Nerdy Feminist

Intentions Are Irrelevant

2013-05-21T16:30:00.000-05:00

I've had this post in my queue with just a title for over a week. I've been trying to formulate what I want to say, and I'm going to take a stab at it...but I'm not convinced it will come out right at all.

Oh well, here goes.

In the social justice/feminist world, when we are called out for a racist/sexist/heterosexist/abelist/cissexist or otherwise bigoted remark, the gut reaction we all have is to fall back on, "but that's not what I meant."

I see it all the time, and I'm sure you have too. We view ourselves as a part of the solution, so when we mess up (as we all do time-to-time) the guilt and disappointment in ourselves can be a lot to bear. So we revert back to what we believe to be true of ourselves...we're good people. We wouldn't do or say anything to hurt others.

We didn't mean it like that.

It wasn't our intention.

We weren't thinking about it that way.

We even make these excuses for other people we like, as if we can really know their intentions. Over at Tumblr, I regularly receive posts where the submitter screencaps a friend/family member saying something sexist, but they then write a caption like, "He's not even a bad guy" or "I don't even know if he meant it that way."

The truth is...our intentions are irrelevant. What matters so much more is the cultural context in which our words and actions exist. For example, as a white person, I benefit from white privilege literally every day. And these daily privileges become almost invisible to me, as a beneficiary of them, especially if I'm not actively thinking about it. So it can be quite easy for me to not "mean" something racist...but that doesn't change the fact that when a person of color points out something they see as a problematic aspect of my writing/speech/behavior--I should give it pause and actually think about it.

Sure, my intentions might not have been to offend, but if the end result is the same (offense) does that make me any less culpable? Even if I've inadvertently invoked a stereotype, the stereotype still exists.

We have to stop thinking about racism, sexism, homophobia, and etc. as things that only bad people do. The truth is that all of us mess up time-to-time. We all exist in the kyriarchy and almost all of us carry some form of privilege.

So the real test is how you respond when you DO mess up? Will you learn from the experience? Or will you lash back---more worried about clarifying your intentions and clearing your name than caring about the person your hurt?

Ok, when I say that intentions are irrelevant, that's not entirely true. There are people who make it their business to be specifically bigoted, and that is its own special set of problems. But for those of us who really do examine society and think critically about oppression, we can't worry about getting a pass when we mess up. We just can't.

We've got to accept responsibility.

Related:
Working on Anti-Racism
"Yes, But..."
Don't you DARE Call Me A Racist!
How to Enter Feminist Discussions at the 101 Level and Not Totally Mess Up

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Gender, Race, and Star Trek

2013-05-20T12:46:00.000-05:00

This is a guest post by Sarah, who blogs at Radical Madre. It was reposted with permission. I wanted to feature her thoughts as a compliment to my own recent post on the new Star Trek film. Welcome, Sarah! --A. Lynn

Recently I’ve started watching Star Trek the original series on Netflix. One of the first things I noticed when I was watching it was the fact that there is an impressing representation of men and women (i.e. at least 1 woman to every 3 or 4 men) with the women playing supporting roles on the show. The cast is also pretty racially diverse with characters like Uhura and Sulu playing a predominant role.

When you think back to the fact it was 1967, what the heck do you expect to be honest? Not that! My visions of TV in 1967 are shows like I Dream of Jeannie, The Andy Griffith Show and Gunsmoke none of which really broke through prevailing social norms of gender and race. TV in 1967 seemed to me to perpetuate an unsurprisingly cliche representation of women and people of color in an era where women were still struggling for basic rights and freedoms and things were far from racially balanced.

Now lets be real, even though there were more progressive elements to the show from my modern day perspective, women still play a minimal role in the show, are often portrayed as weak or hysterical and emotional and supporting roles are occupied by the “people of color” unlike the cis white male majority and two leading cis white males. There are not any racial slurs tossed about though there are more than a few jabs at women- man can explore space but still hasn’t explored gender equality and patriarchal male privilege and its harmful stereotypes. Oh well.

Of course I could give a major shit because Star Trek is awesome and despite all thoughts about the antiquated attitudes that occasionally slip into dialogue, it is still a well done, excellently thought out exploration of space, philosophy, and all with an inclusive cast. Also, like I said, it’s 1967, what do you expect?

Besides the above, what happened 50 years ago isn’t necessarily relevant today. I take the show and its supposed flaws with a grain of salt because i feel that for the era, that was ground breaking and admirable. I took the time to point this out because i am writing this piece 50 years and some change later reflecting on the state of women, people of color and the Starship Enterprise in this time and space.

Here we are in basically 2013 with less diversity and less progressive qualities to TV than there were when women were still confined to secretarial work and persons of color had only had desegregated bathrooms for about 3 years!

In the year 2013 you like to think that things are moving forward and bringing more integration and social representation into the popular culture but that just isn’t the case. As I’ve started to notice this stuff, it becomes increasingly more distracting watch television and movies. Women are almost entirely absent from positions of power or have a small role in comparison to a predominantly male cast. Ladies are treated like walking prostitutes, irrational or stereotyped as lonely spinsters and sexualized or mocked for their lack of sexual appeal. People of color have “token” representation, are relegated to cameos, or are entirely absent from the fantasy worlds presented on screen. Without making this an entire thesis on media portrayal of everyone else but cis white males, the gender and race diversity has actually declined in my opinion. If not declined, then it has certainly not progressed forward by the same radicalness that was the first gen Star Trek universe.

