Rape

So I think it's appropriate to evoke a trigger warning here.

Now, I know some of you probably aren't aware of the use of trigger warnings, so I'll quote Jill on the subject, because it's really appropriate where I'm going with this:

So, here’s the deal with trigger warnings: They’re primarily used on feminist blogs on posts about sexual assault, and they just let people who have survived trauma know that the post may contain violent or disturbing commentary or imagery that they might want to avoid. Because the reality is, some rape survivors have post-traumatic stress issues which may be triggered by reading about sexual assault. Or maybe readers want to be able to go home and have sex without thinking about the rape post they just read which reminded them of their own rape, or maybe they don’t want to be reminded again that someone thinks this was their fault, or maybe they have a lot to do at work and don’t have time for a panic attack at their desk, or maybe they just don’t want to have their days ruined. Trigger warnings allow readers to evaluate that for themselves. So feminist bloggers put up trigger warnings as a basic human courtesy.

Ok, so that's out in the open and it should be abundantly clear why trigger warnings exist in the feminist blogosphere. However, what brought on this explanation was apparently an anti-feminist blogger, not worth naming, who claimed trigger warnings are dumb. So, of course, people were, naturally, up at arms.

But I think that the topic of trigger warnings and this whole unreasonable debate whether they should exist as a simple common courtesy or not is totally relevant to what has been going on in my feminist theory related life lately.

You see, I have never been raped. I've never been sexually assaulted or felt myself to be in a sexually threatening position. I have been sexually harassed, and as dehumanizing as that was, I would never compare it to rape. So the realm of rape is not something that I can completely relate to...and it's a side of feminism that I've definitely needed educating on and have only recently began to care about deeply.

Sure, I knew the statistics. And I did *care* about rape in a conceptual way. I knew rape was a tool of oppression. I understood the feminist discussion of our rape culture. I've felt rape as something that looms over me as a terrifying possibility in this world. I could mentally comprehend the evils of victim blaming. I understood that it was a sexist myth to think that men "couldn't" be raped. However, when I saw a blog or a post with the ever present *trigger warning* I approached the contents tentatively. I wasn't too interested. It seemed to be everywhere and I wasn't sure I "got it." I know what it's like to be paid less for doing the same (if not better) work. I know what it's like to be cat called. I know what it's like to be called a bitch for speaking my mind. I know what it's like to be told to get in the kitchen and make a sandwich. I know what it's like to read magazines and feel disgustingly fat and ugly. I know what it's like to have my math abilities belittled. All of these things I felt I could relate to, but rape felt so conceptual. And I'll admit, at best: I skimmed the articles with trigger warnings.

However, I've recently started to read them. Really, really read them. And think about them. And feel them. It's amazing to me how rape is dealt with in our society. The amount of questioning, shaming, and blaming that occurs is ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous. For example, if someone is the victim of a robbery or has to file an insurance claim for weather damage to their house, does anyone say, "Well...it sucks that you were robbed/had your house destroyed, but you know, some people have lied about being robbed/having their houses destroyed before, so I'm not sure I can believe you."

NO. Never. But any time a rape comes up all of a sudden, everyone is a skeptic. Have a few people lied about rapes before for whatever reason? Yes. But have people also lied about EVERYTHING else? HELL YES. And yet, no questions surround the other scenarios. Similarly, if someone is robbed, do we blame them for not having stronger glass on their windows or better locks? Do we blame tornado victims for living in the locations they do? Not at all. And yet, if a woman has been raped, the first thing we do is talk about her clothes, how much she chose to drink, if she uses drugs, or had tattoos, or if she's had sex before and with whom.

And I knew about the questioning/shaming/blaming. I'm not new to it. It's just SEEING it all in print lately in the comments of the rape blogs I'm actually really reading now has got me so passionate about it. There are SO MANY rape apologists. Probably more than rape victim advocates, really.

All this has me thinking frequently about issues of consent. It's such an important topic to consider...and teach our children. Honest, open communication, leaving out gray areas, and only having sex when consent is explicit and direct is simply a part of a positive experience. It doesn't kill the mood...it just makes sense.

