The situation: I had an unmoderated “secret” blog whose address no one knew that I used as a theme sandbox, which in my foolish ignorance I did two things: I did not install Akismet on it, and I left Comments on and requirements low. I have had this blog up for…years now, on thinking about it…and in the time since I lasted cleaned out the comment queue I had acquired more than 44,000 comments from spam bots. Loading the Comments page took forever, and it resulted in more than 2,000 pages worth of comments waiting to be approved. There is no way to delete all comments within WordPress itself, and I did NOT want to sit through 2,000 pages worth of “Select All > Delete > Apply to All” and wait for the next page of dietary supplements, gambling franchises, and male enhancement aids to load. So I searched the web and found a solution.

This requires that you have phpAdmin, a standard practice amongst WordPress bloggers, though I imagine other MySQL database management webware will offer similar options. You must simply empty your “wp_comments” table on the database that holds your blogs’ data. In phpAdmin, this involves simply clicking the trashcan incon that says “Empty” when you hover over it; it should be relatively obvious that you have the right table since it will be flooded with records. It takes a matter of seconds.

Keep in mind, this will delete EVERY comment in your database. If you have comments you want to keep, this is not the solution for you. That said, it seems to be much easier to selectively delete records using the ‘Browse’ function in phpMyAdmin than to sit through the reloading of however many pages your comments take up in the WordPress Dashboard.

I had no comments that were ‘real,’ so I had no qualms about deleting them all; if you do, I suggest you limit your search for valid comments to a specific date range and delete all records up to that range without vetting them. Make a post apologizing if the comment got eaten, and move on. If you’re experiencing this problem, odds are you don’t have time to sift through all the comments for a solution.

You’re not done yet! Your records are beautifully empty, but now you must prevent this from happeneing again. This involves some combination of installing Akismet and turning off comments (or modifying — in some cases, severely — the permissions required to post a comment).

Good luck!

I have just learned about BookTV, a program on CSPAN. I am pretty much overjoyed about it.

And happily, you can watch a (crappy version, my apologies) in-depth interview with bell hooks. I’m still working on seeking out other authors within their horrible, horrible database…it seems I will have to do an individual search for each one instead of finding them based on other criteria (le sigh). Warning: You will need RealPlayer, which is free to download, but that’s a pain if you don’t already have it.

bell hooks is made of awesome. I already have listed one of her books, Feminism is for Everybody, as a great introductory text. I love her because she is not afraid to stand up and point out sexism or racism when she sees it (including pointing out sexism in anti-racist organizations or racism in anti-sexist and feminist organizations), but she does it in a way that make me, at least, want to take responsibility and make a change, compelling me to take responsibility for my mind, my self and my world, rather than putting me on the defensive.

Below the fold: Clip from The Media Education Foundation on her great documentary with them, Cultural Criticism & Transformation, as well as a clip of her interview on Charlie Rose and links to more great information on bell!

Interview from Charlie Rose after her book, Killing Rage, Ending Racism. (Which will be featured at some point and thus I am not linking to it yet!)

-

Commentary:
I have begun to read this a few times, and have read three individual chapters for various Women’s Studies classes, but I have never read this from cover to cover. There’s also a great intro the the edition by Anna Quindlen.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
Originally published in 1963, this book is credited with the birth of the contemporary women’s movement in the ’60s and ’70s, as it served as a “wake up call” for dissatisfied house wives. As Wikipedia notes, the main argument of this book was to refute the popular notion that women of that time could only find fulfillment through childbearing and homemaking. While the book is often (rightly) criticized as being primarily relevant to white, middle class women, it is still an important staple in the feminist cannon.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

It’s people standing around talking about changing their light bulbs or buying water bottles that use 30% less plastic or “organic” cotton shirts or using one of those crappy woven bags instead of the grocery store plastic ones.

When we’re still buying MILLIONS of dollars of water bottles in the first place. When instead of printing your “environmentally friendly” design on a brand new shirt, you could be buying old ones from the Salvation Army or Goodwill. When we drive instead of walk or bike, when we eat beyond our need and produce GALLONS of trash in one day and everything we do is just CONSUMING this planet. We are eating it alive, and we say we’re being helpful by changing our lightbulbs?!?!? Bulbs which we STILL don’t turn off when we leave the room?

Being green and sustainable and environmentally friendly is NOT about the collection of small details that do little to alter your overall lifestyle. That is the exact OPPOSITE of the point. In order to reverse the massive damage we’re doing, we have to completely uproot most of our current policies and practices, from state and federal laws to the way we run our businesses to the way we consume as individuals and families.

We’re talking reducing the number of cars on the road by 2/3rds at minimum. We’re talking forced electricity rations, walking/biking everywhere, reducing the amount of food we eat by half if not more, changing the packaging our food comes in so we don’t produce so much garbage, massively overhauling shipping so we don’t use so much fuel, and using things secondhand until they literally FALL APART. We’re talking BUYING LESS SHIT. Less of EVERYTHING. (This, THIS is the key: buying less less less of everything. It’s something none of us — including me — seems willing or able to do.) And America, land of instant self-gratification, the land of bloated overconsumption of everything from food to energy, is guilty of 25% of the harm done to this planet at least.