Now take the new Star Trek “reboot” after Kirk and Picard and all else– here goes a great opportunity to expand upon this radical casting and integrate strong women characters, more persons of color, and make this Trek as impressive as the first. In a time – the millennia 2000 – when women and people of color are making great strides and generally perceived as almost equal (in practice not generally so) this new Trek is less diverse than the original series.

There is only one female crewman and she is in a relationship with Spock. She’s of course sexualized (as eye candy for the young alternate version of Kirk), she is the only woman on board the Enterprise and she is seemingly able to excel because she is in a relationship with Spock. Not saying Spock pulls strings (not even sure if that was an allusion from the movie or assumption anyone could make) but being “off limits” by being tied up with a superior officer and “logical” Vulcan ambassador makes it easy for people to look straight toward your performance over anything else that might usually inhibit their opinion of your capabilities. She is also representing the only other person of color next to Sulu. Kill two token birds with one casting, eh?

Disappointing to realize that 50 years earlier in an era known for its stubborn repugnance for equality and the Vietnam War, people were making more efforts to accurately represent races and genders than in the present moment where it’s boasted that women can do and be anything and racism has supposedly been history for 50 years.

Of course this says nothing about the exclusive silence and non existent inclusion of any gender other than cis men and cis women so please do not think silence in that regard is ignoring that disgrace. The point is that even something as simple as moving forward with inclusive casting has not happened in the 50 years since one awesome little science fiction show went on the air to amuse.

That absence of progression and failure to progress is unacceptable. While one wants to be amused by nerd-induced reboots and even just mainstream modern television, it’s incredibly distracting to be shown a world where prime time is cis white people and women are token figures or serve as romantic interests for the men who take the lead. That’s not reality and even in science fiction it’s hardly interesting or believable to watch a universe explored by cis white men. There’s more diversity in an alien bar than there is on a ship or even on prime time television.

It’s high time we explored the new frontier of diversity in gender, race, and sexuality representation in mainstream media and popular culture for the long awaited equality that this fan hopes Star Trek laid the foundation for all those years ago.

---Sarah is a mom of two beautiful children working day in and day out to create a radical community outside of the patriarchal nonsense that narrowly defines the experience of women (and men) in this culture! To reclaim all the bits that get lost amongst the birth and raising of consciousness, Sarah keeps the pop culture but loses the acceptance of the status quo and writes about it! From self-published works on zombies (Yoga Zombie Apocalypse anyone?) to video games and DIY earth mama herbalism, you'll find her planting her own food and sewing with tiny adorable people while thinking about how to explain why Disney isn't an acceptable movie genre for family movie night and that gender and race representation on TV is abysmal. :-D

She can be found at:

http://radicalmadre.com

www.radicalmadre.tumblr.com

@sarahmascarah

http://www.facebook.com/radicalmadre

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Star Trek: Into Status Quo

2013-05-17T13:30:00.001-05:00

This post is a part of my summer blockbuster series. I'll be tagging the whole thing as 2013 blockbusters. And if you want to check out last year's series, it's 2012 blockbusters. (BTW, I take a pretty loose interpretation of "blockbuster.")

So. Star Trek into Darkness. Let's talk about it. I'll try to keep this spoiler free as possible.

[Image text Spock and Kirk Start Trek into Darkness poster]

I'm not a Trekker. I don't think I've seen many of the previous movies and I've probably only seen a handful of episodes of any incarnation of the TV shows. But when the franchise was rebooted in 2009 (how was it that long ago?!?!?) I really enjoyed it. Unfortunately the second installment didn't hold up the same. Not only was the gender situation disappointing (as I will detail below) but I also from a "was this a good movie?" perspective. I just found it to be overall kind of meh. There wasn't much that pulled me in and I felt the story and action were a bit sloppy.

But enough of that, let's get to the meat of what this summer blockbuster series is about: the gender messages of the film.

I have respected how the Stark Trek franchise, since the start, has had a fairly diverse representation of people among the cast members. That fact remains true in this most recent incarnation. Women and people of color are all over Starship Enterprise performing various roles. However, disappointingly not many of them get actual speaking roles.

Let's be real: overall it's a white dude's film (sigh, what else is new?) The main action is created by and between white men and there are far more dudes running around the ship than women.

There are two female characters of note: Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and the new chick to this

[Image text: Uhura and Spock at the control board.]

reboot, Carol (Alice Eve.) These women are pretty cool--Uhura is a communications specialist who speaks Klingon (among other languages) which is a skill that's incredibly important to the crew. Dr. Carol Marcus has her PhD in weaponry, another vital skill set. These women are smart, professional, assertive, and good at what they do.

Because the potential of these two female character is so high, I was even more annoyed when they did so little with them. Uhura plays an important role in a few critical scenes, but overall she is reduced helping one of the main male characters including Spock (Zachary Quinto) and Kirk (Chris Pine.) Women are such good little helpers, aren't we!

Similarly Carol's skills are important in their understanding of a new weapon, but she is reduced to being the rebellious daughter of the evil Admiral Marcus (trope alert!) Her main character arch (if she's even important enough to actually be said to have one) revolves around this "daddy issues" -esque motif. Furthermore, when things get really serious, Carol is injured by the grand villain (Benedict Cumberbatch) and is unable to meaningfully contribute to the forward motion of the story at all.