But anyway, the point is that I am embracing the critique of our rape culture and taking a stand against sexual assault in our society. Just like how I don't personally experience racism or homophobia, I still speak out passionately against them, I'm no longer going to gloss over this issue. I'm going to talk about it openly...because when you leave something in the shadows, you give it more power and support the shame surrounding it.

By the by, I was inspired today by this Feministing community blog, and thus, here I am:

[W]e need people who aren't necessarily survivors to start speaking out about sexual assault. This demonstrates that rape isn't just a personal issue, but stems from some deep societal problem at which we need to start chipping away. It's not about men, it's not about women, it's about people, and increased support would illustrate that perfectly...

The Notion of Choice

This discussion is NOT about abortion. I'm talking about the idea of women making choices in our society in a broader sense.

Recently, in my online feminist world, there has been a bit of discussion surrounding the notion of choice. Specifically, when are the choices that women make "not feminist" vs feminist? Can you be feminine and also a feminist? This realm really interests me, and I scratched the surface of this before when I was talking about "fuck me feminism." It's the type that's discussed in the first blog I linked where a woman says, "I am a feminist. I got my breast implants for me! They are empowering."

The problem with believing that any choice a woman makes is empowering simply because she made it assumes that we live in a societal vacuum or a gender neutral world. It gets at the very question of free will. If a woman "chooses" to get breast implants, why is she really getting them? What is her motivation? Why does she feel that bigger breasts are better? Why would she feel better about herself with surgically enhanced breasts? I doubt that in most cases you could answer these questions truthfully without evoking something that has been culturally transmitted by patriarchy. And when that's the case...who made the choice? The woman or patriarchy?

Fact of the matter is that we are all subject to patriarchal assumptions. If you have ever set foot outside your home, opened a magazine, or turned on the TV you were receiving patriarchal messages and prescribed gender roles. How did you "know" when you were 3 that girls wear pink and boys wear blue? How did you "know" that boys don't cry? How did you "know" that women take care of babies? How did you "know" that men do heavy, physical work? How did you "know" that women are supposed to care about their appearance and wear makeup and skirts and hosiery and perfume and jewelry and high heels and bras and shave their legs and armpits and wax their eyebrows and vaginas and paint their nails and color/curl/straighten their hair and carry purses and lotion their skin and diet to extremes?

Obviously so much of the things that women are "supposed to do" are dictated to us by patriarchy. Women are supposed to go through that litany of physical appearance related things because it makes them "prettier" and keeps women in a way which has been culturally determined as physically attractive and sexually desirable. And as is well known, these demands take a toll on women...women spends thousands of dollars more in their lifetimes on these items (yet making less) dedicate their time toward it (and time is money) and suffer a loss of self esteem when comparing themselves to the "perfect" images they see in the media.

OK. So performing gender is patriarchal and sexist. Duh. So far all I've said is things that anyone in a Women's Studies 101 class has learned day one. However, despite all of this, the "fuck me feminism" side of things says the woman who has made a choice (to get breast implants or what have you) is making it for her. She's empowered. On one hand, I really want to say blatantly NO you are not. You are playing a part in your own oppression. But here's the conflicting thoughts in my head:

1) Who am I to judge what another woman does with her body? Why should I shame her? Does she really need another voice in the cacophony telling her how to look?
2) Is it actually possible to get breast implants "for yourself?" Can this be empowering?
3) Where do feminists draw the line? What parts of performing gender are acceptable and what are not? Is a mani-pedi OK, but a bikini wax is too far? How could we ever determine this?

No one can ever answer these questions. The whole situation is so complex. I think about my own life for example. I have acrylic nails. And I love them. Did I get them for a man? Sort of, it was for prom (damn, I've had acrylic nails for 6 years.) Does a man encourage I have them? Yes. He loves when I scratch his head. If I really wanted to get rid of them and he protested, would I still do it? Yes. If he really wanted me to get rid of them and I still wanted them, would I keep them? Yes...truth is I love the suckers. Do they cost me too much, really? Yes. Do I enjoy getting them? Yeah, I love feeling relaxed and having clean, pretty nails which display a part of my unique quirky self. (I often get funky colors and designs.)

