I've been a bad feminist. I haven't written in a while. It's not that I haven't felt like writing. Or that there hasn't been totally awesome stuff to write about...it's just more like I've been in a funk.
I don't even know how to describe my mood lately, other than...not. chipper.
But anyway, instead of a lengthy analytical post which I'm known for (ha, ha) here are some things I've been thinking about lately.
1) There's been really interesting discussion over at Feministe about fat shaming. Like how fat shaming and slut shaming are connected. Or why the whole "I'm just concerned about their health" excuse doesn't justify fat shaming. Speaking of fat shaming...
2) Gabourey Sidibe on the cover of ELLE. If that's not colorism, what is? In one of my workshops I wrote for work, we compare before and afters of celebrities on magazines and we are SO using this one. And in the tie back to fat shaming, I like how she gets the headshot, while everyone else gets a full body pose on the cover. Nice, ELLE, nice. (Thanks to Myranda for the heads up.)
3) Why are tea partiers picking up steam in US elections? Why, just why? When I think about "take our country back" I actually apply that to reasonable Americans taking it back from them; a fringe, extremist party.
4) As a yoga novice, I have been happily involved in this physical activity for I feel it promotes stress release and body acceptance/love, with health benefits as a natural, awesome outcome. So why is this book out there claiming to take you from a size 8 to a size 00? Why do we have to take something so positive and make it all about weight loss?
5) So...I "heard" about this awesome conference, and anyone and everyone should go to it and spend a day devoted to girls!
6) I spent a weekend in the trenches of suburban Texas, and I am sad to report that things are barely beyond 1950 in terms of gender relations. Dads teach their sons that masculinity is anger. Boys play football. And girls are cheerleaders. Don't like it that way? Well then get outta our town!
7) I recently learned that despite Title IX's origins in trying to HELP girls, it will undoubtedly be used against them, over...and over...and over.
8) I re-read The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri. It's been 6 or 7 years since the first time. It was remarkable how much more the book touched me and I understood more with the passing of those years. I remember liking the book before, but I didn't remember much else of it. This time a lot more stuck. I know a lot of people don't like re-reading books, but I recommend to do it occasionally. You might learn something about yourself, interestingly, in the process.
Whelp, that's a run down of what's been in my head the past few days. Here's hoping that some inspiration strikes me to write an actual blog.
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Showing posts with label race. Show all posts
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Motherhood and Privilege: A True Case of Intersections
One thing I have learned about the feminist blogosphere with absolute certainty is that when you bring up the issue of whether or not there should be child free spaces, it's sparks a shit storm. Maia, a guest blogger, recently rehashed this discussion over at Feministe (the last place I witnessed this particular shit storm). Her basic thesis was "you do not have a right to child free spaces," which, I'm sure, you can imagine set a lot of people off. Last I checked, the comments were up to almost 700. A shit storm, for sure.
I don't really care to go deep into the discussion about the feminism of child free spaces. I will state that I, like many, was rubbed the wrong way by Maia's post, but I tried to understand where she was coming from. And for those of you unfamiliar with the debate, I'll summarize the conflicting sides:
1) Children are people too. They deserve to be in public. That is where they can learn appropriate behavior. However, kids are kids, and so they're going to behave inappropriately time to time. Because our society still places the responsibility of child rearing disproportionately on women, to restrict children from public spaces is to essentially restrict women from those same spaces. It is not always reasonable that single parents can afford childcare or a babysitter, but they should not be restricted to their homes because of this.
VS.
2) Adults have the right to adult-only spaces that are free from the behavior challenges of other people's children. Of course, some public places are kid friendly and any person entering them should reasonably expect to interact with children, but that is why adult-only public spaces should be respected. Childfree people* have the right to enjoy childfree environments, where it is logical (like bars, upscale restaurants, and their own homes when inviting guests.)
So with this as the background, what I really want to discuss is how privilege and motherhood interact. What I have seen emerge in the comments (which I fizzled out on reading inevitably...) is both sides accusing the other of privilege.
Motherhood as privilege: Childfree people assert that there is an inherent privilege in having children. The default position of our society is to "settle down and have kids." When you get to a certain age and meet new people, one of the inevitable questions is, "Do you have kids?" From this perspective, the privilege comes from being a mother because society promotes motherhood as what "good" women do. Because motherhood is seen as a the ultimate role a woman can take, there is inherent privilege. Childfree people are positioned as the other; outliers in the social structure that caters to families which include children.
VS.
Childfree as privilege: The other side asserts that the privilege is in not having children. The idea is that our society doesn't support women in parenting, especially single mothers. Instead of affordable childcare, living wages, and accommodations in the workplace, women with children face a number of financial and societal barriers, making those who are childfree the privileged in their workplaces and social circles.
Both sides are pretty compelling, right? The way I see it, neither is actually right or wrong. Instead, there are so many more factors to consider, because as every feminist situation, there are numerous intersections. I'm going to just address a few.
First, there is the issue of money. High income mothers obviously experience privilege. They are able to fit the expectation of being the "ultimate woman" by having children. And yet, they don't face any of the aforementioned challenges (like affordable childcare.) Additionally, for many low income mothers, there was never an option to be childfree, be it because of lack of access to contraceptive methods or information about sexual reproduction, or even because of coerced or forced pregnancies. Also, being childfree interacts with income. As mentioned above, it is much easier to be childfree if you have access to money and education.
Other factors also interact with motherhood to compound various privileges. For example, women of color are much less likely to be privileged by being mothers. There are so many racist stereotypes surrounding the black "welfare queen" that I can safely say African American mothers are not regarded as favorably as white mothers by American culture. Imagine what people would say, for example, if Michelle Duggar was black. And don't get me started on this new terms of "anchor babies." If that term doesn't highlight the racism, fear mongering, and scorn associated with Latina mothers, I don't know what would.
My point is that in the case of motherhood, as with so many things, you can't sit back and blanketedly say "being a mother gives you privilege." There is so much more at play, and no two person's experiences are identical. I, as a married, middle-class, hetero/cis white woman might feel a societal pressure to conform to having a traditional family which includes children. But that doesn't mean that all mothers are privileged.
It'd go a long way for us all to remember that our own frame of reference isn't the rule for everyone.
*I use the term childfree in this blog to connote a certain lifestyle choice, not people who just do not have kids currently. I do not identify as childfree although I currently don't have kids because I see them in my future, and I respect that this is not what the childfree lifestyle is about.
I don't really care to go deep into the discussion about the feminism of child free spaces. I will state that I, like many, was rubbed the wrong way by Maia's post, but I tried to understand where she was coming from. And for those of you unfamiliar with the debate, I'll summarize the conflicting sides:
1) Children are people too. They deserve to be in public. That is where they can learn appropriate behavior. However, kids are kids, and so they're going to behave inappropriately time to time. Because our society still places the responsibility of child rearing disproportionately on women, to restrict children from public spaces is to essentially restrict women from those same spaces. It is not always reasonable that single parents can afford childcare or a babysitter, but they should not be restricted to their homes because of this.
VS.
2) Adults have the right to adult-only spaces that are free from the behavior challenges of other people's children. Of course, some public places are kid friendly and any person entering them should reasonably expect to interact with children, but that is why adult-only public spaces should be respected. Childfree people* have the right to enjoy childfree environments, where it is logical (like bars, upscale restaurants, and their own homes when inviting guests.)