One of the most annoying parts of the depiction of the only two significant female characters in the film is that they are both romantically tied to men. Uhura is outwardly in a relationship with Spock and there is a flirtatious (although not fully realized) relationship between Kirk and Carol. In what was by far the most infuriating scene of the film, Carol unnecessarily changes clothes while talking to Kirk. She insists that he turns around but ultimately he and us, as the audience, get to see Carol for about 5 seconds looking exactly like this:

[Image text: Dr. Carol Marcus in only black bra and panties.]

Let me make this perfectly clear: there was absolutely no point to that scene or to her partial nudity. It did nothing to move the story forward or contribute to the plot. It was perhaps one of the most blatantly exploitative uses of a female body that I've seen in a while and obvious pandering to the whims of your average straight male Trekker. (The literal hooting and hollering of the dudebros next to me in the theater confirmed as much.) Heaven-fucking-forbid that we see Dr. Carol Marcus as a smart, capable member of the crew without being sexualized along the way. I suppose that people would make the case that this scene was thrown into build up some sexual tension and "will they-won't they" -ness between Carol and Kirk, but to that I will say two things:

1) There are ways to build sexual tension between characters without the audience ogling at a female character's body and
2) As mentioned, they never even played out the possible relationship between Kirk and Carol, so what was the point of this scene if not to pander to the male gaze?!

I literally rolled my eyes and scoffed out loud at that scene.

[Image text: Spock and Kirk talking.]

Perhaps the only interesting gender situation of the film was a message about emotions and feelings between Kirk and Spock. At one point Spock's life is in danger but he shows no emotion about it. Later, Uhura and Kirk question him and he explains how after seeing his planet destroyed and the extreme pain that came from that, he made the choice to cut himself off from feeling anything that horrible again.

Later, Kirk's life is the one now in danger and in a touching scene between Spock and Kirk, Spock breaks and we see him feel again, as he is terrified that his friend will die. This not only goes against what Spock had set out for himself (to no longer feel) but also the nature of the Vulcan people who are more logical than emotional. It was actually nice to see the story display two men who were so close that emotions ended up fully flowing between them.

That aside, I am still disappointed with how underutilized and exploited Uhura and Carol were. The media is chock full of empowering stories about men. It's the status quo. So even when they are not stereotypical (like the emotional exchange between Kirk and Spock) I want more female voices, characters, and stories represented.

It just wasn't good enough.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Angelia Jolie and the Patriarchal View on Breast Cancer

2013-05-17T11:46:00.000-05:00

This is a guest post by Casey Edison. Casey is a blogger/writer living in northern NJ. She's been writing stories since she could spell and has been a feminist since the first time she was told she couldn't be on the New York Giants when she grew up because she's a girl. She runs a Misogyny in Comic Books Tumblr and is currently working on two books: a mystery novel and a book about sexism in geek culture.

On Tuesday, May 14th, Angelina Jolie made an announcement that shocked many fans: She had a preventative Mastectomy, after having found out that she had BRCA+1, a cancerous gene that ensures breast cancer. Her many male fans took to the internet to proclaim their sadness over her loss… Wait, her loss? Yes, as it turns out, her fans weren’t happy she had gotten a surgery to greatly reduce her risk of getting a horrible disease, but rather sad- sad she had her breast tissue removed. In a move that greatly showed the patriarchal sense of entitlement, many men wrote RIPs for her breasts, as if there wasn’t a woman attached to them. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time this very serious form of cancer has been sexualized.

For years the patriarchy has had a “feel good” approach to breast cancer; pink ribbons and “saves the ta-tas” stickers are the norm, and we often forget the very real women who are developing a cancer that will rip apart their lives. 1 in 8 women will develop breast cancer in their lifetimes, and 1 in 36 will die of it. Breast cancer causes more deaths in women than any other cancer, other than lung cancer, and is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women alongside skin cancer. 1 in 10 men will get breast cancer; a fact many people tend to forget with the focus being on saving “the tatas”. The approach taken toward breast cancer is condemned by most feminists, who would rather such a horrible disease be taken seriously than used as another way to objectify us (and don’t get me started on the “free breast cancer screenings” pick up line, as if there wasn’t enough to deal with at the bar besides a guy using one of your worst fears to try to pick you up).

So why don’t people take this cancer more seriously? A male colleague of mine speculates that the fixation on boobs as an object and not the women who are attached to them stems from biologically being programmed to want the most attractive partner, to which I say, breasts don’t make you attractive. I think it’s because men like boobs, and by appealing to that, we can get a horrible life-threatening disease on their radar. If it weren’t for the feminine images of the Susan G Komen Foundation or the breast-centered slogans of the Save the Ta-Tas Foundation (yes that is a real thing), would the patriarchy even care about breast cancer? Would breast cancer research even have as much media attention and support as it does now? Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not condemning these foundations (well, maybe Save The Ta-Tas a little for their name), but wouldn’t it be nice if when a major celebrity gets a painful and difficult decision to get a mastectomy, society at large didn’t criticize her for “lopping off her boobs”?

Sources: breastcancer.org and cancer.org

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Take Aways from The Great Gatsby

2013-05-16T10:00:00.000-05:00

Carey Mulligan and Leonardo
DiCaprio in the new film

Confession time. I'm one of those rare birds that made it through a K-12 education in the United States and never read The Great Gatsby. As such, watching Baz Luhrmann's new adaptated film was my first real exposure to the story. I think that a story which is 88 years old shouldn't require a spoiler alert, but just in case, consider it alerted.