We are like millions of bug floating in the ocean on a piece of bread, and we just keep gnawing at it, and reproducing to make more mouths to gnaw at it, blissfully and willfully ignoring that it is the only thing keeping us afloat.

Is it possible to reverse the harm we’ve done? I think we could. Is it probable? I doubt it. We are too engorged with wealth, too used to living awash in plentiful resources ripped from so-called third world countries, too far removed from those countries and portions of society where frugality is not only a virtue but a necessity. And many of those portions of society are seeking to emulate the most overindulgent, because it seems so satisfying.

It’s not.

Who, among us, is satisfied? REALLY? Individually, collectively, and even scientifically speaking, only a fraction of us are really happy. When you search the depths of your soul, when you see what our economic policy and capitalist system has done to the only world we have — who among us has a clear conscience?

None. Me least of all, because I should know better.

I live in hope, but I also live in doubt. It is a strange, conflicting inner world, much like the outer one. I am not immune from hypocrisy myself; I, too, get distracted by the pretty designs, the colorful drinks, the promises of an easy answer and not a lot of bother.

But I know in my heart that’s not the way it works. How we can fix it, I don’t know. But the first step is destroying the illusion.

Commentary:
Robert Jensen is one of my favorite “modern” authors. He’s also written a couple of books on empire and whiteness, both of which are destined to get on this list some day. I am eagerly awaiting the ability to read this book (once I get through all the other ones, so in about three decades or so.) It sits patiently on my bookshelf, waiting for me. This powerful critique of pornography is supposed to be eye-opening.

The study of masculinity is, I think, crucial to feminism, because it is contemporary definitions of masculinity (or, really, masculinity at all) that we are struggling to overcome. Pornography is deeply tied to masculinity, in ways I think most people don’t really think about because our first thoughts when someone say “porn” usually involve visuals of a slutty plasticky woman. But porn makes a strong statement about masculinity and being a man, and what that supposedly looks like.

The more guys I talk to, the more clear it becomes that porn is the major source of most guys’ (especially young guys) sex education. Which explains a lot about how and why my generation is so fucked up in that department. That’s why side-by-side critiques of porn and masculinity — especially coming from a guy, who’s been there, done that — are so important.

Interview from MediaMouse.org about the book

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

Thankfully, this feminism does not exist.

Many of these stereotypes are exaggerations (child- and man-hating), while others are specific to a certain subdivision of feminism (not shaving or wearing makeup). Some were simply made up to sell papers. (There was never any bra burning. Bras are expensive, hello. This was an exaggeration of an event where many feminists, in protesting a Miss America pageant in the ’60s, threw their bras into a trash can…unlit.) While a few have some basis in fact, in general, the popular perception of feminism is completely misconstrued.

Trying to define feminism in any strict way is similar to trying to define Christianity in any strict way. There is hardly anything on which there is not SOME form of disagreement. And while the movement as a whole does have commonalities, it’s important to understand the different particular strands which a given feminist can belong to.

Again, it’s like Christianity: do you know the difference between Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Latter Day Saints, and the Presbyterians? Some do, but odds are you don’t. Even when these denominations can agree on certain broad tenets, many believe that the others are STILL going to hell, for whatever doctrinal reason. It’s very important to notice the differences between the different types.

The following post was adapted from notes from my Sex, Power, and Politics Women’s Studies class.

Keep in mind that some of these types of feminism can and do overlap, and that individual women can subscribe to more than one of these feminisms.

Let’s begin, then:

Liberal Feminism

Liberalism is what the majority of the “mainstream” feminist movement has been. As a political philosophy liberalism reflects the Enlightenment’s emphasis on the rights of individuals (and individual liberties) within groups, and social/political reform to create equal opportunities.

Liberal feminist organizations work within established political and social institutions in an attempt to end discrimination through reform. Their goals are to change laws and social policies for the betterment of women, eg. Affirmative action and the Equal Rights Amendment.

Socialist Feminism

Socialist feminism has its origins in Marx and Engel’s writings on class struggle and critique of capitalism. Marx and Engels linked male control over women to the development of private property and women’s roles in the family. Marx once even called marriage “legalized prostitution” (this made me laugh very hard). They reasoned that it was modern capitalism that makes women a domestic slave, so women will be freed by abolishing private property. They linked male domination to an unjust economic system where the few controlled the many, where the few had almost everything and the poor had next to nothing. This fit in with their political and communist philosophies.

However, later socialist feminists rejected this idea that sexual oppression is secondary to class oppression, and expanded and modified their theories rather than adapting them. Socialist feminists reasoned that we don’t know which oppression caused which (sexual vs. class) because they emerged at the same time. As further evidence, women in “class-free” societies were still oppressed, sometimes even more so. (Women in communist China were freed from many of the rules restricting them from doing “men’s work”, so they could be soldiers, farmers, and warriors just like the men. However, the men were not expected to take on women’s roles of childcare and domestic work; women were simply expected to do both.)