So with this as the background, what I really want to discuss is how privilege and motherhood interact. What I have seen emerge in the comments (which I fizzled out on reading inevitably...) is both sides accusing the other of privilege.
Motherhood as privilege: Childfree people assert that there is an inherent privilege in having children. The default position of our society is to "settle down and have kids." When you get to a certain age and meet new people, one of the inevitable questions is, "Do you have kids?" From this perspective, the privilege comes from being a mother because society promotes motherhood as what "good" women do. Because motherhood is seen as a the ultimate role a woman can take, there is inherent privilege. Childfree people are positioned as the other; outliers in the social structure that caters to families which include children.
VS.
Childfree as privilege: The other side asserts that the privilege is in not having children. The idea is that our society doesn't support women in parenting, especially single mothers. Instead of affordable childcare, living wages, and accommodations in the workplace, women with children face a number of financial and societal barriers, making those who are childfree the privileged in their workplaces and social circles.
Both sides are pretty compelling, right? The way I see it, neither is actually right or wrong. Instead, there are so many more factors to consider, because as every feminist situation, there are numerous intersections. I'm going to just address a few.
First, there is the issue of money. High income mothers obviously experience privilege. They are able to fit the expectation of being the "ultimate woman" by having children. And yet, they don't face any of the aforementioned challenges (like affordable childcare.) Additionally, for many low income mothers, there was never an option to be childfree, be it because of lack of access to contraceptive methods or information about sexual reproduction, or even because of coerced or forced pregnancies. Also, being childfree interacts with income. As mentioned above, it is much easier to be childfree if you have access to money and education.
Other factors also interact with motherhood to compound various privileges. For example, women of color are much less likely to be privileged by being mothers. There are so many racist stereotypes surrounding the black "welfare queen" that I can safely say African American mothers are not regarded as favorably as white mothers by American culture. Imagine what people would say, for example, if Michelle Duggar was black. And don't get me started on this new terms of "anchor babies." If that term doesn't highlight the racism, fear mongering, and scorn associated with Latina mothers, I don't know what would.
My point is that in the case of motherhood, as with so many things, you can't sit back and blanketedly say "being a mother gives you privilege." There is so much more at play, and no two person's experiences are identical. I, as a married, middle-class, hetero/cis white woman might feel a societal pressure to conform to having a traditional family which includes children. But that doesn't mean that all mothers are privileged.
It'd go a long way for us all to remember that our own frame of reference isn't the rule for everyone.
*I use the term childfree in this blog to connote a certain lifestyle choice, not people who just do not have kids currently. I do not identify as childfree although I currently don't have kids because I see them in my future, and I respect that this is not what the childfree lifestyle is about.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Privilege and Feminism 101
Disclaimer: This discussion centers on people who unwittingly make comments that come from a place of privilege...not trolls who relish in, flaunt, or cling to their privilege. And I have a bad feeling it will be a little ranty, so bear with me.
I've noticed that there is a nasty little trend in the comment sections of the feminist blogosphere. Someone makes an earnest, although somewhat misguided or misworded comment and sure enough the chorus of "Check your privilege" starts up.
Let me back up...privilege is something very real in our society. Any time the experience of one group of people becomes what is the "norm," privilege is at play. There's white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, abled privilege, Christian privilege, monetary privilege, American privilege...it goes on and on. If there's an -ism, there's a privilege. Here are a few examples of how people benefit from various privileges:
So what's the problem? Why have I even mentioned the "check your privilege" argument? If someone is operating from a place a privilege, we should address this...right?
Yes, I think it is critical to help people understand how they are benefiting from privilege and to help them understand that their perspective or experience is not universal. However, I think that "check your privilege" is a piss poor way to do this.
What ends up happening is that "check your privilege" becomes a stock statement thrown around and it has undesirable effects. People who were earnestly trying to engage in a feminist discussions are shut down. They feel alienated and belittled. Because in many cases (but not all by any stretch of the imagination) an honest mistake has been made, people aren't even really sure what they did wrong. It's essentially the feminist version of a pet owner swatting their dog's nose with a newspaper and saying "Bad dog." No real change is made.
Now, often the counter point to the suggestion that we should help each other understand issues like this is the "It's not my place to educate anyone!" but that, again, doesn't get us anywhere. No, it's not anyone's JOB to educate another (save teachers, of course!) but it is certainly logical that when you engage in a discussion/debate on a forum, you're going to have to explain your view and give background as to why the person you disagree with is incorrect. Saying "check your privilege" does both nothing to substantiate your own view nor truly refute the other person. A much more productive solution is to point out the privileged parts of the argument and explain why they are problematic.
Often, people commenting on the feminist blogs where this happens are novices to the topic. The attempt to engage in an extremely popular and well known online feminist community when you are just opening up to a whole new world of thought can be intimidating. To be shot down immediately, leaving you unsure what even happened, is not a desirable outcome, and it's not good practice for feminism. It sends potential allies away before they even get to really dig into the topic and learn about privilege.
I would argue...and stay with me here...that people who invoke this knee-jerk reaction are actually exercising educational privilege, or perhaps privilege within the feminist community. First of all, it assumes that the reader knows what the phrase means and even more basically what privilege is and how they benefit from it. Secondly, it establishes this hierarchy and policing of fellow feminists. Instead of being informational, like a gentle correction would be, it ends up being, frankly...elitist. When I see people use the phrase, I always get the sense that it's delivered in a "What, are you new to this?!" kind of way (even though I know it is sometimes well intentioned.) And isn't it wrong to assume that everyone who is interested in gender topics has had the experience of taking the same classes or reading the same books or having the same discussions or following the same blogs as you?
I've noticed that there is a nasty little trend in the comment sections of the feminist blogosphere. Someone makes an earnest, although somewhat misguided or misworded comment and sure enough the chorus of "Check your privilege" starts up.
Let me back up...privilege is something very real in our society. Any time the experience of one group of people becomes what is the "norm," privilege is at play. There's white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, abled privilege, Christian privilege, monetary privilege, American privilege...it goes on and on. If there's an -ism, there's a privilege. Here are a few examples of how people benefit from various privileges:
- White: If you have always freely entered stores without the stare of "why are you here? are you shoplifting?" or you've never had someone you didn't know ask to touch your hair, or you've never had someone assume you are incapable of a sunburn, you're probably the beneficiary of white privilege.
- Male: If you're praised for doing domestic tasks (but not expected to do them), if you've never felt that your body isn't good enough because of the images in a magazine, if you've never felt forced to shave your armpits or legs, if you've never had your leadership/math/physical/video game abilities questioned before someone knew anything about you, you're probably the beneficiary of male privilege.
- Heterosexual: If you could (or have) legally marry the person you love, if you've never been told that your chosen family structure is dangerous to kids or that your sex life isn't "real", you're probably the beneficiary of heterosexual privilege.
So what's the problem? Why have I even mentioned the "check your privilege" argument? If someone is operating from a place a privilege, we should address this...right?
Yes, I think it is critical to help people understand how they are benefiting from privilege and to help them understand that their perspective or experience is not universal. However, I think that "check your privilege" is a piss poor way to do this.
What ends up happening is that "check your privilege" becomes a stock statement thrown around and it has undesirable effects. People who were earnestly trying to engage in a feminist discussions are shut down. They feel alienated and belittled. Because in many cases (but not all by any stretch of the imagination) an honest mistake has been made, people aren't even really sure what they did wrong. It's essentially the feminist version of a pet owner swatting their dog's nose with a newspaper and saying "Bad dog." No real change is made.
