seriously or seeing sexism where there supposedly is none. And I can already sense that coming here, but I see it and I cannot be the only one so bear with me.

"Chuck" was viciously murdered in the first episode. Ned, being in the business of crime solving, went to revive her just long enough to find out who done it. Upon realizing that she was his long lost childhood sweetheart, he could not bring himself to touch her again and thereby end her life forever. (This is one of many catches to his magical ability. One can only be revived by his touch once, a second touch and dead forever.)

He lets her live and she becomes his new crime solving partner (along with a large, cynical, wise cracking black man...eesh). They go on to seemingly fall in love despite the fact that if Ned ever touches "Chuck" she will be dead forever. Because everyone thinks that "Chuck" is dead she cannot have contact with anyone from her old life lest she reveal Ned's power and ruin his crime solving business.

To avoid that (and to make a good show) "Chuck" moves into Ned's apartment and begins working at his pie shop. She basically plops comfortably (how?) into his life and gives up everything she cared about before. Though it pains her terribly, she cuts off contact with her two beloved eccentric aunts. I am not sure why this is necessary because Ned obviously entrusts several people with his secret and I am not sure why the aunts (who would seemingly be happy to have their niece back at whatever cost) cannot be privy to this.

My conclusion is that this keeps "Chuck" trapped in Ned's life. I am reminded of I Dream of Jeanie. She lives in a bottle to be of use when her "master" needs her. Again I cannot help but sense backlash. Major backlash. Jeanie was a backlashy show. It came out right during the heyday of the 1970's feminist movement in an effort to placate men who were dissatisfied with the rights that women had attained. Put a sexy, subservient woman (and don't even get me started on the orientalization!) in a bottle who can only come out when he needs her to do his bidding. Pushing Daisies, though much more subtle, is not much different. "Chuck" is always at Ned's mercy. She had to give up her entire world for him (and yes I get that she would be dead were it not for him) and now she has to live in a world where a single touch from him would kill her! That is a male fantasy if I ever saw one. He has total control and power AND he has a gorgeous women madly in love with him, tucked safely away in his life.

Image Via

Anyway, I like this show. It is well written and clever. I know that as feminists sometimes we have to take what is available to us or live pretty unhappy lives. I like TV and I like this show. But I recognize some pretty serious problems with the premise that cannot go ignored. This is a classic backlash show. I think a major question for this blog is how does one navigate the world of popular culture while still maintaining a feminist lens?

Parenting and Masculinity on Cable TV

Tonight I had the pleasure of catching an episode of Showbiz Tonight on CNN. I had no idea what to expect of an entertainment news show on cable. The ones I get to see on broadcast TV at home are just wicked and I supposed I shouldn't have expected much more of CNN.

Anyway, one of their feature stories was about the actors in the new film American Gangster which I have not heard much about but I am sure it is another pornographic display of romanticized male violence (perhaps I will write more on that film later). Showbiz Tonight interviewed Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. Well, mostly it was Denzel lecturing Russell (and anyone else watching) on how to be a father.

Now I should warn readers that I recently finished reading bell hooks' The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love and it has influenced me. A lot.

Denzel Washington talked about a few key things in child-rearing. He said that "Sports...is the best thing I did." Suggesting that engaging in hyperviolent organized and professional sports is the best thing for children upsets me. Violence is a disease and institutions like professional sports (and I am talking about the football, hockey type sports here) are huge perpetuators of violent behavior.

hooks talks a lot about how men are damaged by patriarchy. She suggests that boys and men are told to turn off their emotions and turn inward at a very young age. Masculinizing institutions like professional sports encourage and reward that type of behavior.

This is only the beginning of Washington's terrifying, patriarchal advice. He also said that he put his son on an inner-city football team and his son hated it. He got a call from the coach saying "Your son is crying." To which Washington said "Be ten times harder on him, if I hear about another tear another whimper I’ll be back down there and put a foot in his behind in front of the team.”

Because when a male child has the audacity to show emotion, to express himself, to dislike absorbing physical violence without a wince, the best thing to do is to kick his ass. I was horrified. That child now knows that men are violent and that he is not a man unless he is violent and if he strays from that hegemonic masculine ideal that he will be harshly punished. I cannot think of worse advice. That is not tough love as Showbiz Tonight so graciously called it, that is abuse.

hooks mission is to teach men and women that their sons need and want love and that when they don't get it they learn a very painful type of masculinity. And it is this blogger's opinion that masculinity is destroying men.

See the video here.

On the marriage of racism and sexism at Halloween

Image Via

I have always had a hard time digesting the hypersexualized costumes that so many women don for Halloween. Could all of these women really be sitting around in their everyday clothing just dying to take it all off at first opportunity? What kind of sick male fantasy is that? And why are women so eagerly complicit in this?

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.