Juliet Mitchell is an academic who analyzes women’s role and work in the family (especially in a capitalist system) as reproducers and consumers, as compared to the previous system where they were also producers. Before the industrial revolution and the rise of capitalism, women played a crucial role producing the things their families needed to survive; food, clothing, helping build houses, etc. Whereas now they serve primarily as reproducers to breed the next generation, and consumers to keep the flow of goods produced by capitalism, well, flowing. The stereotype that men work while women buy is actually linked to this idea that women, as the primary consumers, help maintain the economy, as the “demand” — without which our economy would collapse.

Radical Feminism

“Radical” feminists see patriarchal rule over women as “the original” form of oppression — before class oppression or racial oppression, there was oppression of women by men. Usually, radical feminists and their views are the source of “man-hating” stereotype, though most radical feminists say they do not hate men (and those few who do say they have good reasons for doing so).

Radical feminism critiques liberal feminism’s belief that equality can be won by changing laws that give women equal opportunities, since social institutions are patriarchal and thus can’t liberate women. Famous radical feminists include Andrea Dworkin, whose scathing critique of pornography and heterosexual relationships gained her much misunderstanding, and Mary Daly’s critique of patriarchal religions as one of the founding and most insidious sources of women’s oppression (namely in her book Beyond God the Father). Elizabeth Cady Stanton also critiqued religion in the first wave, in her book, The Woman’s Bible.

The solution for undermining the patriarchy for some radical feminists is to create a separatist women’s culture, where men are literally not allowed. There are some lesbian separatist communes who practice this in various forms, as well as several women’s “carnivals” that only allow women inside. Many critiques from radical feminists focus on pornography — of which they are highly critical, if not strongly opposed. Most radical feminists view pornography as the most blatant evidence of appropriation, use, and discarding of women and their bodies — the most obvious evidence of the patriarchy and it’s ownership of women and their bodies.

Multiracial Feminism

The most prominent feature of multiracial feminism is its critique of other forms of feminism as dominated by white, middle-class issues. Multiracial feminism assumes that “woman” is not a unitary category — there is no “one woman”, and “woman” does not have any specific race, class, age, sexual orientation, or physical ability. Multiracial feminism is based on the idea that individuals’ are composed of an intersection of race, gender, class, age, and sexual orientation which produces a complex, multifaceted identity. It also notes that the goal of a “gender-neutral”, “colorblind” society ignores the structural inequalities based on multiple oppressions. This can also be known as “anti-essentialist”. The most important book for this portion of the movement is This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color.

Post-modern Feminism

Post-modernists are very philosophical and theoretical, often using obtuse and highly academic language. The basic idea is that gender is entirely a social construction, one that can be interpreted as “discourses” (conversations) or “texts” that tell you how the creators of the piece understand gender. Gender discourses are constructed in particular historical and cultural contexts.

Categories of “woman” vs. “man” and the gender norms attached to them have no objective reality; they aren’t universal and aren’t fixed, Post-modernists are also very anti-essentialist. Post-modernists say that people create meanings (“significations”) all the time to display gender. In contrast to multiracial feminism, anti-essentialist postmodernism is opposed to identity politics where persons of an oppressed group are perceived to share the same experience. Identity politics “lumps people together”, and postmodernists don’t like that.

Postmodern critique of sexuality has led to queer theory, which proposes that sexual categories or identities are also social constructions or “performances”.

Some Notes on Anti-feminism: The Rise of Political Conservatism and the Religious Right

Anti-feminism has always existed where there has been feminism. Anti-feminism in the first wave (1848-1920) tried to affirm the idea of “separate spheres” and the “cult of domesticity”, and usually accused feminists and suffragettes of being low-class or anti-woman, ugly, etc. Their main goal was to try to defeat the ratification of the 19th Amendment via votes, and they almost succeeded, but it passed in Tennessee at the last minute.

During the second wave their most prominent activity was the organization of the defeat of the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, which succeeded in 1982. To this day, there is no portion of the constitution which guarantees equality for women.

Their activities during the third wave have mostly included a critique of women working outside the home unless absolutely necessary, bemoaning the divorce rate, hysteria about “family disintegration”, and demonizing the “the sexual revolution,” and it’s offspring, “promiscuity” among everyone (but mostly among women), pornography, homosexuality.

Modern anti-feminists see feminism as an attack on the family and on women’s sexual roles; despite the fact that that the women’s movement’s original focus was almost exclusively on women’s position within the family. They are usually against affirmative action programs and for restricting immigration; they frequently critique “secularism” and “pluralism” (both cultural and religious), and seek to restore the U.S. as a “Christian nation.” Since the 1980s, anti-feminists have organized to restrict and/or repeal laws that permit abortion and LGBT rights. One big group is called “Concerned Women for America”; infamous female anti-feminists have included Anita Bryant, a former Miss America; Beverly LaHaye, the current president and wife of Tim LaHaye, the co-author of the popular Left Behind series; amd Philis Shafly, the mastermind behind the defeat of the ERA who frequently bemoans women “abandoning traditional roles” and not being at home to take care of the children (despite the fact the her activism often led her to travel and be a “leader”, and her children were not taken with her.)

If you have anything to add, please do so. My class notes are surely far from perfect.

Commentary:
Angela Davis is pretty much required reading, especially for feminists who care about understanding the impacts of race and class as they intersect with gender. A word of caution, however: the WOC blogs I read complain about us white folks thinking that reading and quoting Angela Davis (and other prominent WOC authors) at certain times makes us “un-racist”, or serves to address the concerns of minority women and poor women. It does not.

