The Ladies of the Wolverine

This post is a part of my summer blockbuster series. I'll be tagging the whole thing as 2013 blockbusters.

Somehow the new X-Men movie, The Wolverine, totally slipped under the radar for me. I didn't even know it was coming out this summer until Ronald got passes to a free screening last Tuesday (and we were turned away because it was too popular.) So we waited for it to come out this weekend and I was pleasantly surprised, especially after crapfest that was X-Men Origins: Wolverine. As Ronald wrote on his Facebook, "The Wolverine is the kind of movie the character deserves. Apology accepted, 20th Century Fox."

Aside from being a generally enjoyable X-Men film, the movie actually contained interesting, important women! Who interacted with each other! And had a friendship not related to any of the men involved!

Of course, the main story line and plot center around Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). That isn't surprising; it's his movie. But the interesting fact is that he is surrounded by women who fight along side him, threaten him as a villain, or plague his mind. Let's take a closer look at each of them. As always, this may get a little spoiler-y. I'm only going to focus on the female characters but some of the plot may be revealed in doing that.

[Image text: the four women of The Wolverine: Yukio, Viper, Mariko, and Jean Gray]

Language Already HAS Power

Just a quick thought. You know the type of troll/bigot who says, "It's no big deal to say [slur X]! You're the one giving it power!"...?

I just need to vent about this mentality. Are the people who say this seriously suggesting that language can exist in some kind of vacuum separate from our society? Do they truly not understand that slurs are inextricable from their bigoted histories which, in many cases, were (and still are!) used along side very real violence and murder? We can't just wake up today and deem slurs to carry no meaning or a neutral meaning. It is not the victims of the slurs who "give them power." It was the oppressors when they used them as ways to demean and dehumanize others. There is no ignoring that.

People who tout this mentality just want to put the onus of oppression on the oppressed. They suggest, "If you weren't so offended/upset/fixated with this, then it couldn't be used against you." (A close cousin to "just ignore it!" people.)

But coupled with it is an underlying implication that these trolls want to use this language themselves, or perhaps to justify their past use of this language. And it's not just that they want to use it, it's that they want to use it without repercussion, so they position the victim of the slur as the one who has a problem (ie the one who is "giving it power.")

I get that people can and will ultimately say what they want, so bigoted language is NOT going anywhere. But to suggest that the reason that slurs are offensive is because marginalized people have given it power is at best laughable.



Related:
The People You Meet When You Write About Race
Some guy thinks that saying sexism = power + oppression is "giving men the power."

Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

"Just Ignore It!" is the Worst Advice

I can't emphasize enough that for the most part, my interactions with people online in feminists spaces are very positive, educational, and rewarding. That said, there are MANY individuals out there who just like to shit on other people. And being a feminist online means that you get the worst of that on a pretty regular basis.

Recently, a few of my posts on Tumblr were met with reactions like, "Get over it" or the ever popular "Complaining about this stuff won't make it better! Just ignore it."

SIIIIIIIIIIGH.

The Conjuring and Motherhood

This post is a part of my summer blockbuster series. I'll be tagging the whole thing as 2013 blockbusters.

Hmm...

Ya know, I wasn't sure what to make of The Conjuring at first. I mean--it's was horrifying to me, which means as a horror movie, it accomplished its goal. But from a gender perspective, I didn't initially know what to make of it or think I'd have much of anything to analyze. At first blush, you could write this film off as just portraying stereotypical gender roles (mom runs the home, dad works) and leave it at that. But the more I contemplated it, the more I realized there was actually interesting stuff going on. Spoilers after the cut.

Hook(ed) Up

This is a guest post by Mackenzie Busch, who blogs regularly at Fetus Frolic, where this piece originally appeared and was published with permission

I am old enough to remember a time when you had to call or meet someone in person to talk to them, even though technically I wasn’t dating until the “messenger” technology was the preferred mode of communication. While most of our communication is done via social media now, my favorite observations are those interactions that still occur in the wild. The first question I am asked at a bar, 9 times out of 10 is, “What do you do?”, I always want to twist this question because it has so many possibilities, but instead I err on the side of sarcasm, I live in Hollywood what the fuck do you think I do? I don’t want to answer that mundane question that’s killing my buzz. Instead I usually lie about my name and what I do, because I have never met a guy at a bar that went past that one night and it’s fun to be Lindsay the kindergarten teacher or Ashley the marine biologist that went to Yale (yes, some jackass believed you could study marine biology at Yale). It’s the poor man’s art of hooking up, and I have found that dudes really want to sleep with school teachers, they’re like the Big Foot of LA and smarmy little douches love to prey on the seemingly innocent. It gives me so much delight to watch these men try to work their way into a woman’s drawers, including my own, and why not fuck with them, it’s the only place women are given any power, for now.