So what's the verdict? Are my nails feminist? Probably not. And that's part of my point. I am a feminist. I truly care, to my very core, about eliminating barriers to women and sexism. But I still make "unfeminist" choices. I cannot claim everything I do or like is feminist. So how do I live with the cognitive dissonance?

In a lot of ways the problem I have with performing gender isn't that certain beauty rituals exist, it's that the rituals are directly solely at women and we are expected to do them. I think it would all be a lot simpler if women were not criticized for leaving their armpits unshaven and men were not mocked for getting pedicures. Then, in these examples, the idea of choice could be much more valid. Men don't even encounter the "choice" to shave their legs, so how can we say that it's really a choice for women? If leg shaving or acrylic nails or makeup or carrying a purse were as gender neutral deciding what to eat for dinner or which car to buy (which aren't totally gender neutral, just closer) then this would all be a lot simpler.

Of course, I've just proposed a world that most people would be very uncomfortable in...especially Mr. McAsshat over at the American University student paper.

As for the breast augmentation part, however: At the end of the day, I'm not really a pro plastic surgery person at all. And I can never imagine breast implants as feminist. Ever. Not even a little.

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

Analysis of Rihanna's Rude Boy

Warning, explicit content to follow :)

When I bought my car in September, one of my favorite things about it was the satellite radio. On a vacation to Boston the summer before, Ronald and I became hooked on a radio station called AltNation. Indie rock to the max. Needless to say, this became the station regularly played in my car for the past 6 months. However, every now and then I do come up for some pop air and stray from my wonderful indie rock.

Lately I've been getting one of these pop fixes. The top 20 station is usually playing The Black Eyed Peas' "Imma Bee" or Lady GaGa's "Bad Romance" or her duet with Beyonce, "Telephone." Every now and then I'll also catch New Republic's "All the Right Moves." (Here's a confession: I love every one of those songs. I can't help it. Pop has the place of being like junk food for my brain. I know it's crap. But. I. Love. It.)

Anyway, another song I've heard a few times now is Rihanna's "Rude Boy" which is the subject of this blog. When I first heard it a few lyrics stood out to me and I began to think of it as an anthem for healthy, consensual, communicative sex. And after reading the full lyrics, I have some thoughts on it.

Let me back up. We all know Rihanna's history. Her abuse (inflicted by then boyfriend, Chris Brown) was made painfully public and discussed and analyzed by everyone under the sun, including yours truly. And I've been worried about her...would she go back to him? Would she go down in history as that girl who was smacked around by Chris Brown? Thankfully, we can now see the answer to both questions is no. Her latest album is doing well (it went platinum) and she's even been a critical part of one of my favorite recent SNL digital shorts, Shy Ronnie. Rihanna's not moving on without acknowledging her recent past, however. The latest album, Rated R, features an angry tone and I feel like her photograph on the album cover is no accident. (Covering the right side of her face which was most battered by Chris Brown.) I think she's moving forward in what seems to be a healthy manner...not forgetting what she's been through in her past, but making her present her own.

Ok, so on to "Rude Boy." When I was riding in the car the first time I heard it I was struck by how sexual it was. My point isn't to comment on how our society is becoming more and more sexual...I'm going to take it from the perspective that Rihanna is a 22 year old woman who is capable of expressing her sexuality through her art. My point is that, rather, I was just taken a back for a minute by just how sexual it is. (There's a reason the album is called Rated R.)

The second time I heard the song, however a few lyrics stood out to me and made me think that the song could be an anthem for healthy, consensual, communicative sex, as I mentioned above. Specifically, Rihanna sings:

I like the way you touch me there
I like the way you pull my hair
Babe, if I don't feel it I ain't faking, no, no
I like when you tell me 'kiss you here'
I like when you tell me 'move it there'

All too often, women are not assertive in their sexual relationships and put up with...well bad sex because they're too embarrassed or afraid to say what they really want. Here, Rihanna is showing that it's ok to say what you want and to be told what to do to pleasure your partner. And if she doesn't like it, she's not going to fake it! Pretty cool, huh? I mean, what is more of a sign of a woman playing the role of a sex object and pandering to the sexual shortcomings and ego of a man more than to fake an orgasm?