It certainly is a good starting point, though.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
Angela Davis is one of the most prominent multiracial feminists out there. This book was the first of it’s time to really explore the ties between the suffragettes and the abolitionist movement of the first wave. In many ways, the suffragettes (the first feminists, though they did not identify themselves as such; the term became more widely used later during the women’s liberation movement) were compelled to form a women’s rights movement in conjunction with abolition. In both the first and the second wave, women’s political consciousness was born fighting for rights for minorities, only to discover (in the case of the suffragettes) that they could not speak at rallies or appear in public because of stigmas about women (they were expected to stay behind a screen at public meetings). In another interpretation, working for civil rights for others made women more aware of the stigmas and restrictions placed against themselves. So in many ways, women’s liberation was born out of the fight for rights for African Americans.

Davis is an ubernerd in terms of education; she went to many colleges both in the U.S. and abroad, showing her deep love of learning. She was associated with both the Black Panther Party and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee in the ’60s and ’70s. She is a socialist and was previously a political candidate in the Communist Party USA. She became famous after she was connected to the murder of a judge who was held hostage during a Black Panther prison escape attempt; she fled underground, and was eventually captured, arrested, tried, and acquitted in a famous trial. She is now a professor at the University of California and Presidential chair at UC Santa Cruz.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

Most theories about the interpretation of mass media messages and images can be boiled down to indoctrination in ignorance: audiences accept and interpret the messages that mass media (usually corporate businesses like Fox, CBS, NBA, and ABC) distribute like robots or sheep, exactly the way that the message makers want.

Active audience theory goes against all that, saying that the audience itself plays an active role in interpreting the messages using their own social contexts, and are capable of changing the messages themselves through collective action.

During my online discussion of this theory in my media studies class, one cynical commenter thought the theory was laughable. It’s important to notice that active audience theory is not only more important because it attributes power and agency to the audience, but it also takes into account that not everyone has spent their life submersed in the uncontested dominate messages of our culture. Below, his comment, my response.

“I find the definition of the active audience theory to be extremely ironic. A quote from the book says, “Because people are not as stupid, gullible, or easy to dominate as the media indoctrination perspective would have us believe.” I beg to differ, the current television landscape proves we are indeed just that. The current reality TV craze where they pump out as many variations as they can is an example of how gullible we are. I abhor that crap but numbers don’t lie, we watch them all. We have American Idol (a next generation Star Search Rip-off) to thank for starting it all. Other than reality TV your only option is some form of a cop show involving forensic evidence, which they also can’t stop duplicating.

The one aspect of the active audience theory that seemed to fit for me is the social context aspect. Using American Idol as an example, no other show in my memory has ever had people talking about it as much in a social context. These shows are the ultimate “water cooler talk” type programs. So, do others agree with me or is there holes in my reasoning?”

I think the most important thing to remember when it comes to the “active audience” theory is that television is NOT the only socialization tool the populace is subject to. Everyone brings a different “outside” context and lens to mass media, which they then use to interpret it, and this leads to multiple interpretations of the same content.

As a feminist, I will interpret messages from certain shows and ads differently than people who do not share my beliefs and perspectives. Other things that will inevitably affect an individual’s interpretation are: people who are affected by immigration, people who aren’t white, people who aren’t American, people who have different levels and focuses of education, and people of different religious backgrounds. Anyone belonging to these sub-groups, or combination of sub-groups, will interpret media messages differently and come to a variety of different, sometimes conflicting, conclusions - because they have different contexts and lenses through which to interpret the original message.

That’s the biggest point of the theory - people don’t come to mass media as blank slates. Audiences actively interpret the message based on their context and frame. So while the MAJORITY of the populace might agree on the DOMINATE message of a given mass media product, that’s hardly the only interpretation available. Seeking out other perspectives, contexts, and frames will enhance your understanding of the message.

What do you think? Are audiences numb sheeple, or active interpreters? Some combination? Are certain groups more prone to be accepting mass media messages without question?

“Abortion Clinic” was filmed in the small town of Chester, Pennsylvania. It shows the abortions experienced by two young white women, Helen and Barbara, along with their explanation of what got them there in the first place. At the time, Chester had a 30% unemployment rate.

It doesn’t hold anything back - parts of the footage are graphic. At the same time, it’s important to have a filming of this procedure, so mysterious and fearful, characterized as so malicious. When I watch it, I’m less afraid (even though I probably will never go through the procedure of having an abortion, a function of privilege, luck, and a great support system unavailable to most). What’s known is always less scary than what your mind dreams up out of fear and lack of information.

This film serves as a powerful reminder of why we need to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare.

Frontine: “Abortion Clinic”, 1983 (requires Windows Media Player…sucks, I know, fellow Mac users)

The introduction to Helen’s story (Chapter 2) begins with some footage of a man claiming to be a “doctor” who is going over his various methods for trying to convince women seeking an abortion to change their minds. (I suspect, like many of the theological establishment, he isn’t necessarily lying about being a doctor, but exaggerating and/or not telling the whole truth. Probably has a doctorate of theology or something, but the point is when you tell people you’re a doctor, they assume you mean a medical doctor - a physician - unless you clarify, because that’s the layman’s usage.) He pulls out a “standard textbook” and a plastic model of a fetus he says is just 10 weeks along (proof that the anti-abortion protesters have been lying for many many years…no WAY is that only 10 weeks along), which he also claims has a fully developed brain and can think and feel pain, both claims which have been refuted by more recent medical literature.