More on Young Adult Fiction's Virginity Problem (A Case Study)

[Content note: discussions of virginity, sexual abuse, and self harm.]

Here's the first of my posts on this subject, if you missed it.

So I took a dive into the virtual bargain bin again. I keep trying to capitalize on my one free Kindle book per month with my Amazon Prime subscription. So I recently downloaded Sometimes Never by Cheryl McIntyre. It was a clueless dive into the bin because all I knew about the book was the Amazon description:

Hope didn't have the best role model when it came to relationships. She’s content with her current no-strings-attached extracurricular activity with the lead singer of her band. She’s never believed in love and commitment. Mason starts his eighth school in five years anticipating nothing more than the usual—boring classes, fighting more than making friends, and girls happily willing to succumb to his easy smile. He’s never put much stock into love at first sight—until he sees her. Regardless of their painful pasts, Hope and Mason discover that sometimes never can become forever. 

I didn't even read any user reviews...I just figured I'd just go for it. While the book broke some of the standard young adult (YA) fiction pitfalls, it was far from perfect in regards to the ever present fixation on female virginity.


This will be spoilery.

Going Beyond the Bechdel Test

If you've read just a few of my film analyses, you might have noticed that I rarely discuss the Bechdel Test, and when I do, it's just a passing statement or two. It's not that I've forgotten; it's because I think that the Bechdel Test isn't that interesting when it comes to the overall gender portrayal in films. But I frequently receive emails and messages asking if the films I've written about pass it or mentioning that a movie did or didn't pass. Since it seems to be so important so so many people, I'd like to explain why I feel we need to move past Bechdel.




Let me back, up. I think that the Bechdel Test is an important concept to consider. It points out how sadly rare it is for movies to have two named female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man. But I take two main issues with this criteria being used as short hand for a "feminist film."

1) There overall gender elements of a text that are more important than Brechdel.
When Bechdel is used as the bare minimum for a movie to be viewed as not totally sexist, fine. But I don't think it makes sense to place undue emphasis on Bechdel. For example, in my recent Pacific Rim analysis, as I mentioned, there was a very strong female character who played a critical role in the action of the story. But it doesn't pass Bechdel. So should a movie that passes Bechdel but relegates the women to minor side characters be seen as "more feminist" than Pacific Rim? I'd argue not. As with everything, it is so much more important to view the overall messages, themes, and the full picture than to tick off boxes to pass Bechdel. Otherwise, you're just treading into tokenism and pandering. Which leads me directly to my next point...

2) Bechdel can be abused as an easy out for filmmakers to think they've done something progressive when they actually haven't.
Because my partner is a filmmaker, I know a lot of men who make independent films. As such, I have literally heard and read situations where a few of them have said things like, "Oh let's make sure we give that character a name so that this movie passes the Bechdel Test." I'm not kidding. Because Bechdel is pretty well known at this point, it is effecting male screenwriters. But the net result is not positive when Brechdel is simply pandered to. Like I said above, it is so much more important for films to contain strong and authentic female characters who directly contribute to the action of the film, than it is for Brechdel to be met. I want men to examine how their privilege and their experiences have colored their work and really think about what they create.

So, sorry...you don't get a cookie because you wrote in a 2 second scene where two women speak.

Now, I'm hardly the first person to point these things out and note flaws in Bechdel. But I think it's important that I lay out why I often overlook this issue in my analyses. It's not a mistake...it's often a decision I make. I want to de-emphasize this test.

I don't like things that feel like simplistic reductions of big concepts and the way that The Bechdel Test is applied often falls into this category. I want to encourage actual analysis and thoughtful discussion. Again, I'm not saying we should abandon Bechdel because it does start very important dissections of the media texts before us. But we cannot and should not stop at Bechdel nor give it too much weight.

There is no easy short cut to making more feminist films.


Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

No Justice. None.

It's been a rough past few days. Friday night, I watched the anti abortion omnibus bill pass the Texas State Senate. Saturday night we learned that George Zimmerman was acquitted of the murder of Trayvon Martin.