I'm not going to do a gender analysis of the film overall, because I don't know what's specific to Luhrmann's retelling vs. F. Scott Fitzgerald's original text. What I do know is that my gut reaction to the main female character, Daisy, as portrayed by Carey Mulligan, was to feel incredibly sad for her.

All around, Daisy seems trapped (which I suppose, is a fitting theme for the time period.) She's stuck in a love triangle between her long lost lover, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) and her husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton.) She's stuck in a life of idleness (but also one full of opulence and excess, to be fair.) And she's ultimately trapped with the husband she no longer loves, living through the guilt and shame of how everything ends for Jay.

In the climax of the film Daisy and Jay are going to reveal their love to Tom. Jay just keeps forcefully pushing Daisy to tell Tom she never loved him...a feeling which isn't true but Jay desperately needs it to be. His behavior at that point treads into abuse and I immediately felt that he was no better than Tom, after all. Daisy appears trapped between two men who seem more consumed with their posturing for one another and possessing her than for her or her feelings. I've seen Daisy referred to as a tragic character, and to that much I must agree. She's certainly a captive of the domestic expectations of the day and the will of the men around her. And really, I can't tell if all this captivity is intended to be a cautionary tale to the audience or if it's just portrayed as an inevitability of life.

In the end, Daisy and Jay drive off erratically, accidentally striking and killing Tom's mistress. Daisy was at the wheel, but Jay wants everyone to believe it was him to protect her. Tom tells the mistress' husband that it was Jay's car, and the husband shoots Jay in his pool. On this point, what has been particularly striking to me is how this film, made 88 years after the story is written, has garnered some reactions which show us how little progress we've made toward ending sexism.

[Image text: Hans Lara Facebook status, "Moral of The Great Gatsby: Never let a woman drive. You'll get shot."]

There you have it, folks. Your average Joe boils down this complex story to being about how women are bad at driving. And the thing is, as I was watching it, I totally predicted that this fact of the story would be the "lolz, I'm so funny" take away for sexists.

They didn't let me down.

Before anyone counters with the ever-popular, "It's just a joke, calm down!" I will (again) refer everyone to this:

[Image text shows a pyramid of increasing oppressions. The foundation is "acts of subtle bias" followed by "acts of prejudice and bigotry," then "acts of discrimination," "acts of violence," "acts of extreme violence to the individual," and at the top "genocide."]

So no, this type of thing isn't funny. It's just another of the hundreds of daily reminders that our society is deeply misogynistic. I hope that people like Hans Lara are more and more rare. Honestly, I can't tell if that's happening, but it is certainly my wish. I hope that more people see this film and DO think of Daisy's fate as a cautionary tale about the suppression and control of female autonomy. I hope people actually think about that instead of rushing to a tired, sexist stereotype.

Let's be real. We don't need more sexist jokes.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Why Feminism Is Important

2013-05-15T13:12:00.000-05:00

This is a guest post by Mackenzie Busch, who blogs regularly at Fetus Frolic.

I’ve identified as a feminist for quite a while now and in that time I have never been called angry (to my face), but since I’ve started writing with feminist-laced posts on my personal blog I’ve heard it a lot lately. Of course it is discouraging and I want to defend myself, but I don’t have to, my words are defense enough. I am angry, and why shouldn’t I be? We are fighting to be heard in a world that often undermines a female voice.

When you step outside the lines that were drawn for you the reception isn’t always positive, people love their boxes and they want you to stay in your box. My anger is not bad, that’s the misconception, it has a point and a reason and it is utilized for positivity. That anger has provided me with understanding for not only my own gender oppression but for those oppressed for their race, sexuality and religion instead of dismissing them. Don’t be scared that people won’t like you for what you believe, be shameless, “to be shameless is to know you’re in the right when everyone else believes you’re in the wrong.”

I often find myself wanting to stifle my voice because I know the reactions I’ll receive, but this is too important. These little pieces of pop culture, OUR social culture, are what we base our decisions on and we internalize them. It’s imperative to think about, analyze, and question why you believe something, especially if it hurts other people. You sometimes have to tear something apart to see how it really works, and that is a piece of feminism. You’re showing people the insides of a patriarchal society and not everyone will like it, it means they will have to be uncomfortable with something they are comfortable with. You’re not wrong simply because someone doesn’t like what you are saying.

I live in a place that flaunts how progressive they are, but if I am vocal about women outside of my circle (and sometimes inside) I literally get laughed at and mocked for being a feminist, but it’s OK, “they’re just kidding!” This doesn’t even compare to some of the horrific things I’ve heard back home, but really? Don’t be afraid of the feminist label, society makes it a bad word because they don’t want you to shake up the standards.

A patriarchal society likes to associate feminist action with negativity so it deters people from joining a movement that is opposed to it. No one in power wants to lose power. Don’t let them shame you into hiding, you don’t have to hide, that is the reason we speak out. It’s unfair that standing up for yourself and others means you have to get knocked down, but life isn’t fair. However, that doesn’t mean that you should give it up and accept a certain fate for yourself or future women just because it doesn’t always go your way. Without people who stand there would be no change or difference and your stance plays a vital role in progression.