But then I read the full lyrics and a few things stood out to me...at first I was concerned about this:

Tonight I'ma let you be the captain
Tonight I'ma let you do your thing, yeah

My initial thoughts: Really? Let a man take charge in a sexual situation? How novel. No one has EVER done that before. But then I kept reading and the next verse reads:

Tonight I'ma give it to ya harder
Tonight I'ma turn ya body out
Relax; let me do it how I wanna
If you got it I need it and I'ma put it down
Buckle up; I'ma give it to ya stronger
Heads up; we could go a little longer

Ok, now we're talking...I get it. Sometimes he's in control, sometimes you are. And that's how sex lives should be, right? It's not about one person's desires, pleasures, and control...it's about a balance between the two individuals involved.

All in all, I think that "Rude Boy" is, by comparison to most R&B/Rap songs about sex, pretty damn egalitarian. And while I still cringe slightly at the idea of younger children listening to the song, it's another reason for me to love Rihanna and not feel so bad when this song is stuck in my head.

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.HoHh

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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?
   
5. 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...
   
6. 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.
   
7. 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?
   
8. 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.

Good Effort: How to Train Your Dragon

So I recently wrote about how Disney has had some feminist scores in the genre of children's films with Alice in Wonderland and The Princess and the Frog. I would now like to add Dreamwork's How to Train Your Dragon to the steadily developing short list of feminist-ish children's movies I would be happy to show my hypothetical future children.

*Mild spoilers to follow*

How to Train Your Dragon is essentially a retelling of the age old story about a boy and his dog, only replace dog with dragon. As such, it isn't perfect as far as feminist movies goes, but it is definitely a step up from other films which feature a woman being saved by a man. My chief compliant with it is that it doesn't pass the Brechdel Test which stipulates that there be at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. The main reason it cannot pass this test is that the main character, Hiccup, is in nearly every scene leaving no opportunity for the female characters to talk to each other. And I'm not certain that if they did talk to each other it wouldn't be about Hiccup.

I'm also not happy that there aren't really very many female characters in general. There is the main girl/love interest, Astrid, and another female in Hiccup's dragon training class who is even less important. Adult women are present in the Viking society portrayed, but they are not critical to the story line. Also, Hiccup's family consists of him and his father, as his mother apparently passed away at some point in Hiccup's life.

Now, aside from the failure to pass the Brechdel Test and the low number of female characters, the rest of the movie is pretty damn feminist:

1) The society the Vikings live in is one of constant battle with the various dragon types that plague their livestock. The sole measure of valor for them is slaying dragons. This is a task equally undertaken by the men and women in their world with an apparent blind eye to any expectation of appropriate gender roles.

2) The most respected elder and decision maker in their society is a woman.

3) Astrid is a kick ass chick. She is at the head of the dragon training class (until Hiccup befriends his dragon, Toothless, and gains insider knowledge the rest of the townspeople never had about dragons.) Astrid is shown as the only person in the class with a natural inclination for practice dragon slaying and does so with cunning and physical strength. She embodies what it means to be a Viking in their world.

4) Astrid and Hiccup are definite gender role reversals. Hiccup is the thinking, feeling creature and Astrid is more the active, physical one. AND the lesson at the end isn't that they must overcome these natural inclinations and conform to gender roles, but rather that it takes a little of both to be successful.

5) Hiccup's father is a hypermasculinized character (as we think of masculinity, but in their society it's more just being a Viking: both men and women are like this) who must learn the values of listening, thinking, and feeling in order to be a better father and person in general.

6) Hiccup (or any other male character) do not rescue or save any female character. Rather the climax is reached and the main adversary is overcome by working together toward a common goal.

7) The resolution of the story line is basically a metaphor for thinking, discussion, understanding, compromise, and united effort over violence and brute force. (Although I don't think the anti-violence message is as clear as it could be.) And the lesson is learned through the actions of a male challenging what he is "supposed to be." I think that in this case, it was better that Hiccup was male and not female, because it sends a message of how masculinity can be and not how it must be due to rigid gender roles.