If nothing else, watch the film to see the protesters in action. It’s sad, but I wish that protesters today were so mild as these, whom I can respectfully disagree with, even if they are deceiving women. At least they approach the women as beseeching rather than accusatory, and aren’t likely to kill anyone. Compare that to today’s climate, as seen in THINKFilmNY’s 2007 documentary, Lake of Fire:

Ah, the good old days of bigoted signs and fake plastic fetuses. Who would have thought they’d be missed?

For me, this shit has all been about community. I did not expressly state this in my original post. I was angry enough at the time that I really didn’t flesh out my ideas fully. Having since had the time to think things through more carefully and surf around several of the blogs that are talking about this—part of what I was trying to say was that feminists have a choice in deciding what community they belong to. And they are implicitly choosing to stay away from and otherwise distance themselves from communities that make them uncomfortable or worried for any reason. This has consequences for the communities that they refuse to work with. Most importantly, it has consequences because WOMEN belong to those communities that they refuse to work with.

~Brownfemipower, on her new, one-post-only blog

I heard of your work long ago, when I first dipped my toe into the pond of the feminist blogosphere, but never read more than a post or two. I am white, so it seemed so far removed from me. Now I am filled with regret…I wish, I wish, that I had had the wisdom to read your words before they were gone. I always thought I could come back and read them later.

When I read the first post on the subject by Feministe, I was shocked. I could not believe that Amanda, a feminist, had done such a thing — a feminist, who should understand better than most about the politics of appropriation, discrimination, and injustice.

The more I looked, the more heartbroken I became, because every bit of evidence I saw — even the posts by Hugo, a man I consider a friend and source of inspiration — pointed in the same direction. They were defensive. They were dismissive. They were playing to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of a feminist community. It could only mean one thing. What you said was true, truer than they were willing to admit. Amanda had done something horrible, and more importantly, she refused to try and fix it, or even admit it was wrong.

Almost everyone I looked up to as a feminist mentor was suddenly perpetrating an amazingly outrageous level of discrimination. I never expected such people, self-identified progressives, to be tinged with such hate, to be clinging and spreading such injustice…and to seem so blind to what they were doing. Can they really be THAT ignorant? I am not sure that I want to know the answer, or what it would mean.

I don’t know where to go from here. I want to let you know that as a result of this I have started to reach out the the blogs of feminists and women of color who I previously thought did not apply to me. I start to see the tiny undercurrents of racism and classism in everyday life that were previously invisible to me, that are now glaring, screaming, and I wonder how in the world I managed to miss them before. I have ordered books on race and class. I tried to find the blogs of other white feminist who “get it”, to see what wisdom they can give.

For what it’s worth, this whole shitpile woke me up.

I don’t know what to do to help, but all I can think is to try, as hard as possible, to make “feminism” something that embraces women like you, something that gives you hope and courage in exchange for inspiration and a powerful voice. Most importantly, I want feminism to BE the community you’re talking about. Community is what it has always been about. I want to make my feminism, my community, one that welcomes a brownfemipower, a blackamazon, an angry black woman.

I’m mentally sending you hugs, tears, friendship, and regrets for my past indifference. I hope one day to be able to see your words, for the first time.

Commentary:
I bought this little book, read the introduction, and was amazed. bell hooks is a cultural critic and writer, one of the most well known second wave women of color (at least to me). Here she provides an excellent feminist primer that addresses the history and spirit of the feminist movement, one which DOES do a good job of addressing race and class issues (unlike Full Frontal Feminism, which was much more for white, middle-class women who were “hesitant to call themselves feminist”, though there certainly is a niche for such a book). I would definitely recommend this as an introductory text.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
A description of the book from South End Press’ web site:

hooks applies her critical analysis to the most contentious and challenging issues facing feminists today, including reproductive rights, violence, race, class, and work. With her customary insight and unsparing honesty, hooks calls for a feminism free from divisive barriers but rich with rigorous debate. In language both eye-opening and optimistic, hooks encourages us to demand alternatives to patriarchal, racist, and homophobic culture, and to imagine a different future.

hooks speaks to all those in search of true liberation, asking readers to take look at feminism in a new light, to see that it touches all lives. Issuing an invitation to participate fully in feminist movement and to benefit fully from it, hooks shows that feminism—far from being an outdated concept or one limited to an intellectual elite—is indeed for everybody.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

It’s smart, funny, and informed; Annie clearly knows her stuff. [Horrible pun horribly intended. Ha!] I love it when smart women give us such smart material; we hear too much bullshit from overblown PR spokespeople. She explains both simply and intelligently (how many people successfully pull THAT off???) the historical, political, economic, and biological facts about consumption, as well as providing solutions to help keep us from…you know…sucking the life out of our planet.

Watch!