My heart is so heavy. Earlier today, I was listening to the rebroadcast of Friday's Tell Me More and their weekly barbershop segment. Everyone was making their predictions about the verdict. The consensus was that Zimmerman would at the very least be found guilty of manslaughter. Knowing how things actually went down, it was almost too painful to listen to.

From the very beginning, I have felt that George Zimmerman acted on racist impulse and that this whole thing is mired in racism. As I wrote in March of 2012, Zimmerman knew nothing about Trayvon Martin other than what he SAW in that moment. We know that Martin was unarmed and doing literally nothing wrong. We know that Zimmerman shot him point blank in the heart. But even if you can't see the racism in these facts, you should at least be able to see them in this verdict. We apparently value the life of a black teenage boy so lowly, that the man who admits he killed him... will do no time.

Even teens who text and drive and kill someone in a resulting car accident have done SOME time.

Some people have postulated, how would this have gone if Zimmerman was black and Martin was white? It's a valid question and I just don't think you can make the case that the results would be the same. In fact, what stands in greatest contrast to the Zimmerman trial outcome is the case of a black Florida woman, Marissa Alexander, who got 20 years for firing warning shots into the air at her abusive ex.

Read that again. Warning shots at her abusive ex...20 years. I want to puke when I think about it. How can we pretend that we have a "justice" system when this is what's happening?

A quote from bell hooks' "All About Love" has been floating around in the wake of this decision. It is an important quote in general, but especially poignant right now:

White supremacy has taught him that all people of color are threats irrespective of their behavior. Capitalism has taught him that, at all costs, his property can and must be protected. Patriarchy has taught him that his masculinity has to be proved by the willingness to conquer fear through aggression; that it would be unmanly to ask questions before taking action. Mass media then brings us the news of this in a newspeak manner that sounds almost jocular and celebratory, as though no tragedy has happened, as though the sacrifice of a young life was necessary to uphold property values and white patriarchal honor. Viewers are encouraged to feel sympathy for the white male home owner who made a mistake. The fact that this mistake led to the violent death of an innocent young man does not register; the narrative is worded in a manner that encourages viewers to identify with the one who made the mistake by doing what we are led to feel we might all do to “protect our property at all costs from any sense of perceived threat." This is what the worship of death looks like.

Trudy at Gradient Lair has an amazing piece up called "The Verdict Of 'Not Valuable' Was Delivered On Black Life. Again." I agree completely that this is what the verdict is saying. And it's what both this case and the anti abortion omnibus bill have in common. (Again, that bill will close the clinics in rural areas that serve almost exclusively women of color and present an undue burden to obtaining abortions for those people specifically. If/when it goes into effect, people WILL die from back alley procedures.)

Everywhere we turn, the measure of a life that matters is whiteness.

I have nothing else to say.


Related reading:
Alex Fraser's Facebook message for Zimmerman
Racialicious' compilation on the subject
Melissa McEwan on the verdict
The Public Shaming blog has a piece up showing the depths of our racist society (content note: racist slurs)
100 Black activists respond to Zimmerman's acquittal 




Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

Pacific WIN

This post is a part of my summer blockbuster series. I'll be tagging the whole thing as 2013 blockbusters.

Ahhh! I really liked Pacific Rim! I just thought it was fun, and action packed, and original! I'm kind of on a fangirl high! I could go on and on about how much fun I had on this cinematic adventure, but instead, I'll focus on gender side of things, which I was actually really pleased with.

As a warning, I don't really think I can cover all of this without getting spoilery, so there's that. In fact, I know I'll get spoilery.

What Does the Bling Ring Say About Us?

[Image text: characters from the Bling Ring, decked out in their
illegally obtained designer items.]

This post is actually NOT a part of my summer blockbuster series, because I don't think that the Bling Ring is a "blockbuster," nor do I think it has any thing worth analyzing from a gender perspective. But I happened to see it over the weekend and it's on my brain.

I had somehow managed to never hear of the Bling Ring when it happened. As much as I love pop culture in a general kind of way, I don't really keep up on "reality" stars or much of celebrity gossip. So when I first heard of the film, I didn't even know it was based on a true story until Mr. Nerdy Feminist mentioned it randomly.

I am Exhausted, But I'll Be OK

I'm experiencing some pretty heavy activist fatigue...and it goes way beyond the fact that I've physically been present the past three weeks, helping out with the opposition to the anti abortion omnibus bill. I'm emotionally exhausted listening to all the testimony, reports, tweets, and even more so from the litany of lies that the antis are sharing.