Basically, I would have liked a heavier involvement of female characters, but this is a wonderful children's film that has layers that which run much deeper than the cuteness of a boy and his dragon. (And trust me, that dragon is DAMN CUTE. Toothless is one of my all time favorite animated characters now.)

BABY KILLERS!

So there's a lot for a feminist to blog about right now. Namely, the passage of the health care bill that Democrats have been working on. I'm not going to lie; I know very little about what it actually contains. However, I do know, because of my reading of Feministing.com that the affect it will have on access to abortion is problematic. And I agree that, "You don't get rewarded for demonstrating a lack of political power, you get further marginalized."

All that being said, I don't really have a lot to add to the discussion. I'm torn. On one hand, I know how important radically changing the health care system in the United States is...all that really takes is watching Sicko once, never mind living without insurance, (which I've only had to do for a total of 4 months in my life--a very scary four months, indeed) or having a mother whose insurance company is trying to fight to not cover breast cancer treatments (radiation, chemo, and a second surgery.)

But on the other hand, and there is always another hand...I'm concerned about passing this legislation which is said will end the ability to purchase a private plan which will cover abortions. (In other words, you won't be able to use your own money to get your abortion through insurance.) You know, until we begin to view abortions as the medical procedure they are, we will continue to have these problems. I have always been hesitantly pro-choice, but I've recently become more convinced that no matter how you personally feel about abortion or the personhood of a fetus, there is very little reason to believe that outlawing abortion would do anyone any good. (Like they say, if you oppose gay marriage, don't have one...If you are anti-choice, don't have an abortion.)

While we're on the subject, I'd just like to point out how incredibly, INCREDIBLY foolish it was for Randy Neugebauer to shout "Baby killer" at BART STUPAK. It never ceases to amaze me how comfortable radical republicans are with letting their ignorance and unprofessionalism be shown. Things that are wrong with Neugebauer's statement:

1) Bart Stupak is vehemently anti-choice.
2) No federal money will be used to fund abortions.
3) In fact, the wording of the health care bill, as I mentioned above, is over broad and essentially ends insurance coverage for abortions, leaving us further away from Roe v. Wade than we were at this time yesterday. Wouldn't a crazy like Neugebauer be happy?
4) (And most importantly...) YOU DON'T SHOUT OUT HATE SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Let me make this crystal clear: Have a little respect for your country, your political system, your colleagues, your job, YOURSELF. You, sir, are not a child incapable of self control. In fact, you are in one of the most prestigious and important fields in the United States. (Lord knows how you got there--Thanks, Texas.) Get your act together and behave like an intelligent, capable adult.

Unless you are neither of those things...which I suspect is the case.

But really, republicans, what's up with this shit? Yelling stuff out on more than one occasion? If democrats had done this during the Bush administration, they would have been labeled anti-American crazies.

Well guess what, republicans...you all are becoming anti-American crazies. A political party cannot define itself by what it WON'T do to help the American people and shouting like little children.

SHAME.

Transform Me

Update January 2016: Someone recently linked to this post on Twitter, pushing it back into my consciousness as I read through my analytics.

Oi. Let me just say there is so much wrong here, even down to how I type "transwoman" over and over instead of "trans woman." And then there's me...little cis 25 year old me, at the time, so heavily weighing in on this, which wasn't really my place. I'm not going to amend what I wrote because I won't pretend that I didn't say these things (holding myself accountable) but I will just add now that I'm SO GLAD I've continued to learn and grow and this was only the start of my learning about how to be a (hopefully better) trans ally.
_______

So there's been a lot of feminist speculation about VH1's new show Transform Me. The premise of the show is that three transwomen makeover cisgendered women. So far the feminist speculation has been that the show will essentially exploit the transwomen. However, as it is just now airing, all of the speculation thus far as been just that: speculation.

I'm watching the premiere right now. There are a few things that I like about the show. The main make over-er, Laverne, eloquently articulated her experience as a transwoman (in the few seconds they devoted to this...) Also, the show wasn't set up so that the make over-ers don't have a big reveal at the end like "SURPIRSE! You were made over by a transwoman!" Unfortunately, there is a reveal of sorts, but it's at the very beginning and it's brief and not the point of the show, at least. They also throw one of those "for more information about what it means to be transgendered" messages, so maybe this will raise awareness?