Now, often the counter point to the suggestion that we should help each other understand issues like this is the "It's not my place to educate anyone!" but that, again, doesn't get us anywhere. No, it's not anyone's JOB to educate another (save teachers, of course!) but it is certainly logical that when you engage in a discussion/debate on a forum, you're going to have to explain your view and give background as to why the person you disagree with is incorrect. Saying "check your privilege" does both nothing to substantiate your own view nor truly refute the other person. A much more productive solution is to point out the privileged parts of the argument and explain why they are problematic.
Often, people commenting on the feminist blogs where this happens are novices to the topic. The attempt to engage in an extremely popular and well known online feminist community when you are just opening up to a whole new world of thought can be intimidating. To be shot down immediately, leaving you unsure what even happened, is not a desirable outcome, and it's not good practice for feminism. It sends potential allies away before they even get to really dig into the topic and learn about privilege.
I would argue...and stay with me here...that people who invoke this knee-jerk reaction are actually exercising educational privilege, or perhaps privilege within the feminist community. First of all, it assumes that the reader knows what the phrase means and even more basically what privilege is and how they benefit from it. Secondly, it establishes this hierarchy and policing of fellow feminists. Instead of being informational, like a gentle correction would be, it ends up being, frankly...elitist. When I see people use the phrase, I always get the sense that it's delivered in a "What, are you new to this?!" kind of way (even though I know it is sometimes well intentioned.) And isn't it wrong to assume that everyone who is interested in gender topics has had the experience of taking the same classes or reading the same books or having the same discussions or following the same blogs as you?
I don't want to sound like I'm making the case for ignorance, but the fact of the matter is that there will always be people joining the feminist world at the 101 level. And when it comes to the Internet, blogs will be frequently be an entry point. It's been disturbing to me how I HAVE seen feminist commenters talking down to others, literally saying "Oh, I'm sorry...You must be new to this" or "Well, I guess you're at the 101 level." ...and saying these things to people interested in the same topics as them, although perhaps not as informed.
You know what? It's OK to be at the 101 level. We were all there before and THAT'S OK.
Lastly, I think that saying phrases like this without engaging in actual discourse is a silencing tactic. For me, it's in the same vein as the tone argument. You know..."I'll listen to your viewpoint when you're not so angry" translation: I don't want to listen to your viewpoint. Except now it's, "I'll listen to your viewpoint when you read a book on feminism" translation: I don't want to listen to your viewpoint. Again, I'm not talking about people who are blatantly not feminist...but rather those who are earnestly trying, but say something that unwittingly is rooted in privilege. Because feminism is so complex, they could very well have a valid viewpoint that happens to be clouded in privilege. So call out the privilege and discuss the viewpoint...don't outright ignore them.
Ok, though...I get it. It's tiring and infuriating to live in a world full of people assuming their experience is universal, and knowing their experience is nothing like yours. It's enraging to be on the flip side of the privilege. I validate those feelings and I can see how sometimes you really just want to say, "CHECK UR PRIVILEGEEEE" and not fully engage in a debate...but for that, I give you this suggestion: If you feel passionately enough to invoke this phrase, then you should feel passionately enough to actually engage. Throwing in the old "check your privilege" standby does nothing.
For anyone.
Seriously.
Now, for the trolls talking privilege...don't even give them the satisfaction of replying to their garbage. F'realz.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The Good, the Bad, and the Beautiful
The Good
Dear Ellen Page,
Despite loving Juno, Whip It, and even Hard Candy, I hadn't yet decided how I felt about you. I don't think you're entirely the best actress in the world, even if you do make REALLY good role choices. However, it turns out...I love you. I love public women who boldly speak their truth, especially when that truth just happens to be one that is underrepresented and I agree with passionately.
Love,
Ami
The Bad
Dear Chris Brown,
Unlike some people, I will never, ever forget what you did. EVER. I don't think that domestic violence apologies are enough. I don't think your punishment was enough. I don't want you in the public eye anymore. As such, I will not listen to your music. Thank God that my XM radio alerts me to who the artist is that I'm listening to, so when it's you, I can promptly turn the dial. I didn't listen to your new song "I Can Transform Ya" but I did look up the lyrics. How appropriate that you are writing about controlling a woman by changing her...her looks, her clothes, buying her things, telling her you "see potential" in her. And how appropriate that you feature Lil Wayne on the track. It's just like a big old misogynistic party that I declined my invite to.
Cordially fuck off,
Ami
Dear Bristol Palin,
Where do I start, Bristol? I had hope for you...once. I heard that after you got pregnant, you questioned the anti-sex abstinence only perspective of right wingers like your mom. But then you appeared on the "I'm so glad I chose life" magazine cover with your mom. That's when I knew I couldn't hold out any hope. You confirmed my pessimism with this PSA. I won't come out as strong against the Candies Foundation and the "pause before you play" tag line as Jos did in the linked blog, (because it could mean many things.) But I WILL come out as strong against your classist message. I'm sorry...but I really felt like the thesis was "if you're poor, don't have sex EVAAARRR!" and that's something I just can't get behind.
Please take your mom and your "perfect" rich white I-can-get-away-with-teen-pregnancy-because-I'm-better-than-you self and go far, far away. Forever.
Sincerely,
Ami
The Beautiful
Dear Eryah Badu,
When I first heard about the controversy surrounding your video, I thought it was much ado about nothing. Honestly, I didn't care one way or the other about what you were doing. Then I read analysis after analysis...and one thing that stood out to me was suggested by a commenter on Feministing (which I can't find right now.) It had to do with how Matt and Kim also stripped nude in public for their video "Lessons Learned." The comparisons were everywhere. Ronald first mentioned to me the similarities, when I hadn't thought of. Then I saw people saying how their video inspired you. Then, in the specific comment I mentioned, someone pointed out how Matt and Kim didn't receive a citation and their video was seen as innocent and childlike, if not comical. While your video, on the other hand, was portrayed as such a sexual piece which you were fined for.
It reminded me of how black women's bodies are hypersexualized by our society. How they are commodified. How they are compared to animals. I started to think about the controversy surrounding your video in a different light. I started to see what was really going on. And when I heard what you had to say about your body, and I began to really admire you.
But what made me love your video the most, was seeing it through the eyes of a 5 year old.
Thank you, Ms. Badu. Thank you for your video, for your work, and for being you.
Stay beautiful,
Ami
Dear Ellen Page,
Despite loving Juno, Whip It, and even Hard Candy, I hadn't yet decided how I felt about you. I don't think you're entirely the best actress in the world, even if you do make REALLY good role choices. However, it turns out...I love you. I love public women who boldly speak their truth, especially when that truth just happens to be one that is underrepresented and I agree with passionately.
Love,
Ami
The Bad
Dear Chris Brown,
Unlike some people, I will never, ever forget what you did. EVER. I don't think that domestic violence apologies are enough. I don't think your punishment was enough. I don't want you in the public eye anymore. As such, I will not listen to your music. Thank God that my XM radio alerts me to who the artist is that I'm listening to, so when it's you, I can promptly turn the dial. I didn't listen to your new song "I Can Transform Ya" but I did look up the lyrics. How appropriate that you are writing about controlling a woman by changing her...her looks, her clothes, buying her things, telling her you "see potential" in her. And how appropriate that you feature Lil Wayne on the track. It's just like a big old misogynistic party that I declined my invite to.