I'm doing what I can to keep my chin up, engage in self-care, and continue to participate when I can. It can really feel like a lot, but I know that ultimately, I'll be OK.

I'm reminding myself just how privileged I am in this. I have the ability to participate in this process. I live close enough that there is no financial burden for me to show up at the capitol. I work for an organization and a leader who has allowed me to spend time there without facing scrutiny or fear of losing my job. I don't have to worry about child care. I'm free to come and go in my house as I please without anyone controlling me, intimidating me, or questioning me. I have lots of friends and colleagues  who are also at the capitol in support of the cause I believe in.

It is for these reasons and more that I know I need to continue to be present and see this through. As many, many people have pointed out, while the majority of the pro-choice activists look like me, the people that this legislation would disproportionately affect, don't. And most of them they can't make it to the capitol to tell their stories.

So I need to see this through. I'm exhausted. But I'll be fine.

Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

Sorry, I Don't Have Time for Your Stank Attitude, I'm Too Busy ActuallyDoing Something

Listen...as I've said numerous times, I'm not a generally cheery person. I don't walk around with a rain cloud over my head, but I do tend to be a smidge cynical and loads sarcastic. However there are a few pessimistic things that I have no time for. One of them emerged recently surrounding Wendy Davis' filibuster...I noticed a few people on Facebook and Twitter saying things like, "This doesn't even matter. Perry will just call a second session."

Cue head explosion.

Let me say first...while I was actively participating in the whole anti SB5 movement, I did mention a few times that Perry could very well call a second session (and of course he did). But I can't help but feel that my motivation in stating that is very different from the person tweeting it from their couch. My intention was to put out a reminder that the fight was long from over and that we'd have to keep at it no matter what setbacks might be in front of us. Can the same be said for someone who's not actively involved? To me it reads like a whole lot of, "Why do you even bother?"

I have such a problem with that mentality. There is little more than I can stand in life than a complacent attitude. If something matters to me, it's just not an option for me to sit at home, shrug, and go on watching Community on Netflix. I think if you want change, you must actively and intentionally seek and create it.

Besides...when people say "It doesn't even matter" my immediate knee jerk reaction is: how do you define "matter?" If your only measure of success is changing the laws, then yes, the reaction against the omnibus anti abortion law might not "matter" if it inevitably passes. But is that a fair measure of success? I measure success by the fact that there has been a ton of national attention drawn to this issue, it is exceedingly clear that the people do no support this legislation, and, personally, I did all I could to stand in opposition to this deeply problematic bill. I did my part. We tried.

That "matters."

I've also noticed that the people who say things like this are generally the kind who take some sick pleasure in raining on other's parades. If everyone loves a movie, they must be the ones who post how much they hated it. If everyone is embracing a fashion trend, they must be the ones to make sneering comments about it. And in the case of politics like this, they seem to not only take pleasure in shitting on the passion of the movement, but they also hold the erroneous belief that those of us who are engaged are only amped up because we don't know what they know. And that if they tell us, they are somehow educating us through their boarderline antagonistic Tweets and Facebook posts.

I know that this sad, cynical, complacent attitude is simply a reflection of something within them, so I try not to let it get to me. But what does worry me is that these toxic opinions will affect others, so that's why I'd just like to emphasize again that even if the omnibus anti abortion bill passes, what we have done here in Texas has mattered. We have made news and history. And for the reproductive rights movement overall, we will always face setbacks, but we simply can't be discouraged. There's too much at stake.


Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

Intersectionalism Has a Long Way to Go, Even on the Left

I promise, someday, I will write about something other than my experience standing in opposition to the omnibus anti-abortion legislation here in Texas. Someday, but not today.

Yesterday was another long day at the capitol. I worked from 9-2 and then assisted with whatever Planned Parenthood needed including managing lines and feeding volunteers from 2-midnight. If I may whine for a minute, my back has really taken a hit from being on my feet all day. It's started spasming, which is a new and scary thing.

Anyway, my experiences yesterday (and over the course of this process in general) have reminded me that feminism and progressive movements are still unfortunately far from inclusive. Here's a quick run down of several things I have noticed:



1) The main coalition of prochoice organizations has run off shirts that read, "Stand with Texas women." While this is better than the antis' condescending "Protect women," it is still cissexist and denies the reality that many people who do not identify as women need access to abortion. This exclusive phrasing of the entire campaign I'm sure has felt very disheartening to many who are not represented under the label "women." I think the organizations involved are wary of politicizing words like "choice" but "Texas stands for choice" would have been a better alternative, in my opinion. (Edited to add: It's also been pointed out to me that the "stand" verb is abelist, so I feel we must take that into consideration too.)