There is a lot more, however, that is problematic about the show, as expected...for one, it highlights the "transformation" aspect of the trans experience over the actual personhood of the individuals involved. I've read quite a bit about how transpeople are seen as forever in transition instead of being accepted for who they are. I feel like this is present here.

Also, some of the language (even used by the transwomen themselves) is problematic. At one point Jamie makes some comment about how she knows about making big changes because she "changed her gender." I feel like this wording could be taken to confirm the misinformation that transwomen really are men, but they just make an arbitrary change to become women.

The show also definitely displays the stereotype of the hyper femninity of transwomen and plays with that whole terrible idea of "if they can go from MEN to being this fabulous, then you too can be hot and sexy!"

And of course, it plays into the stereotypical depiction of women in general where appearance is everything and empowerment comes through focusing on your looks. It's the same old tired message that if you get a haircut and put on some eyeshadow and generally glamorize yourself, you'll automatically feel better about everything...When the truth is more likely that you probably feel like shit because you've been focusing too much on fruitlessly comparing yourself to the unrealistic media ideal.

HOWEVER, having said all this, I will note that like many of the linked commenters and the blog writer Jill, I am still in favor of the imperfect depiction of transpeople in the media rather than their complete exclusion and invisibility. I would love to get to a place where transpeople are represented in the media in honest and nonstereotypical ways. We are not there yet...and Transform Me is certainly not a realistic depiction, but I'm still happy to see three transwomen on television. I can't remember seeing any on television 10 years ago, except perhaps on shows like Maury with the title "I'm Hiding Something" where they were totally the object of scorn and disgust.

To wrap up my thoughts on it all, I'll leave it to a commentor on the linked blog above, Aliem:

As much as I’d like to say that this is awful and exploitative (which it is) and
probably going to create a lot of BS stereotypes about transwomen (which it
will), I’m still a fan of the idea of this show for one huge reason: being
thought of as a fashion maven (which I’m not) beats the hell out of being
either pitied or fear-mongered about (which I am!)

What is a "Feminist Ally?"

So twice in the past week I've come across the term "feminist ally." The first was on a feminist blog calling another blogger this term. It didn't stick out to me initially. Then I saw it used in the comments section of a different feminist blog in the context of "feminists and allies must fight against XXX."

This got me thinking...What exactly is a feminist ally? I'm familiar with gay allies. Like GLAAD says, "A straight ally can merely be someone who is supportive and accepts the LGBT person, or a straight ally can be someone who personally advocates for equal rights and fair treatment."

This makes sense to me, and I actually identify as a gay ally (on both parts). One can support the freedom of non-heterosexuality and believe in rights for homosexuals, but not actually particpate in homosexuality. Feminism is not the same. Let's take a look at a similar definition of feminist ally like, for example, "A feminist ally can merely be someone who is supportive and accepts the feminist, or a feminist ally can be someone who personally advocates for equal rights and fair treatment of women."

This doesn't make sense. If you personally advocate for equal rights and fair treatment of women, then you ARE a feminist (like the term or not!). You are not a feminist ally. And if you are supportive and accepting of a feminist, but do NOT advocate for equal rights and fair treatment, then you are merely someone who lets others believe what they want, but you are not actually an ally to the feminist at all.

Basically, "feminist ally," to me sounds like another way to try to make people who are afraid of the word feminist more comfortable with it as a concept, and to perpetuate the FALSE assumption that only women are feminists. A simple Google search of "feminist ally" confirms that there is an immediate connection made between the term feminist ally and males.

Guess what? Men can be and are feminists. These soft and fuzzy cutesy terms, (like feminist ally) used to reinforce false assumptions about feminism and feminists, get us nowhere. It does the movement a whole lot more good if the people who really are feminists embrace the term and denounce the negative spin that has been put on it.

UPDATE, July 2013: I understand that there is a very real and important sect of feminism that feels that identifying as a male feminist is problematic and uses the term "ally" for these people. I, personally, don’t take issue with male identified feminists, because I’ve seen it done right several times. But that is rare. Some men take on the feminist label and appropriate it with the intention to mansplain and talk over women. I’ve often heard that instead of making feminism for men, men should make their spaces (ie the rest of the world) more feminist. I like that.