It’s hard to fight privilege of any kind and it’s nice to remind yourself and others that there is a purpose and it is meaningful because you give it meaning. Don’t give up, we have your back J.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Selena Gomez's Come and Get It...FAIL

2013-05-15T10:00:00.000-05:00

When I was in Indy this past weekend, I was without my precious satellite radio, and therefore had to listen to the local top 40 station. One of the tunes they kept playing over and over was Selena Gomez's latest, "Come and Get It."

It's one of those songs that serves to be like a virus in my brain and although there's nothing I "like" about it, I found myself absentmindedly humming the chorus today and I decided to check out what the actual lyrics are about...so here you have it:

You ain't gotta worry, it's an open invitation
I'll be sittin' right here, real patient
All day, all night, I'll be waitin' standby
Can't stop because I love it, hate the way I love you
All day all night, maybe I'm addicted for life, no lie.

The rest of the lyrics are available here.

What struck me most about the song overall and this passage in particular is the overwhelming passivity. She's into this hypothetical guy...like a lot, clearly. And yet, she's put him in the driver's seat and while she waits. It's so frustrating to see lyrics which amount to nothing more than, "Hey, I'm yours if you want me...but I won't make a move." Although, I suppose there is a second, potentially more troubling, interpretation...which is that this is a guy who has outwardly expressed disinterest (or has broken up with her) and she's not taking no for an answer. Either way, it's certainly not a message I would endorse.

Things got worse when I looked up the music video:

Holy cultural appropriation, Batman!

The Desi sound that I was initially concerned about in listening has been taken to a whole other level in the video. Gomez and other mostly light skinned/non Desi women dance around in bastardized versions of Indian clothing and perform Bollywood-eque dances. The whole thing is really over sexualized and when coupled with the passivity of the lyrics as listed above, certainly conveys a racist overtone about Eastern women.

Sigh.

To further deconstruct why this type of imagery is not OK, I'd like to direct you to the entire "You Are Not Desi" blog for your reading and education.

And let me just end on one more good, solid SIGH.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

With the Patriarchy, You Just Can't Win

2013-05-14T12:30:00.000-05:00

[Content note: mention of abelist slurs]

After a short excursion out of town, I am back!

I just wanted to drop a quick note, as I've been thinking about a few examples of how the patriarchy traps women and basically punishes us for following its own rules.

Both are related to dating and male attention...I recently wrote this exchange on Tumblr to summarize how I see this playing out:

Woman: I'm not really into him that way, but he's a good friend.
Patriarchy: Ew, friend zone level one billion.
Woman: I like to hook up with him, but I'm not looking for a relationship.
Patriarchy: Slut!
Woman: I'm happy being single.
Patriarchy: Haha, good one. You need a man.
Woman: I love my girlfriend!
Patriarchy: Hawt. Y'all looking for a third?
Woman: I love my boyfriend!
Patriarchy: Jeez back up, you're smothering him.
Woman: He dumped me and that sucks.
Patriarchy: God you psycho bitch, get over him!

I mean, think about it...we're told at nearly every turn that it is some kind of magical leveling to a higher plane of existence if we "have a man." The message is that we're not really fulfilled unless we are attached to a dude. But then, when women internalize this message or even when they don't and they just have a tough break up, they're labeled "crazy bitches" who are "obsessed" with the guy.

You can't win.

Take another case. I was recently made aware of the Facebook page "Girls with daddy issues and the approval seeking sex that comes with them" (vomit.) In this case, the patriarchy deprioritizes parenting for men. The result is that many fathers are absent. And then it says that being caring and nurturing are feminine traits so that many physically present fathers are emotionally unavailable. And as a final 1-2 punch, it teaches women that male approval is critical but slut shames/takes advantage of us when we seek it.

You can't win.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

That's Soooo LA

2013-05-08T13:18:00.001-05:00

This is a guest post by Mackenzie Busch, who blogs regularly at Fetus Frolic.

Awhile back this video was released:

...entitled, “Women of LA” and it is chock-full of every -ism and phobia you can fit into five minutes. A little fat-shaming, gold digging references, racism, homophobia, and gross generalizations of women based solely on their geographic location. They even have a clever line about being unable to get a woman drunk enough to sleep with them, but in the their defense you can’t have misogyny without a little rape culture thrown in, right? Toss in a few B-List celebrities and you’ve garnered 1 million + views of your unsubstantiated male opinions.

Being a woman of LA I can say the picture they are painting is in no way representative of the women that live here and is an irritatingly popular image of Los Angeles. Not to mention that most women that are entertainers are stringently policed on how to look and act in order for them to succeed; and when they exhibit these qualities they are also shamed. Be classy, but still have sex with us, but if you have sex with us you’re not classy anymore.

As a side note not everyone who lives in LA is a part of the industry or is stereotypically attractive, need I remind you that there are almost 10 million people living in Los Angeles County. Over half of the population is Hispanic, and not that anyone should be represented in this video, but they’re just not “LA” enough to be included. We are women of varying shapes, sizes, ethnicities, religions, economic backgrounds, sexualities, oh and some of us do have sex. But if you’re a man who produces garbage like this video, there might be a reason women aren’t lining up to be graced with your almighty penis.