For me, at least, this is just an excellent explanation of everything that is so fucked up with capitalist/corporate America today. It is the first, but certainly not the last, in the “Dumb USA” category, reserved specifically for examples of uniquely American stupidity, self-centeredness, and greed.

You can view the whole movie and download it for free from storyofstuff.com, as well as see her blog, source material, and other resources.

Thanks to the amazingly hilarious blog, Stuff White People Like, for the lead to this most excellent video.

Commentary:
This book was assigned as a textbook in my “Sex, Power, and Politics” Women’s Studies class, and I loved it. Deborah Siegel does a great job of describing the history of the “mainstream” feminist movement, the one that immediately springs to mind when you hear the words “suffrage”, “women’s rights” or “women’s liberation”.* Which most people think they have a pretty good grasp on, and which most people really don’t.

And don’t discount the importance of history; as Siegel points out, many young feminists like me end up reinventing the wheel all over again because we know so little about the reality of this movement that has completely and utterly impacted every area of our lives. When the progress feminism made begins to break down, or when we seek to raise our consciousness or explore our sexuality, we do so without realizing that the trails have been blazed before, and we could learn from seeing where they went, rather then trying to break new ground to end up in the same place.

Reading this book, in combination with my amazing professor’s wealth of knowledge, helped me understand the real history of feminism, where it’s been, where it’s broken down, where it’s been effective and where there is still work to do. I especially love the list of links and resources in the back. As far as I’m concerned this is required reading for anyone who is interested in feminism, but most especially for anyone interested in making feminism part of their activism and daily life.

Additional Comments always welcome.

* I say mainstream because there is/was actually an equally powerful, and some argue more effective, feminist movement among communities of people of color, both before, during, and after the rise of the second wave. Siegel touches on this briefly, and I actually learned quite a bit from her about the movement of women of color, but that’s mostly because I was completely and utterly ignorant that there WAS such a movement, so her few paragraphs were a revelation. She makes clear in her introduction that her book that her history is not meant to address the issues, progress, and history of the feminist movement in communities of people of color.

-

Here’s an excellent preview; more embedded below the fold.

[Trigger Warning: Many of the images in this preview are graphic and violent. Also: Don’t go to YouTube and read the comments section. Just don’t.]

If you can get your hands on this movie, DO IT. You can look at the product page for the company that distributes it, the Media Education Foundation, but their prices are for universities and non-profits, so they include “viewing fees” for mass audiences, which is why they’re $150-275. From what I understand you can order a personal copy for in-home use, but you have to call them on the phone to order and for pricing. I have ordered several documentaries from them during clearances for individual use, which were usually $10-25 per movie.

If you can’t do that, check out your local library or a the nearest university open to the public. My college has this movie “on file” on their closed circuit system so I can watch it on campus in the library’s Media Center; I suspect many other universities have something similar.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
This book is both historical and sociological, exploring the ways in which perceptions of the female body (and it’s importance to a girl’s self-worth) have changed over time. Not only has the development of girls’ body changed — menstruation and sexual activity begin much earlier — there is also much greater emphasis of the body as defining your self. Girls grow up believing that “good looks”, rather than “good works” — personal, communal, and professional accomplishments — are the highest form of female perfection. It includes previously unpublished entries from the diaries of girls across America, as well as a photo essay with photographs, advertisements and postcards that show how girls and their bodies have changed since the nineteenth century. Per the book’s web site:

From corsets to body piercing, The Body Project demonstrates how the preoccupation with the body has intensified and why adolescent girls and their bodies have born the brunt of social change in the twentieth century.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

As a female blogger who forged something amazing out of her righteous feminist anger, she was someone I had hoped to be. Her blog is one of those that I check every day, and I alway look forward to her humor and scathing commentary, her unabashed willingness to “call bullshit” when she sees it. Many say that being so caustic is damaging to “the cause”, but to the contrary, a perspective that is blunt, straightforward, rightfully angry, and unashamed is refreshing to me, since I’m so used to rhetoric, hedging, evasion, and empty words.

I’m not going to link to any of the multitude of the conversations taking place elsewhere, because they are too many and too confusing. I believe Amanda when she says she did not “steal” brownfemipower’s content, and it appears that she wrote every word of her original article herself. However, I also believe it is intellectually dishonest for her to claim no credit is due to brownfemipower, whose entire activisim and more importantly her blog was based on the topics covered in Amanda’s article, which Amanda has admitted is on her reading list. This is practically a textbook case of appropriation of WOC work.

I understand Amanda’s defensive stance, and her perception of being attacked…she IS being attacked. The question is whether the attack is warranted. Even if some of the accusations are overreactions - which brownfemipower’s was decidedly not, though some of her loyal friends went much more vocal and accusing - that doesn’t invalidate the original complaint. As a woman and a feminist, she knows and understands the effects of discrimination. She can understand what its like, for example, if a male colleague repeats a suggestion of hers and it receives consideration since it came from a male mouth instead of her own. She understands what its like to be ignored, dismissed, silenced, called “hysterical”. This makes her actions regarding brownfemipower all the more disappointing. I’m not sure how this will affect how I read her blog.