This concern is a big problem that I see with mainstream prochoice politics in general. For example, I saw a tweet going around the other day that said something to the effect of "This isn't just a reproductive issue, it's a women's issue." I believe the intent of this was to help people see how reproductive access is inherently tied into gender politics as a whole, but the reductionist language of "women" perpetrates trans* erasure.  As Jane Doe, MD tweeted earlier today,

Trans* inclusiveness to me is inherent to feminism, bc biological determinism & essentialism is the unthinkable alternative...Feminism needs to not just be trans* inclusive, but explicitly advocate for trans* people. Otherwise we let gender based oppression prosper.

2) So. Many. Ableist. Slurs. As someone who is handing out food, I occupy a space of special joy in many tired, frustrated prochoice activists' minds. As such, they come over to grab a bite and vent about what they're seeing and unfortunately, that frequently dissolves into calling antis every possible version of "crazy" they can think of. (One person even ranted to me about how "the other side is truly mental.") I try to mirror back non-stigmatizing language in regards to my own frustration with antis, but there's so little than I can do in these 20 second interactions to address the issue.

Too often words like "crazy" have become short hand for people who we disagree with or don't like. We see antis with signs that say incredibly offensive things, so the visceral reaction is to attack them back. But the result when the words we use have an ableish intent is that the non-neurotypical prochoicers who are all around us feel isolated from the movement.

And while we're talking about ableism, can we just stop for a minute and acknowledge that Wendy Davis wouldn't have even been able to filibuster last week if she was not physically able to stand for those 13 hours. Seriously. It's in the Texas law...a senator MUST stand to conduct a filibuster, regardless of their personal physical circumstances. Furthermore, I read that there were accessibility issues for the buildings and rooms involved, which presented real challenges to citizens participating in this process.

How messed up is that?

3) Tons of people feel the need to share their thoughts on the nature of the food donated, usually with the intent to fat shame and body and/or food police. So as a food passer-outer, I have a front row seat for all the weight/food related comments. Every 5th person makes some comment about how they "shouldn't take another cookie" or are "going to have to run an extra mile after this." Others bemoan that we need more "healthy" options or go with the whole, "well I guess I can be bad today" angle. As a happily fat person, who has learned to embrace who I am despite the chorus of "you're not good enoughs!" it is particularly frustrating to have so many people share their very personal food and health related values out loud over and over and over. The food that is provided by generous people from all over the country is to help sustain us as we engage with the political process. As such, it needs to be cost effective, easily available for delivery, and come in mass quantities.

That means that it's not going to work for everyone...and that's OK. What's not OK is sharing possibly triggering food/body thoughts with everyone else around the table.




As I've said before, I have been infinitely impressed with how diverse the people who have come together over this issue are. I've interacted with people of so many backgrounds, ages, and gender expressions, who hail from all over the state.

But if our movement is still marginalizing people, then we're doing it wrong.

I do not intend to needlessly criticize my fellow prochoicers who have been out there day after day...I admire our spirit and I'm proud to be a part of this. I just want us to be better, because the fact of the matter is that unless this movement addresses all of its own oppressive elements, it is inherently flawed and incomplete.



Please see the commenting policy before replying to this post.

The Heat: Almost a Home Run

[Image text: McCarthy and Bullock]

This post is a part of my summer blockbuster series. I'll be tagging the whole thing as 2013 blockbusters.

So I finally saw The Heat...and by finally I mean it just came out this past weekend, but my husband and I kept getting free passes to advanced screenings all summer that we could never use.

Anyhoo, it's a comedy starring Melissa McCarthy as Officer Mullins and Sandra Bullock as Special Agent Ashburn. It was written by Katie Dippold (writer for Parks and Rec) and directed by Paul Feig (director of Bridesmaids.)

Let's cut to the chase...I really liked this movie. It was funny and entertaining. The main action of the story revolves around Mullins and Ashburn, who are very different and yet very similar oddballs, working a joint case together. At first Ashburn is off put by Mullins' unorthodox style (aggressive, trusting her gut, and throwing the rule book out of the window) while Mullins views Ashburn as too straight laced and unpersonable. Through the course of their misadventures, they learn to play to their strengths and work together. (Kind of the grown up, lady version of the same lesson in Monsters University.)