The most troubling aspect of this is that I have heard an inordinate amount of women validate the statements that are made in this video, while exempting themselves from the description. A female co-worker emailed this video to me with the caption “so true”. No, it’s not true, not of you and not of me. This video is laced with nice guy syndrome and it is calling us a slut by not calling us a slut. “There must be something wrong with the women here if we’re not getting laid.” Yes of course, I am a thin-obsessed, coked out star-fucker and the reason I can’t come home with you, even though you clearly have my best interests at heart, is because I desperately need to screw Justin Timberlake. Maybe, just maybe, I don’t want to sleep with you because I don’t want to sleep with you. Maybe, just maybe, I don’t need your attention to feel good about myself. Maybe, just maybe, I have other things to do that don’t involve validating your masculinity. Maybe, just maybe, I don’t have to sleep with anyone just because it’s available to me.

It’s not lost on me that LA can be an extremely aesthetic-centric city, but women cannot possibly be everything the patriarchy wants us to be or says we are. If that was the case we would be constantly contradicting ourselves. If any women in any way mirror this description it’s because somewhere along the line they were conditioned to believe this was a path to success. These women did not create this image, it was created for them to perpetuate for future generations. This image keeps women in a state of submission and reliance to men, but yet when it ends up hurting men it becomes the woman’s fault, makes sense.

Regardless, it’s absurd to believe that the entirety of LA is some modernized Stepford. My response to the “Women of LA” video is this: I’m just going to go ahead and do me without an explanation for you and you can go home and masturbate. Everybody wins.

Welcome, Mackenzie!

2013-05-08T13:14:00.001-05:00

So in looking for contributors, I realized that a friend of mine, Mackenzie Busch, was looking to write more about feminism. I have been admiring her personal blog for a while, so when she said she'd like to write here, I was more than happy to work with her.

I'm going to publish her first post about LA stereotypes and a horrible "joke" video, in just a moment, but in the meantime, here's a little bit more about Mackenzie!

Mackenzie Busch was born and raised in in the small town of Monticello, Indiana and moved to Los Angeles in 2009 to pursue a career in writing and entertainment. Mackenzie currently works for an Entertainment Advertising Company where she has been lucky enough to explore her writing and to be involved with numerous non-profit charities. Mackenzie runs her own low rent, intelligent, and underrated blog according to five of her closest friends at the self-titled mackenziebusch.blog.com, Fetus Frolic. Mackenzie is a proud 2008 Radio/TV/Film graduate of Indiana State University.

The Bad Wrap Against White Feminists is Totally Deserved

2013-05-07T11:00:00.000-05:00

Early last week, a shit storm was a' brewing on my Tumblr. Someone decided to troll a bunch of feminist blogs and asked,

Are you with those blogs that think it's okay to be racist to white people?...There are several blogs against white privilege and many people agree, but if I made a blog against Indian privilege I'd get massive amounts of hate. What do you think?

Of course I said don't believe in racism against white people because to me a prejudice is only racism when it's oppression + power, and white people hold all the institutional power. Sadly, the result was a few (white) people calling me names, unfollowing, and saying stuff like,

Okay, I followed first because Im (sic) a feminist and could've gotten behind what you're trying to do here. But since then I've just seen a lot of hate on this blog, and now this argument about there being no racism against white people?? Racism is a belief or a discrimination, so of course there's anti-white racism!

So I guess speaking out against oppressions is hateful? And then there was even the age old, "but the dictionary says!!1!" argument. SIGH.

It was a really rough day, but fortunately, the overall tone from my followers was very supportive of my stance and I actually ending up gaining many more followers through it than I lost (plus, good riddance, and all that).

But I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel like slamming my head against my desk several times that day.

Ya know, I used to be someone who would get pretty indignant when the whole "white feminists are the worst" discussion would come up in social justice circles. I felt like I was trying so hard to be inclusive and understanding, so I couldn't see where this stereotype was coming from (a sure sign of my white privilege.) But damn if women like these aren't proving that stereotype right ALL THE TIME. It is beyond me to try to comprehend how someone can arrive in a feminist space and think, "I don't care about other oppressions!" but it really does happen. All the time. It happened in the comments above. It happens when white feminists call bringing race into a discussion a "derail." It happens when white feminists talk about the wage gap as purely a gender issue. It happens when white feminists ignore, silence, and talk over women of color. It happens when white feminists talk about "women" in an extremely narrow way.

So yes, I have come to realize that the bad wrap that white feminists have is totally deserved. How could it not be, when there are so many instances of the situation I just went through? And what's a better response on my part? Denial or helping address the issue? As I've said a billion times, I subscribe to intersectional feminism and Flavia Dzodan's iconic words, "My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit!" so I'm going to keep expecting the same of all feminists. They don't have to listen, but I will not compromise on this stance.

Related reading:
Working on Anti-Racism
Intersectionalism 101
All Objections to Feminism Are Not Equal

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Iron Man 3: A Mixed Bag

2013-05-03T22:49:00.000-05:00

It's that time of year again! I'm kicking off another series analyzing the gender portrayed in the summer's blockbusters. I'll be tagging the whole thing as 2013 blockbusters. And if you want to check out last year's series, it's 2012 blockbusters. (BTW, I take a pretty loose interpretation of "blockbuster.")

So let's jump into Iron Man 3. Mild spoilers to follow.

[Image text: Tony Stark surrounded
by various versions of his suit.]

I love Tony Stark as portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. I understand that both the character and the man have their real flaws, but there's just something intoxicatingly charming about him and needless to say, I was looking forward to Iron Man 3.