Ultimately, whatever term you use, it’s much more important to live the values of feminism than to "be a feminist." The first step for participating in ANY movement where you carry a privilege is to STOP TALKING AND LISTEN. Seriously—read, listen, and learn all you can.

Good News & Me in Wonderland

I'm so happy for Washington DC about this. We are getting closer and closer to achieving marriage rights for ALL people in the United States. (As a side note regarding the last section of that article about putting gay marriage up for a popular vote: Since WHEN were the rights of other people to be determined by popular vote? That's illogical and goes against the foundation of this country. Not everything should be up for popular vote because the majority of the people can be wrong and thereby infringe on their kinspeople's rights. Google "Tyranny of the Majority" if you don't believe me.)

Secondly, I want to speak a bit about Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland...I had the privilege of seeing this in a sneak preview earlier this week. I hadn't been too excited by the idea of seeing it. For some reason, the film just sort of went under the radar for me. I didn't even realize it was coming out this Friday already. I just knew that Ronald got us sneak peek passes, and I'm not one to pass up a free film. So I wasn't UNexcited to see it, but not overly excited either. In retrospect I find this odd because when I was little, the Disney animated Alice in Wonderland was the movie I watched the most after Wizard of Oz. (Ah, fond memories of VHS.) This came back to me as I watched the new 3D live action version and found it all so happily familiar.

If you want a detailed review of the film, I suggest you check out Ronald's here. What I want to mention is how nice it was to sit back and enjoy a story with a strong female lead who makes decisions for herself.

*Spoilers to follow*

Specifically, here's what I love about this "sequel" to the Disney animated movie:
1) Alice is outspoken and determined, not at all like the 1951 animated version who was unsure of herself and a bit silly. (However, according to the mythology cartoon Alice is 6 and live action Alice is almost 20, so I hope she'd mature within that time.)
2) The two most powerful rules in Wonderland are queens.
3) The people who do the rescuing are females (Alice and the dormouse).
4) Alice refuses to marry a man in the "real world" that she doesn't love, but she doesn't do so in order to find her one true love. She, instead, goes into her father's former business. There is no implication that she's interested in a man at all.

Disney is on the right track! I saw The Princess and the Frog and was mildly enthused by it. Tiana, the main character, is an extremely hard worker who makes her own way in life and isn't really saved. However, I felt like the message was that men can get by being be foolish and silly and still have a great life, while women must work extremely hard and be model citizens. And their prize for this behavior? A man.

Other feminists viewed The Princess and the Frog much more favorably. But I think that Alice steps up where The Princess and the Frog failed: it does not reinforce the age old stereotype that the most important thing a woman can do is get a man. Once I realized that this was where Alice was ultimately going, I found myself turning to Ronald and mouthing, "This movie is awesome."

By all accounts, the movie wasn't a total masterpiece. But it was highly enjoyable and I am so happy that this is a movie that little girls will be seeing in the upcoming days, months, and years. If Disney continues on this trend, I might be forced to reconsider my position on them. Of course, it helps the screenplay was written by a woman. All the more reason for better female representation in film careers.

I Can't Identify You

(So, I'm realizing this is going to get long...I knew I was fascinated by this, I guess I just didn't know HOW fascinated until I got rolling.)

I've read a couple of interesting pieces on identity lately, that have really got me thinking about where identity comes from and how we are assigned identities. I've come to the pretty clear conclusion that authentic identity is self ascribed and not assigned by an outside source/person.

It's really interesting to ponder this in detail. On its surface, it's pretty straight forward. For example, I can't tell you you're gay. It's something you know/experience/come to understand about yourself. But when you examine it in greater detail "identity assignment" happens frequently, which we are all guilty of time to time. This identity assignment can come in so many forms...you look at the woman with locks and dark skin and assign her the identity "black" or "African American" without really knowing her heritage or experience. You meet a man who resides in an affluent community and ascribe the identity of that community upon him; based upon a concept you have formulated by previous interactions with people from this community or what you have been been told by others applies to them.