Cordially fuck off,
Ami
Dear Bristol Palin,
Where do I start, Bristol? I had hope for you...once. I heard that after you got pregnant, you questioned the anti-sex abstinence only perspective of right wingers like your mom. But then you appeared on the "I'm so glad I chose life" magazine cover with your mom. That's when I knew I couldn't hold out any hope. You confirmed my pessimism with this PSA. I won't come out as strong against the Candies Foundation and the "pause before you play" tag line as Jos did in the linked blog, (because it could mean many things.) But I WILL come out as strong against your classist message. I'm sorry...but I really felt like the thesis was "if you're poor, don't have sex EVAAARRR!" and that's something I just can't get behind.
Please take your mom and your "perfect" rich white I-can-get-away-with-teen-pregnancy-because-I'm-better-than-you self and go far, far away. Forever.
Sincerely,
Ami
The Beautiful
Dear Eryah Badu,
When I first heard about the controversy surrounding your video, I thought it was much ado about nothing. Honestly, I didn't care one way or the other about what you were doing. Then I read analysis after analysis...and one thing that stood out to me was suggested by a commenter on Feministing (which I can't find right now.) It had to do with how Matt and Kim also stripped nude in public for their video "Lessons Learned." The comparisons were everywhere. Ronald first mentioned to me the similarities, when I hadn't thought of. Then I saw people saying how their video inspired you. Then, in the specific comment I mentioned, someone pointed out how Matt and Kim didn't receive a citation and their video was seen as innocent and childlike, if not comical. While your video, on the other hand, was portrayed as such a sexual piece which you were fined for.
It reminded me of how black women's bodies are hypersexualized by our society. How they are commodified. How they are compared to animals. I started to think about the controversy surrounding your video in a different light. I started to see what was really going on. And when I heard what you had to say about your body, and I began to really admire you.
But what made me love your video the most, was seeing it through the eyes of a 5 year old.
Thank you, Ms. Badu. Thank you for your video, for your work, and for being you.
Stay beautiful,
Ami
Monday, March 29, 2010
Dear Reasonable American Republicans
I recently wrote an entry about the new trend of your party for yelling things out in Congress. After writing it, I began to think about all of the many other things about your party that literally sicken me. (This is not a poetic exaggeration, I literally get stomach issues when I think about it too long; it stresses and frustrates me that much.)
I decided then that when I got a moment I would write you a letter and try to express my concerns with what is going on. In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I am not a Republican. I have never been a Republican; in fact I’m really, really liberal. However, while I was raised in a nuclear family composed of Democrat voters, there is a lot of conservativism in my family. I was raised going to church, respecting protestant values, and taught to be fiscally conservative. So I didn’t blindly choose to be liberal, I came to it by becoming a thinking, informed adult and I realized what was best for me. There it is. That’s my bias, out on the table.
So while I do not agree with conservative values, I generally respect people who disagree with me. However, the following issues I have with your party go beyond what I can respectfully stand. As such, I’m calling you out.
- Disrespect for the American political system AKA yelling shit out in congress. (Sorry to be so blunt.) I dealt with this in more detail here, as mentioned above. In summary, I cannot think of a more childish, discourteous way for America’s political decision makers to behave. Unacceptable.
- Refusal to work together and compromise. You have blocked literally everything that the president and Democrat majority congress have tried to do. It doesn’t matter what it is, you vote against it. How will you get being the party who stands for nothing except being against Democrats? The biggest example is the health care bill, but to better illustrate what I actually mean, I will use the example I talked about here. Basically, Al Franken sponsored an amendment on a bill. That amendment that would end government contacts with companies that keep raped American contact workers from prosecute their rapists and suing the contract companies. What should have been a very uniting vote...a no brainer, still garnished several "NAY" votes. And they were from (male) Republicans (only.) Disgusting.
- This leads nicely into my third gripe, the Republican commentator tendency to equate liberalism to the "raping" of America. If I need to explain why this is a problem, then we are simply not on the same plane of thought, and I am not capable of discussing much of anything with you. But just in case, I'll let Amanda and Jill pick this apart. It makes me SICK.
- And of course, if you clicked those links, then you can see why I would say that I also take issue with the Republican tendency to embrace racism. As if it isn't bad enough that you have hardly any POC representation in your party, you are out rightly racist in your rhetoric. You can call them cartoons, I will call it what it is: racism. And it's not just limited to Obama, your racism has been aimed at others like Sonia Sotomayor and John Lewis. In fact, some might even say that points #1 and #5 are inextricably linked to your racism. When you say you want to "take our country back" what else are we supposed to believe? Who is the "our?" And who are we taking it back from?
- Of course the racism and rape analogies lead right into my next point: The link between Republicans and the utilization of violence. From threats on Obama to the murder of Dr. Tiller to threats of violence against representatives who voted for the health care bill, all of it is extremely disturbing, chilling, and totally inexcusable. How is violence ever a rational solution in public discourse? It's not. As I realize that violence is not the response of reasonable individuals, I do not hold all or even most Republicans responsible for the violence, I am simply acknowledging a scary link. However, what I will hold the party responsible for is...
- Unabashedly embracing right wing fringe groups. I really can't explain this any better than Jill has. As she said about the fringe's use of violence, racism, and homophobia, "We’re talking about a major political party that does nothing to deter that kind of behavior, and instead quietly encourages it." This point for me goes hand in hand with the vilification of the word liberal. Republicans have worked SO VERY HARD to make liberal a dirty word that no one uses or self identifies with in major political elections. Heaven forbid a Democrat be linked to liberal fringe groups. Barack Obama was said to be such a liberal crazy, to be feared...and yet "smart, conservative leadership" is thrown around every where. It seems to me that I should be a lot more afraid of the word conservative, at least by how it is being portrayed to by the current Republican Party.
- And while we're talking about homophobia, Republicans are the anti-gay marriage party...the party of anti-gay everything. This is something I just really don't get. Like I've said 100 times...if you don't want a gay marriage don't. have. one. Why oppress a group of people for shits and giggles? However, Republican's anti-gay stance highlights something that kills me the most about the right: Hypocrisy. It's not surprising that the top 10 anti-gay politicians caught being gay are Republicans. And it's not surprising that the RNC, a party of "family values" is spending money on strippers. (Keeping in mind that I intend not to make a judgment call about sex work, but rather highlight the hypocrisy of holding everyone to rigid sexual standards and then using party money on sex workers.) And threatening violence against the guy YOU called a "baby killer?" Really?
- Lastly, the Republican Party accuses Barack Obama of being all talk, yet, like I mentioned in #2, they themselves are chiefly the reason he can get nothing done. The real problem is that everything that Democrats try to do or say is ignored, belittled, or twisted. If you do not come to the table with some level of respect for your adversary, intelligent discourse is utterly impossible. For example, watching meet the press yesterday, Democrat Bob Schrum made a point about how losing Ted Kennedy's Democrat Senate seat mobilized the Democrat Party, and all Republican commentator Mike Murphy had to say about it was that it was a bunch of "disingenuous sound bites" that he couldn't address. If you continually ignore, belittle, or twist what your opponent is saying, then nothing will ever get done. EVER. It's an evasive discussion technique. It's in the same vein as saying that someone's tone is "too angry" for you hear what they are saying; as a way of ignoring their message, of course.
Well guess what, I am angry. But I've tried to keep my tone respectful and actually address what I feel is soon to be the death of the American political system. Seriously, if contempt, non-action, hypocrisy, violence, racism, careless rape analogies, and belittling within mainstream American politics isn’t to be the death of our system, what is? When the fringe becomes the typical, how is civil discourse possible? When everyone is Rush Limbaugh, how will we ever hear each other?