As a superhero action flick, overall, it did not disappoint. Stark was humanized more than ever before, as we learn that he is struggling with anxiety attacks, insomnia, and nightmares (when he can sleep) after his experiences in New York with The Avengers. So it's no surprise that Stark's latest version of his suit allows him to control it not only from the inside, but also remotely so this his physical person is not always in harm's way. This more relatable side of Stark is interestingly paired with his usual "genius billionaire playboy philanthropist" attitude and there is still plenty of "in suit" action, humor, and suspense. So all that is to say that in a general way I liked the film. But let's take a look at the gender side of things.

The series overall contains one constant female presence--Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), who begins as Stark's assistant in the first Iron Man, but by now has risen to the top of Stark Industries and runs the business side of everything. Stark and Potts gone from two people who clearly care about each other but aren't together into an official relationship. Potts plays the "better half" role. She serves to ground Stark in reality, knock down his inflated ego and remind him that he is only human. She also has a quick wit which matches his every step along the way. She tends to serve as his moral compass (which is not an uncommon role for female characters to play in TV/movies.)

[Image: Pepper Potts holding
the Iron Man mask]

In general, Potts is saved by Stark in the classic superhero's girlfriend kinda way. OK, whatever. I get it. He's Iron Man. But Potts' tendency to be in the wrong place at the wrong time ended up getting on my nerves more than once in rewatching the other films in preparation for Iron Man 3. The same thing happens in this one, but there is a twist. (As fans have been geeking out about since the news dropped online) at one point, Potts dons the Iron Man suit and saves herself and another character. Sure, the suit ends up on her because Stark controlled it to do so...but I guess it's better than nothing?

Potts also plays a critical role in defeating the super villain Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce). Killian has taken Potts captive, and literally refers to her as his trophy (ew) who he biologically mutates (I guess so she's more like him?) When Stark comes to rescue her, things don't go as planned for him and Potts, uses her new power to ultimately work with Stark to defeat Killian. While Stark weakens Killian, it is Potts who has to close the deal (thanks to her new mutation.)

There's another female character new to the Iron Man franchise who plays a critical role in the film. Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall, whom I adore!) is an old one night stand of Stark's who also has created the biological mutation that Killian uses to weaponize himself and a whole host of other people to create his evil forces.

[Image text: Maya Hansen at a computer]

Hansen is interesting to me because she is positioned as a scientific genius almost equal to Stark (which no one except Bruce Banner has really achieved in the movies.) She wants to do good in the world by helping people with injuries regenerate their damaged bodies, but her creation has a side effect which is used as the aforementioned weapon by Killian. Despite seeming like she has good intentions deep down (she comes to Potts and Stark to report Killian) Hansen has not always done the right thing. She has, after all, been working for Killian for 13 years and when Stark is captured by him, she doesn't really try to help Stark. She seems to be happy that he's in captivity so that he can help her fix the dangers side effect of her genetic work.

Big spoiler here...the most disappointing thing to me about the gender portrayed in the film is how quickly and unceremoniously Hansen's life ends. Killian shoots her in the chest to show Stark that he doesn't care about her...and that's it. She's gone. They build her up as this interesting new character, who made a huge scientific discovery. She's extra interesting to me because we can't quite peg as "good" or "bad" (think how rare that is in superhero movies!) and then BAM she's gone without another mention. It made her feel just so damn expendable. It's just not sitting right with me. So like I indicated in the title, I consider this film a mixed bag. There's clearly some good stuff going on but it's tempered with disappointing choices like this.

I would mention I think the movie does technically pass the Brechdel test as Potts and Hansen privately discuss what Hansen was trying to warn Stark about--but maybe not since she was reporting her boss (Killian) and that technically counts as "talking about a man."

Sigh.

Ah well, it's Marvel, ya know? I really do want more, but I guess I have to be thankful for what it does have.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Speak the Truth, Even if Your Voice Shakes

2013-05-02T14:00:00.000-05:00

[Image text: an old boarded up house with graffiti that reads,
"speak the truth, even if your voice shakes."]

[Content note: short mention of emotional abuse.]

I'm not one much to have personal mantras. Throughout the years, when other people have found inspiration in quotes and shared them everywhere as the words they live by, I've often thought, "oh how nice" and nothing more.

A few months ago I saw this image shared somewhere online (I can't even remember where) and for the first time words just kind of spoke to my soul. "Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes."

In an effort to know who to attribute this to, I Googled around a bit and came up short. Susan Sarandon had written about it before, but she got it from a bumper sticker. It seems that the source is unknown, but a similar statement is attributed to Maggie Kuhn.

In either case, these words really struck a chord with me. You see, I'm a really nervous person. (If you've read any of the more personal stuff I post here, that's pretty much a given at this point.) I have such a strong physical reaction to my nerves that my voice will shake when I'm in an uncomfortable setting. It's not even tied to the possibility of tears, although when I am about to cry, it shakes too. But right now I'm just talking about a physical response I have to my nerves that purely manifests in my voice.

I know that for many people this phrase means, "Speak up even if you're scared/hurt" and that's an incredibly important message. But I have a very different personal interpretation.

Despite my frequently shaky voice, I'm not actually someone who keeps quiet. I typically will speak up and share my opinions when I feel it is important to do so, even if my voice is shaking. But when the shake does come through and is audible I feel like I have betrayed myself. I feel like my point is being undermined by the way it is delivered. I get really embarrassed and I clear my throat and can typically get it under control moving forward, but I feel like those few shakes really derailed my message.