These are some pretty simplistic examples and really go hand-in-hand with stereotyping. Another type of identity assignment occurs when someone looks at a person they know and ascribes an identity to them, despite the protestations of the person in question to the contrary. Think about it in the context of someone telling you that you are not one of the identities you hold most dear. Imagine how that would feel; someone trying to define you, for you. I was trying to think of a basic example and what I came up with is this:

I identify strongly as a Midwesterner, having spent the first 25 years of my life in Indiana. However, I now reside in the South. If someone was to tell me I am now a Southerner, I would object---not because I see something inherently wrong with being a Southerner (I choose to live here now, after all) but rather my experience if that of a Midwesterner. This is a fairly harmless example, but I think the most common time that identity assignment occurs is when sexuality is involved. This includes phrases like "How does he have a girlfriend? He is SO gay!" "She's not bisexual, she's just experimenting" and etc. When you really think about it, this is pretty heinous and certainly not something I want to engage in any longer.

In exploring identities, I've learned some really interesting things. (And I know much of this seems obvious, but I like writing it all out and sharing my learnings.) For one, everyone values different identities with different priorities and in different ways. For two, some identities are fluid and others are stable (depending on the person.) It's possible to change identities and that's ok (because, again, who am I to tell you who you are?)

Sexual orientation identities are particularly interesting to me, because they are so based upon the feelings/experiences/preferences of the person in question. (As opposed to my previous example of being a Midwesterner, if you haven't lived in the Midwest and don't have any roots in the Midwest, you're probably not going to claim that identity.) Having gone to a small, private university for my liberal arts education, I didn't get too much experience with Queer Theory and it's definitely an area I want to explore more. However, I remember having a discussion with Myranda about the "queer" identity. She was speaking about a classmate of hers who had identified as gay but then was in a relationship with a tanswoman, which challenged his identification. He did not feel comfortable identifying as a straight man. And Myranda explained to me that this is where the term queer comes in to be helpful for many of amongst the LGBTQ community. As explained by PFLAG: "Over the past fifteen years, many who identify as GLBT have embraced the word ‘queer’ as a self-affirming umbrella term, inclusive of all people who don’t fit social norms. Because of its gender-neutrality and implication of social nonconformity, many see ‘queer’ as a term that is both positive and empowering."

Myranda explained to me that queer was a term I could identify with myself, and that got me thinking...I've always identified at straight. It's just who I am, but I've also felt that it is a limiting term for my experience. (Namely I am extremely gay affirming.) I don't see my heterosexuality as anything right or natural for the human experience; I simply see it as where my life has led me. And I don't know that, if given a different set of circumstances (like not meeting Ronald) I would still be where I am in life now.

So is queer my sexual identity? I'm not so sure that I'd be ready to take this on. And not because of any kind of homophobia, but rather because I have lived a life, thus far colored by my heterosexual privilege. I feel it's not my place to take on this identity. I don't have experiences with coming out or the fear of holding hands with my partner in public or the anger of being personally denied a legal marriage. I guess, at this point, I would continue to identify as a straight ally, but it's still incredibly interesting to ponder.

I'm going to end on this quote from the first article I linked by Michael Urie of Ugly Betty who identifies as queer:

I've been in a relationship for a while now, and if you just met the two of us together we'd be ‘gay.' But that somehow means anything that happened before [we met] didn't count-and I don't feel that way. I know that some people feel that way. They were with women, but it always felt wrong. But it didn't for me. It felt right at the time. It didn't work out, but it also didn't work out with other men-many times. That's why ‘gay' never seemed right.

"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:

1. Are not intelligent enough to understand the ramifications of their words.
2. Don't care about the ramifications of their words.
3. Really do hate homosexuals.
4. Are self loathing/deeply closeted.
5. All of the above.

Now, having laid that all out...I'm going to explain why this phrase is an issue in case those of you reading this don't already get it (which I'm sure you do!) It's pretty simple...if you have to state that you are not homosexual after saying something, then you clearly view homosexuality as something lesser-than and undesirable. Instead of seeing it as a simple variation in human identity, you have pointed out homosexuality as something no one would ever want to be associated with. This use of language is one of those things that people brush off as not a big deal, but contributes to how we shape our reality.

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.