There is a simple solution, which I think could solve this, at least between Amanda and bfp. Amanda, apologize. Say you’re sorry for the lack of mention. Say appropriation was not your intention, and thank bfp for her blog, which you have read, which helps you track the discrimination and racism people of color, especially women of color, experience. Add a link in your article, either at the end or within the text, to brownfemipower’s work. Maybe even link to some other inspirations…you said you were inspired by speeches and texts not from brownfemipower. Acknowledge those too.

That’s all. That’s really all it would take. At that point it is not longer appropriation, but you adding your unique voice to the work of the RWOC. You would be defending WOC and their right to speak and be heard, rather than undermine those rights.

Your unwillingness to do that, for whatever reason, is what the uproar is all about.

Commentary:
This popped up on my Amazon recommendations, and it looks fascinating. Katz, who I never heard of before looking at this book, is a famous anti-sexist and anti-violence advocate, specializing in prevention. Once I started looking into him and his work, I realized I’d already seen some of it, as the man behind Tough Guise: Violence, Media, and the Crisis in Masculinity, an excellent documentary from the Media Education Foundation, who I hope to post on more in the future.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
From Publisher’s Weekly, via Amazon.com:

“Katz is cofounder of the Mentors in Violence Prevention Program (MVP), and his focus is on prevention—his intended audience is not violent men who need help changing their ways, but all men, who, he says, have a role to play in preventing male violence against women.
His basic assertion is that rape, battering, sexual abuse and harassment are so widespread that they must be viewed as a social problem rooted in our culture, not as the problem of troubled individuals. He urges men to directly confront the misogynistic attitudes and behavior of their peers.
Some men may find Katz’s advice occasionally baffling: he is full of directions about what not to do (such as paternalistic actions that deprive women of their autonomy). He wants to bring men into the larger discussion of pornography (which, he points out, has been dominated by women) and get them to look at its impact on themselves. Katz also presents eye-opening exercises and discussions from the MVP model that engender productive discussion among participants — usually high school or college students.”

A great excerpt from the opening page:

“Most people think violence against women is a woman’s issue. And why wouldn’t they? Just about every women in this society thinks about it every day. If they are not getting harassed on the street, living in an abusive relationship, recovering from a rape, or in therapy to deal with the sexual abuse they suffered as children, they are ordering their daily lives around the threat of men’s violence.
But it is a mistake to call men’s violence a women’s issue.”

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

Sam worried for my safety all the time, for which I appreciated his concern, but I got increasingly annoyed that every day I worked, he would fret about my car being broken into or stolen, or my being assaulted/kidnapped/raped in the parking lot. Every day he would say something about it, and say, half serious, half in jest, that he would come escort me home.

This despite the fact that I repeatedly told him I felt quite safe at work - I knew the security guard assigned to the area, a short, middle-aged, fast talking black woman who was possibly the sweetest person I ever met, and who checked in with all the staff (most of us were in our early 20s) frequently.

I also trusted all my coworkers - we were all friends and we all watched out for each other. I frequently drove some of the guys home who only had skateboards or whose family had only one car, so they had to wait for their mom. My car is a piece of shit 2000 Saturn anyway, damaged by an accident that I didn’t fix. I hated that he would go on and on that I was in danger and my car was in danger, when I knew I was safe.

And yet he never worried when I lived in the dorms at State. I would call him, usually, on the way from my dorm to my car in the parking structure that was, literally, less than 300 yards away, and I was always afraid of being assaulted there.

He always told me I was perfectly safe, despite the fact that I reminded him of the bulletins posted around the dorms all semester - at least one every month, often more - about rapes, assaults, and robberies that occurred on campus. Add in the college night-time atmosphere of a well-known party school, plus the loud, offensive frat boys who would yell “hey baby” or other propositions, and I was justifiably fearful that something could and would happen. Not to mention in the latter situation I was almost always alone.

Not to say Sam didn’t worry about me on campus, but he didn’t seem to take my assessment of either situation as seriously as his - despite the fact that I was more familiar with these areas and situations than he was. It’s something to note that my instincts on whether or not I’m “safe” were not relevant to his evaluation.

In his assumptions, too, was a note about race and class, though I didn’t realize it at the time (. I felt (and probably was) more safe amongst the minority populations and working poor - the everyday public, who were much less likely to assault/rape/rob me out of nowhere and for no reason, and many of whom were truly my friends and looking out for me. I felt (and, again, probably was) less safe amongst the drunken frat-boy atmosphere, with the kids whose parents were paying for their college and felt a sense of entitlement to everything, including but not limited to my appearance. A surprising number of robberies on campus were bored rich kids who just didn’t care about other people. I don’t really know which situation was more dangerous to me, but that’s my perception.

Something else that I’ve been reading about on occasion in my so-far-tenuous relays into the blogs of women of color, though: “safety” is a loaded word, tainted with the stink of white privilege. It’s virtually always white people, especially middle-class white people, who assume “safety” is one of their civil rights, along with the right to privacy, guns, and religious freedom.

Only entitled people - usually upper- to middle-class, white, male, or some combo - feel that sense that the worlds “owes” them something, including safety. Or a “purpose”, or “recognition”, or a “good job”. These things are privileges, and enjoyed, usually, by the privileged.