We’re not there yet, but the Republican party is bringing us scarily close. And that’s why I addressed this to you, reasonable American Republicans. You are the ones who are not participating in violence or racism, and yet you are being represented by those who are. How does that make you feel? Are you going to do something about it?
Discuss issues with me. Disagree with me. Vehemently defend your viewpoint. But don’t use violence or a rape analogy. Don’t belittle, threaten, or ignore me.
Sincerely,
Ami Kane
Liberal.
Friday, February 19, 2010
"No Homo"
There are a lot of things about pop culture that just need to DIE. Like, for example, the prevalence of misogyny in hip hop music. Or the widespread acceptance of violence in movies.
To this increasingly long list, I would like to ad something I recently became aware of: "No homo." I've heard this here and there over the past few months (maybe years) but it is at the front of my mind right now because it is a trending topic on Twitter and has made me really think about how despicable this phrase is.
We are all familiar with "That's so gay" ---a hate mongering and homophobic phrase that became so widespread in our society that a series of public service announcements were created to address them. "No homo" is along these exact same lines.
The idea is that if you say something that, out of context, would suggest something homosexual, you immediately say "no homo" after it. I went to the wealth of valuable information, Urbandictionary.com, to find some examples:
"Hey man, pass the nuts. No homo."
"His ass is mine. No homo."
There are a couple of caveats I'd like to put out there before I explain why this phase is obviously problematic. The people using this phrase:
There's a good break down of how important language is here and I've also addressed this in this previous blog.
We've just got to face it. Our society is to a place where saying "no homo," "that's so gay," "throws like a girl," "Indian giver," and other phrases that evoke racism, homophobia, sexism, etc should no longer be tolerated. It takes two seconds to look at what these things really mean.
To this increasingly long list, I would like to ad something I recently became aware of: "No homo." I've heard this here and there over the past few months (maybe years) but it is at the front of my mind right now because it is a trending topic on Twitter and has made me really think about how despicable this phrase is.
We are all familiar with "That's so gay" ---a hate mongering and homophobic phrase that became so widespread in our society that a series of public service announcements were created to address them. "No homo" is along these exact same lines.
The idea is that if you say something that, out of context, would suggest something homosexual, you immediately say "no homo" after it. I went to the wealth of valuable information, Urbandictionary.com, to find some examples:
"Hey man, pass the nuts. No homo."
"His ass is mine. No homo."
There are a couple of caveats I'd like to put out there before I explain why this phase is obviously problematic. The people using this phrase:
- Are not intelligent enough to understand the ramifications of their words.
- Don't care about the ramifications of their words.
- Really do hate homosexuals.
- Are self loathing/deeply closeted.
- All of the above.
There's a good break down of how important language is here and I've also addressed this in this previous blog.
We've just got to face it. Our society is to a place where saying "no homo," "that's so gay," "throws like a girl," "Indian giver," and other phrases that evoke racism, homophobia, sexism, etc should no longer be tolerated. It takes two seconds to look at what these things really mean.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Prescious and The Blind Side
Recently, a Facebook friend posted this status:
Now, I take issue with a few assertions of this status. Firstly, referring to the situations of Precious as a myth is just inaccurate. The challenges that Precious faces are real in every community. Later in the comments the original poster says, "My issue with the film is that it is kind of guilty of "piling on". Precious isn't just being sexually abused by her father, she's also being physically and verbally abused by her mother, is encouraged to abuse the welfare system, does not excel in school, is morbidly obese, etc."
I can see how Precious has been "piled on." However, many of the issues she's facing are interconnected. Abuse is more prevalent in low income communities, as are difficulties with school and welfare. Also, couldn't it be said that the character of Michael in The Blind Side is also piled on (homelessness, struggling in school, broken home.) Does the fact that Michael's story is "true" mean that his character is any less piled on? The depiction of Precious in the film is not a creation of the filmmakers' minds. She is from the author Sapphire, and the book "Push." The filmmakers simply translated Sapphire's story into a movie, and, I might add...they did an excellent job and stuck to the story that Sapphire wrote. (A story which seems to possess the insight of a person who has faced similar challenges in her own life.)
But here's the issue I take with The Blind Side that I do not take with Precious: How the characters achieve their varied levels of success. In TBS Michael becomes successful through the help and encouragement of a white family. In Precious, there is very little interaction from white people at all. Presicous' success is due chiefly to her own determination and the help of a black teacher, Blue Rain. Now, having not see TBS, I don't know if Michael displays the same determination, but I *do* know Precious did.
Also, the levels of success achieved are very different. TBS is a feel good movie about accomplishing success through fame and fortune. Precious is different...Precious doesn't become famous or rich or even truly self sufficient within the bounds of the book or film...she becomes things which are much more simple and often taken for granted. She becomes literate, she finds her voice, she gets herself and her children out of an abusive situation.
For me, this makes Precious a much more relatable and realistic story of triumph over tragedy. Even if it is a fictional account, I think it is something I can personally find more meaning in. Plus...and I don't know how quite to word this, but the people behind Precious (black writers, black director, black cast) in contast to TBS make me feel like it comes from a more authentic African American place.
Apparently there are some people out there who think that "Precious", a fictional movie that crams every possible negative myth about urban blacks into two hours, is empowering while "The Blind Side", a fact-based movie, is just another story from The Man about how the world is only a good place because of Whitey. There is a word describing these people: dumb.
I didn't reply to this status, because I wasn't out for Facebook debate, but it did cause me to reflect upon my own thoughts. I have heard people say that The Blind Side is another depiction of white people saving black people from themselves. And I'll admit, I tend to see that in the movie too, whether it is a true story or not. (Note: I haven't yet seen The Blind Side because *someone* wouldn't go with me...but I have a pretty good idea what it's about.)Now, I take issue with a few assertions of this status. Firstly, referring to the situations of Precious as a myth is just inaccurate. The challenges that Precious faces are real in every community. Later in the comments the original poster says, "My issue with the film is that it is kind of guilty of "piling on". Precious isn't just being sexually abused by her father, she's also being physically and verbally abused by her mother, is encouraged to abuse the welfare system, does not excel in school, is morbidly obese, etc."
I can see how Precious has been "piled on." However, many of the issues she's facing are interconnected. Abuse is more prevalent in low income communities, as are difficulties with school and welfare. Also, couldn't it be said that the character of Michael in The Blind Side is also piled on (homelessness, struggling in school, broken home.) Does the fact that Michael's story is "true" mean that his character is any less piled on? The depiction of Precious in the film is not a creation of the filmmakers' minds. She is from the author Sapphire, and the book "Push." The filmmakers simply translated Sapphire's story into a movie, and, I might add...they did an excellent job and stuck to the story that Sapphire wrote. (A story which seems to possess the insight of a person who has faced similar challenges in her own life.)
But here's the issue I take with The Blind Side that I do not take with Precious: How the characters achieve their varied levels of success. In TBS Michael becomes successful through the help and encouragement of a white family. In Precious, there is very little interaction from white people at all. Presicous' success is due chiefly to her own determination and the help of a black teacher, Blue Rain. Now, having not see TBS, I don't know if Michael displays the same determination, but I *do* know Precious did.