Some of the less privileged can gain these things with hard work, time, and effort, but that’s no guarantee they’ll get them. There is no certainty that (what’s the right word? unprivileged?) people can get the above entitlement even WITH hard work, no guarantee, especially for people of color, doubly so for women of color. Only privileged people (in my case, white, in Sam’s case, white male) take such things for granted, as a given, rather than a blessing.

I don’t think such things should be privileges, I think they SHOULD be rights. It’s crucial that people are able to make choices, and no one should be compelled to make a choice out of fear. Everyone should feel safe. But at the moment, feeling safe isn’t a right for a vast majority of American citizens, and other people throughout the world. From what I can tell from the few WOC blogs I’ve read, the first question they’d ask is, “What are you doing to change this?” And when I’m honest, I answer “Nothing, really.” I’m not sure where to go, or what to do, for that. But I’m working on it.

Commentary:
I really want to read this book, but ran into several issues getting my hands on the 3rd edition, not the least of which being that my library’s copy is missing. Most of the copies of the 3rd edition that I find online are much too expensive; most were over $200, some were only $100. Anything less than $100 was very used. This is the second, and biggest, problem I ran into while trying to locate this book. The second edition, however, is much less expensive, though it lacks the newer material. Both of these editions seem to be out of print.

UPDATE: I finally got my hands on a gorgeous copy of the 3rd edition, by basically stalking the “New & Used” from Amazon.com and AbeBooks. It was awesome, I found one that was barely used, for only $42. If you want to get your hands on this book, I would recommend doing that.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
Originally published in 1984 (1983? ‘84? Sources vary!), this anthology, which includes poems, prose, and essays, was edited by two radical women of color (Chicanas, both). This Bridge Called My Back was groundbreaking, the first well-known book that really held white feminists’ feet to the fire, so to speak, about their deliberate ignorance of the racial disparities within the feminist movement, and called for a radical restructuring of America. This third edition contains all the original material from the first two editions, including their forwards, prefaces, and introductions, as well as a new forward by Moraga that she began writing on September 11, 2001.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

Commentary:
This book is difficult to read so far, simply because of the sheer volume of information. But it’s absolutely crucial reading, for anyone, but especially feminists. I recommend you read it in small spurts — I’m taking it chapter by chapter, giving it time to digest.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
Originally published in 1991 (the cover I have here is for the 15th Anniversary edition), it’s a little out of date in terms of numbers. However, the phenomenon are still there, the analysis is still right on, and the truths it unveils are still disturbing at how much of the discrimination faced by women is part of a system. The book is INSANELY well-researched, literally TONS of numbers; Faludi is a Pulitzer-prize winning former Wall Street Journal reporter, and it shows. Feminist beginners should definitely read this as soon as they can stomach it; this is one of those texts that long-timers will refer back to again and again.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

Commentary:
I am in the process of reading this book, and it’s so powerful. It’s one of those things that really wakes you up to how much of what we suspect, what we have this instinct is going on but can’t quite put our finger on because it seems so normal, so Just The Way Things Are, is a SYSTEM. It’s not an accident, but an institution, an actual system and process that was put in place to preserve the majority of people from having equal access to power.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
Summary Via Amazon.com: In a country where the average woman is 5-foot-4 and weighs 140 pounds, movies, advertisements, and MTV saturate our lives with unrealistic images of beauty. The tall, nearly emaciated mannequins that push the latest miracle cosmetic make even the most confident woman question her appearance. Feminist Naomi Wolf argues that women’s insecurities are heightened by these images, then exploited by the diet, cosmetic, and plastic surgery industries. Every day new products are introduced to “correct” inherently female “flaws,” drawing women into an obsessive and hopeless cycle built around the attempt to reach an impossible standard of beauty. Wolf rejects the standard and embraces the naturally distinct beauty of all women.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

Commentary:
I haven’t read this book yet, but mixed reviews from the feminist blogosphere suggest it’s still a crucial addition to my shelf.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
The first book from the founder and Editor in Chief of Feministing. Received lots of criticism from women of color especially, as well as for the semi-condescending nature of the title (an unfortunate grammar choice), Girls Gone Wild connotations, and disembodied (white) nude cover image. Some, however, consider it a good introduction to feminist concepts, especially for younger women who are unfamiliar with the realities of feminism or hesitant to call themselves feminist. Ideal for teens and college undergrads, but mostly white middle-class audience. Focuses mostly on reproductive rights, sexism and misogyny, rape, and marriage, and Valentine’s Day. Does a poor job of addressing issues of race, class, and LGBT issues.

-

I am going to feature media on this site prominently, namely reccomended feminist literature. But I also intend to critique mass media and cultural messages, which includes advertising, magazine articles, journalistic pieces, television, web sites, etc.

On occasion I will probably add personal elements, as my relationship with my guy-lover-man-thing and my friends often set off personal insights and applications of feminism as I’ve come to understand it. Also, because I am an angry feminist journalism nut, I will probably post rants on here. And since I’m a librarian/research/intellectual/academic nerd, I will probably feature some academic studies and developments that pop up in scholarly journals if I run across them.

I also plan to feature resources and links, notes from class, the occasional well-developed list, timeline, statisitical table, or historical piece, as well as activities and exercises for feminists n00b and old.

This is my vision for Mordant Belle. Onward!