Also, the levels of success achieved are very different. TBS is a feel good movie about accomplishing success through fame and fortune. Precious is different...Precious doesn't become famous or rich or even truly self sufficient within the bounds of the book or film...she becomes things which are much more simple and often taken for granted. She becomes literate, she finds her voice, she gets herself and her children out of an abusive situation.
For me, this makes Precious a much more relatable and realistic story of triumph over tragedy. Even if it is a fictional account, I think it is something I can personally find more meaning in. Plus...and I don't know how quite to word this, but the people behind Precious (black writers, black director, black cast) in contast to TBS make me feel like it comes from a more authentic African American place.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor
It's been really interesting watching what I hope will be the first of a few supreme court nominations for Obama. The more I learn about Sotomayor, the more I like her. But what's even more interesting is the right wing's backlash against her.
Their biggest claim: She's racist! She's a bigot! (Coming from such open minded and socially conscious people as Rush Limbaugh.) Near as I can gather, this claim hearkens back to a statement Sotomayor made in a 2001 address, in which she claimed that she believed a Latina woman was better suited to make legal decisions than a white male.
Now, while it is dangerous to claim that someone's gender and race make them more suited than another to do anything, I get what Sotomayor was trying to say. White males are a MINORITY in America. There are far more people who are not male, who are not white, or who are neither male nor white. Therefore, the white male experience, although the dominantly presented experience in politics and media, is actually a minority experience and not applicable to most people. And yet, it's the experience that is forefront in our lives. It's the experience taught in history class, and it's the experience portrayed on T.V. Trust me, I get it. Maybe that makes me racist too? (And how come no one claimed she was sexist for saying that?)
Anyway, it's pretty much hilarious that the right wing would be making these claims. They always say these things when it's convenient for them, despite the outward exclusivity of their own political persuasion. Remember how all of us liberals who didn't like Sarah Palin were suddenly sexist? (All of us feminist liberals who thought a female vice presidential nominee shouldn't be a token...)
Speaking of tokenism, I was at first afraid that's what Sotomayor was. I had heard that there was an enormous outcry for both a Latino and a female nominee, so I figured that Sotomayor was a token nominee suiting those needs. But what I've read about her makes her seem like she's a big deal after all. I mean, she was a suggestion when Bush selected Alito in 2005.
And speaking of Bush's nominees, the difference between the right's outcry about Sotomayor now and the left's outcry about Harriet Miers (also in 2005) shows the difference between a token and a legitimate nominee. At the time, the left said "Hey wait a minute...Miers isn't qualified." And she subsequently wasn't confirmed. On the other hand, now, the right is basically saying, "Hmm...what little thing can we say against Sotomayor...anything? Anything? Bueller?" And then one person dug up this statement from 2001 and they jumped on the petty racism train.
Interesting. And I just love it how the racism card seems to be played against people who have actually faced racism their whole lives. (Remember Obama and the Jeremiah Wright scandal?)
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that because Sotomayor is a legitimate candidate, the right has resorted to a cheap smear campaign...but since Obama's facing a favorable congress, I'm not really worried.
What I am worried about, is that researching Sotomayor has reminded me in one small way that sexism is still alive and doing extremely well. (Not that I ever forgot.) When I googled her name to learn a little more, the first suggestion that came up as I typed S-O-N-I-A was "Sonia Sotomayor husband." This means that despite the fact that this woman has been nominated for the SUPREME COURT, people are more concerned about who her husband is.
Ugh. Disgusting.
Here's hoping that Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed and can be a strong liberal voice on bench!
Their biggest claim: She's racist! She's a bigot! (Coming from such open minded and socially conscious people as Rush Limbaugh.) Near as I can gather, this claim hearkens back to a statement Sotomayor made in a 2001 address, in which she claimed that she believed a Latina woman was better suited to make legal decisions than a white male.
Now, while it is dangerous to claim that someone's gender and race make them more suited than another to do anything, I get what Sotomayor was trying to say. White males are a MINORITY in America. There are far more people who are not male, who are not white, or who are neither male nor white. Therefore, the white male experience, although the dominantly presented experience in politics and media, is actually a minority experience and not applicable to most people. And yet, it's the experience that is forefront in our lives. It's the experience taught in history class, and it's the experience portrayed on T.V. Trust me, I get it. Maybe that makes me racist too? (And how come no one claimed she was sexist for saying that?)
Anyway, it's pretty much hilarious that the right wing would be making these claims. They always say these things when it's convenient for them, despite the outward exclusivity of their own political persuasion. Remember how all of us liberals who didn't like Sarah Palin were suddenly sexist? (All of us feminist liberals who thought a female vice presidential nominee shouldn't be a token...)
Speaking of tokenism, I was at first afraid that's what Sotomayor was. I had heard that there was an enormous outcry for both a Latino and a female nominee, so I figured that Sotomayor was a token nominee suiting those needs. But what I've read about her makes her seem like she's a big deal after all. I mean, she was a suggestion when Bush selected Alito in 2005.
And speaking of Bush's nominees, the difference between the right's outcry about Sotomayor now and the left's outcry about Harriet Miers (also in 2005) shows the difference between a token and a legitimate nominee. At the time, the left said "Hey wait a minute...Miers isn't qualified." And she subsequently wasn't confirmed. On the other hand, now, the right is basically saying, "Hmm...what little thing can we say against Sotomayor...anything? Anything? Bueller?" And then one person dug up this statement from 2001 and they jumped on the petty racism train.
Interesting. And I just love it how the racism card seems to be played against people who have actually faced racism their whole lives. (Remember Obama and the Jeremiah Wright scandal?)
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that because Sotomayor is a legitimate candidate, the right has resorted to a cheap smear campaign...but since Obama's facing a favorable congress, I'm not really worried.
What I am worried about, is that researching Sotomayor has reminded me in one small way that sexism is still alive and doing extremely well. (Not that I ever forgot.) When I googled her name to learn a little more, the first suggestion that came up as I typed S-O-N-I-A was "Sonia Sotomayor husband." This means that despite the fact that this woman has been nominated for the SUPREME COURT, people are more concerned about who her husband is.
Ugh. Disgusting.
Here's hoping that Ms. Sotomayor is confirmed and can be a strong liberal voice on bench!
Monday, March 30, 2009
That Damn Dirty F-Word
Here are some brilliant quotes by brilliant women about feminism. (That was sarcasm.)
The first three are taken from here.
Lady Gaga:
''I think it's great to be a sexy, beautiful woman who can f--- her man after she makes him dinner,'' she says. ''There's a stigma around feminism that's a little bit man-hating. And I don't promote hatred, ever. That's not to say that I don't appreciate women who feel that way. I've got a lot of gay women friends that are like, 'Put your clothes on.' People just have different views about it. I'm not wrong. I'm free. And if it's wrong to be free, then I don't want to be right. Things are changing. We've got a black president, people.''
Kelis:
"There's a really negative connotation with the word feminist. I have no penis envy. I love being a woman, I love women. I think we are special and spectacular in so many different ways, but the connotation behind feminism is generally that we hate men; you know, we don't shave our legs. But if the word feminist just means a female who is comfortable in her own skin and doesn't apologise for it, then yes. I don't apologise for being a woman or being who I am."
Hillary Duff:
"I'm not, like, a crazy feminist. I think women definitely need men. Like, I couldn't imagine having a girlfriend!"
Kelly Clarkson:
Would you call yourself a feminist?
"No, not at all. I mean, that was the first time in my life -- which maybe I'm naïve and I've not been put in any situations like that -- but that's the first time in my life I've ever even heard someone use that mentality. I'm like, "Hey, knock-knock, 2008." Most of the men in my life have been very highly supportive. I've never had to even think like a feminist because no one around me even thinks one [sex] is higher than the other."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really interesting how feminism is STILL getting such a bad wrap. And even though a majority of people understand gender bias exists, they can't imagine referring to themselves as feminists. I mean, feminists all burn bras, hate men, and don't shave their arm pits, right?
Needless to say, I don't burn bras (I LOVE BRAS!) I don't hate me (I LOVE MEN...well the ones in my life, at least) and I do shave my armpits (I LOVE 'EM SILKY SMOOTH). I can admit that shaving might just be a tool of oppression, but I digress.
There is an interesting phenomena in the world. And let's call it "I'm not a feminist but..." Basically, women are so afraid of being labeled a feminist, that they'll go to any length to distance themselves from the term, despite holding and espousing feminist values. Just so long as before saying feminist things, they can tack on the phrase "I'm not a feminist but..." they're in the clear. PHEW! That was a close one...someone almost thought you were a feminist. *Insert horror movie scream.*
It all comes down to the denigration of feminism in the popular area. I think the most clever thing that was done to feminists by oppressors was to associate feminism with hating men. It's so simple and seemingly logical. You're pro-woman? Well then you must be anti-men! (Although any reasonable person knows that the world is not so binary as that... there's a lot of "gray," my friends.) This made it less attractive to women and nearly impossible for men to associate themselves with feminism. Which further broke the movement, and let the oppression continue. Think about it...if feminism had been widely embraced, things probably would be much more equitable by now, right? (Of course to agree to that, you'd have to actually understand what feminism is about and not buy the hype.)
Similar things have happened to the black power movement and the gay rights movement. By stereotyping black power leaders as white-hating, militant, and dangerous...fear was created and the mainstream didn't trust them. By portraying gay right activists as people who want to "teach" homosexuality to your children, they were not trusted.
I don't want to get off on a crazy tangent about the man, but come on...can't we see what's happening? Any time a group rises to challenge the status quo, we're made to fear and hate them.
Same holds true for feminism.
I don't know what hopeful conclusions I can draw to end this on, except to say that for those of us who are feminists, we've got to let the people around us know that we are. Eventually they'll have to admit that we don't fit that stereotype.
The first three are taken from here.
Lady Gaga:
''I think it's great to be a sexy, beautiful woman who can f--- her man after she makes him dinner,'' she says. ''There's a stigma around feminism that's a little bit man-hating. And I don't promote hatred, ever. That's not to say that I don't appreciate women who feel that way. I've got a lot of gay women friends that are like, 'Put your clothes on.' People just have different views about it. I'm not wrong. I'm free. And if it's wrong to be free, then I don't want to be right. Things are changing. We've got a black president, people.''
Kelis:
"There's a really negative connotation with the word feminist. I have no penis envy. I love being a woman, I love women. I think we are special and spectacular in so many different ways, but the connotation behind feminism is generally that we hate men; you know, we don't shave our legs. But if the word feminist just means a female who is comfortable in her own skin and doesn't apologise for it, then yes. I don't apologise for being a woman or being who I am."
Hillary Duff:
"I'm not, like, a crazy feminist. I think women definitely need men. Like, I couldn't imagine having a girlfriend!"
Kelly Clarkson:
Would you call yourself a feminist?
"No, not at all. I mean, that was the first time in my life -- which maybe I'm naïve and I've not been put in any situations like that -- but that's the first time in my life I've ever even heard someone use that mentality. I'm like, "Hey, knock-knock, 2008." Most of the men in my life have been very highly supportive. I've never had to even think like a feminist because no one around me even thinks one [sex] is higher than the other."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's really interesting how feminism is STILL getting such a bad wrap. And even though a majority of people understand gender bias exists, they can't imagine referring to themselves as feminists. I mean, feminists all burn bras, hate men, and don't shave their arm pits, right?
Needless to say, I don't burn bras (I LOVE BRAS!) I don't hate me (I LOVE MEN...well the ones in my life, at least) and I do shave my armpits (I LOVE 'EM SILKY SMOOTH). I can admit that shaving might just be a tool of oppression, but I digress.
There is an interesting phenomena in the world. And let's call it "I'm not a feminist but..." Basically, women are so afraid of being labeled a feminist, that they'll go to any length to distance themselves from the term, despite holding and espousing feminist values. Just so long as before saying feminist things, they can tack on the phrase "I'm not a feminist but..." they're in the clear. PHEW! That was a close one...someone almost thought you were a feminist. *Insert horror movie scream.*
It all comes down to the denigration of feminism in the popular area. I think the most clever thing that was done to feminists by oppressors was to associate feminism with hating men. It's so simple and seemingly logical. You're pro-woman? Well then you must be anti-men! (Although any reasonable person knows that the world is not so binary as that... there's a lot of "gray," my friends.) This made it less attractive to women and nearly impossible for men to associate themselves with feminism. Which further broke the movement, and let the oppression continue. Think about it...if feminism had been widely embraced, things probably would be much more equitable by now, right? (Of course to agree to that, you'd have to actually understand what feminism is about and not buy the hype.)
Similar things have happened to the black power movement and the gay rights movement. By stereotyping black power leaders as white-hating, militant, and dangerous...fear was created and the mainstream didn't trust them. By portraying gay right activists as people who want to "teach" homosexuality to your children, they were not trusted.
I don't want to get off on a crazy tangent about the man, but come on...can't we see what's happening? Any time a group rises to challenge the status quo, we're made to fear and hate them.
Same holds true for feminism.
I don't know what hopeful conclusions I can draw to end this on, except to say that for those of us who are feminists, we've got to let the people around us know that we are. Eventually they'll have to admit that we don't fit that stereotype.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
From LJ
I've decided to put all of my feminist rants in one place from now on. LJ will be about my personal life, feminist rants here. Here's an entry I wrote on LJ not long ago.
So while I'm on the topic of feminism...I'm going to link to this blog I came across and have been reading, and getting infuriated about...
MANY of her entries are about the evils of Barack Obama...and this woman, who owns the domain name RECLUSIVE LEFTIST was encouraging her readership to vote against the Democratic candidate. She does so under the guise of the higher calling of voting for feminism. And vehemently repeats how Barack Obama is misogynist. I have a few thoughts about this, as I do everything.
For one, I am happy that someone is talking about how sexist Obama's campaign was against Hillary Clinton in the primary. Many people were eager to jump on how racist Clinton was (which is true) but unfortunately, they are both to blame for their respective -isms. This particular blogger is more than happy to ignore Clinton's -ism. Next, because this writer is so thoroughly convinced of Obama's sexism, and because Palin was on the other ticket, she implicitly* endorsed McCain/Palin. This is where she has TOTALLY lost me. It goes to the whole mindless side of feminist policitcs...aka "Let's vote for a woman, because a woman is inherently less sexist than a man." I mean, if she was going to endorse someone, through this route, shouldn't it at least be a third party candidate (like McKinney/Clemente, the Green Party...two women)? And aren't we forgetting a little someone, named John McCain. McCain is NOT (and I repeat) NOT a feminist. Additionally, as I have discussed at length, a vote for Palin is a vote *against* women. Why hasn't this blogger noticed this? She writes at length about reproductive rights, but endorsed Palin? She even writes that if Obama was a supreme court apointee, he'd be in the Scalia block! No mention of McCain again? What??
Now, I am all for not blindly voting along party lines. Just because she is liberal doesn't mean she has to vote for Obama, but with her every word, she just seems to negate any reason in my mind that she should have voted for McCain. She espouses "Democrats for principle before party." What's the principle? I don't get it.
The whole blog just reeks of an out dated form of feminism...the kind that's hyper-focused on the middle aged white female experience. So while, it takes all kinds of feminists to make the movement push forward, and I'm happy she's talking very frankly about feminism in an open forum...it's just not for me. Of course, she'd try to strip me of my feminist badge for voting for Obama, but I won't give it up that easy. NO ONE is perfect...not even Obama. The smartest people are the ones who realize that and who are going to keep asking the Obama administration the hard questions and compel him to be a better leader...and keep his sexism in check. Just like we'd have to do with Clinton's racism, had she been president.
*I have read several of her blogs, none of which openly endorsed McCain/Palin, so I'm going with "implictly" since I don't know for sure. She bashes McCain a little here and there...but because Palin is on the ticket seems to not mind him too much.
So while I'm on the topic of feminism...I'm going to link to this blog I came across and have been reading, and getting infuriated about...
MANY of her entries are about the evils of Barack Obama...and this woman, who owns the domain name RECLUSIVE LEFTIST was encouraging her readership to vote against the Democratic candidate. She does so under the guise of the higher calling of voting for feminism. And vehemently repeats how Barack Obama is misogynist. I have a few thoughts about this, as I do everything.
For one, I am happy that someone is talking about how sexist Obama's campaign was against Hillary Clinton in the primary. Many people were eager to jump on how racist Clinton was (which is true) but unfortunately, they are both to blame for their respective -isms. This particular blogger is more than happy to ignore Clinton's -ism. Next, because this writer is so thoroughly convinced of Obama's sexism, and because Palin was on the other ticket, she implicitly* endorsed McCain/Palin. This is where she has TOTALLY lost me. It goes to the whole mindless side of feminist policitcs...aka "Let's vote for a woman, because a woman is inherently less sexist than a man." I mean, if she was going to endorse someone, through this route, shouldn't it at least be a third party candidate (like McKinney/Clemente, the Green Party...two women)? And aren't we forgetting a little someone, named John McCain. McCain is NOT (and I repeat) NOT a feminist. Additionally, as I have discussed at length, a vote for Palin is a vote *against* women. Why hasn't this blogger noticed this? She writes at length about reproductive rights, but endorsed Palin? She even writes that if Obama was a supreme court apointee, he'd be in the Scalia block! No mention of McCain again? What??
Now, I am all for not blindly voting along party lines. Just because she is liberal doesn't mean she has to vote for Obama, but with her every word, she just seems to negate any reason in my mind that she should have voted for McCain. She espouses "Democrats for principle before party." What's the principle? I don't get it.
The whole blog just reeks of an out dated form of feminism...the kind that's hyper-focused on the middle aged white female experience. So while, it takes all kinds of feminists to make the movement push forward, and I'm happy she's talking very frankly about feminism in an open forum...it's just not for me. Of course, she'd try to strip me of my feminist badge for voting for Obama, but I won't give it up that easy. NO ONE is perfect...not even Obama. The smartest people are the ones who realize that and who are going to keep asking the Obama administration the hard questions and compel him to be a better leader...and keep his sexism in check. Just like we'd have to do with Clinton's racism, had she been president.
*I have read several of her blogs, none of which openly endorsed McCain/Palin, so I'm going with "implictly" since I don't know for sure. She bashes McCain a little here and there...but because Palin is on the ticket seems to not mind him too much.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
My Name is A. Lynn, and I am a Pessimist
For some reason or another, I was just thinking about pessimism/optimism. Frequently, I am poked fun at because I am an eternal pessimist. However, I've decided to embrace this fact about myself, because I have come to realize that nothing is ever as simple as a dichotomy. The way I see it there are several categories of pessimism/optimism.
1) Present optimist: Someone who thinks that things are great right now, and doesn't see any reason for improvement. The "present" part of the title I've given is because this type of person is either not thinking or not concerned about the future. Basically, this is complacency, and incredibly dangerous, in my opinion.
2) Unrelenting pessimist: This is someone who is forever pessimistic. Think: "It all sucks anyway, no matter what we do...what's the point?" kind of mentality. This is essentially the same as someone who is a present optimist, in regards to what they actually do for the world. Present optimists see no room for improvement, and unrelenting pessimists see no point in attempting improvement. Equally dangerous, just a whole lot more depressing to be around.
3) Future optimist: Now this brand of optimist thinks things are great, but they are not so naive as to believe that things couldn't be get better. These are the people out there who are forever striving for more with a smile. This is the kind of optimism that is productive and sees the world through the hope of what it could be.
4) Realistic pessimist: And now you've arrived at me. Realistic pessimists are people who accept the ills of the world as a starting place for potential improvement. They are essentially the same as future optimists in what they want to accomplish, but how the view the state of the world is different. While a future optimist and a present optimist both might say, "Look how far we've come!" Unrelenting pessimists and realistic pessimists would both say, "Yeah, but think about (insert current social ill and a wah-wah Debbie Downer sound)" But where the realistic pessimists and the future optimists unite, is that they both then say, "OK! Let's do something about that!"
So that's me, for those of you playing at home. When I seem like I really emphasize the bad in our world (poverty, sexism, racism, heterosexism, exploitation, control, abuse, genocide, and all the other things I worry about) it's only because I know we could all be doing better.
I like writing strange things like this. Of course, I think there are many other different kinds of people who don't necessarily fit into these categories, but it was fun coming up with the beginnings of a spectrum of pessimism/optimism.
1) Present optimist: Someone who thinks that things are great right now, and doesn't see any reason for improvement. The "present" part of the title I've given is because this type of person is either not thinking or not concerned about the future. Basically, this is complacency, and incredibly dangerous, in my opinion.
2) Unrelenting pessimist: This is someone who is forever pessimistic. Think: "It all sucks anyway, no matter what we do...what's the point?" kind of mentality. This is essentially the same as someone who is a present optimist, in regards to what they actually do for the world. Present optimists see no room for improvement, and unrelenting pessimists see no point in attempting improvement. Equally dangerous, just a whole lot more depressing to be around.
3) Future optimist: Now this brand of optimist thinks things are great, but they are not so naive as to believe that things couldn't be get better. These are the people out there who are forever striving for more with a smile. This is the kind of optimism that is productive and sees the world through the hope of what it could be.
4) Realistic pessimist: And now you've arrived at me. Realistic pessimists are people who accept the ills of the world as a starting place for potential improvement. They are essentially the same as future optimists in what they want to accomplish, but how the view the state of the world is different. While a future optimist and a present optimist both might say, "Look how far we've come!" Unrelenting pessimists and realistic pessimists would both say, "Yeah, but think about (insert current social ill and a wah-wah Debbie Downer sound)" But where the realistic pessimists and the future optimists unite, is that they both then say, "OK! Let's do something about that!"
So that's me, for those of you playing at home. When I seem like I really emphasize the bad in our world (poverty, sexism, racism, heterosexism, exploitation, control, abuse, genocide, and all the other things I worry about) it's only because I know we could all be doing better.
I like writing strange things like this. Of course, I think there are many other different kinds of people who don't necessarily fit into these categories, but it was fun coming up with the beginnings of a spectrum of pessimism/optimism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)