I know that this comes from interactions with my dad when I was a teen. He was very antagonistic and when I'd get into an argument with him, (like about being able to go over to a friend's house) if I got emotional in the slightest, it was the whole "here we go" *eye roll* act toward me. He would make it seem like I had lost all control so he couldn't talk to me "logically" anymore. I mean, he tried really hard to shame the emotion right out of me, but all it actually did was make me hyper aware of when emotion does enter my voice (as it always will.)

So when I read these words, it was like reading permission to confidently be myself. It was a reminder that everyone doesn't view outward displays of emotion as weakness and even if your listener does, that doesn't mean you should shut up.

Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Dispatches from My Brief and Terrifying Forray into The Pick Up Artist Corner of the Web

2013-05-01T10:00:00.000-05:00

[Image text: Some of the "stars" of VH1s
short lived TV show about PUAs]

So, someone recently asked me about pick up artists (PUAs).

HAHAHAHAHA. HA HA. HEE HEE. HO HO. HAHAHAHA.

Sorry, had to get that out of the way, because I had (happily) forgotten that PUAs were a thing. But because of this reminder, I did a little research and Google led me to some awesome sites and forums (awesome said with the most possible sarcasm that you can imagine.) I'm totally not linking to them, because why give them traffic or draw attention to myself? But you can just Google around and find this stuff for yourself, if you want.

But yeah, as I mentioned, I had totally forgotten that PUAs existed. I used to be more familiar with it all. As I've blogged about before, I watched a lot of trash VH1 shows when I had cable, which, unfortunately included "The Pickup Artist" and the atrocious Mystery. WHOA HOLD ON. In getting that Wikipedia link about the show, I just learned the first season was filmed in THE VERY CITY I NOW RESIDE IN AND LOVE?! That breaks my heard a little.

Sorry, I'm back on point. The distractions are thick with this topic because it's exceedingly crappy.

So, I watched that show back then with some morbid curiosity, and despite being a feminist at the time, the most I did was roll my eyes at it all instead of feeling the intense rage that consumes me about this topic, now. I knew that crap like "negging" was misogynistic and just down right assholish, but I didn't give it much thought. I was more like, "Oh, those nerd guys are painfully awkward. Ha." and I moved on, not even really noticing when the show didn't get a third season.

But on this new tour into pick up artistry through their websites, I can't help but notice, with complete and full attention, how deeply problematic it all is. Pick up artistry, at its root, all depends on two basic things:

1) Hypermasculinity which encourages men to become "alphas" who control every aspect of a dating and hooking up. Here's a great snippet [tw: rape language...you can skip this paragraph.]

If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man.

You can even take "tests" which attempt to point out how worthless you are as a man if you don't behave like an "alpha." Here's how they describe men who don't display "alpha" behavior:

You actively repulse girls. Your kind will usher forth the sexbot revolution.
Lesser beta. You don’t immediately disgust girls; they just don’t notice you. With much painful effort you can redeem yourself.
Classic beta. You catch some girls’ eyes, usually the ones you don’t want. Try not to make fatty fucking a lifestyle.

2) Viewing interactions with women as "The Game" and trying to ensure that the man maintains the upper hand and control in literally every interaction. This mentality is not just limited to dating and hook ups. They also encourage men to carry this mindset into relationships (Google "relationship game PUA.") They advise things like:

Never say I love you first.
Make the mission, not your woman, the priority.
Don't play by her rules.
Resist the temptation to spill your guts out, even when she asks.
Make her jealous/flirt with other women in front of her

As I'm sure you can see, this mentality flies in the face of every good piece of advice about healthy relationships. It literally asks men to go against their actual feelings in the relationship and instead stay in their mind, coldly calculating every move. It advocates for a hidden agenda, hiding your true feelings, and the exertion of control by manipulation.

In other words, it's seriously fucked up. And really, that's all I've learned about pick up artistry from this forray. It's perverse. Here's some other stuff to Google so you can keep an eye out that some douchebag isn't trying to "game" you or a friend:

-Demonstrations of higher value
-Peacocking
-Comfort building
-Calibration
-Compliance test
-Pre Lay Relaxation Mode

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

"Yes But..."

2013-04-29T23:00:00.000-05:00

Y'all.

I've just got to get something off my chest.

I'm done with the words "yes, but..." I'm done with them in a general way but especially in social justice circles. I'm talking about things like...

"Patriarchy really oppresses women."
"Yes, but it hurts men too."

"Society is so fatphobic."
"Yes, but there's body shaming of all women."

"White privilege is everywhere."
"Yes, but I'm white and I've experienced racism too."

It makes me want to scream for 72 hours straight. But instead I'll try to get through this calmly. Basically, "yes, but..." is a way of essentially negating everything just said while trying to not look like a total jerk. But furthermore, when you enter discussions of oppression and social justice and you carry a privilege, it's not your place to bulldoze and talk over others. Instead, it's your opportunity to listen and learn. When you use "yes, but..." chances are that you're treading into privilege denial and a derail. It gets the discussion no where.

And someone tell me WHY oppressed people, in their own spaces, must stop and consider the dominant group's perspective? Like I've said a million times, no one needs to be taught about maleness, straightness, whiteness, stereotypical attractiveness, able bodiedness, etc., because society teaches us ALL those lessons daily. It positions the straight, white, male experience as the default, so we need places to discuss the experiences of those who are traditionally othered without further oppression.

So forget "yes, but..." It is a worthless approach and neither you nor your listeners will benefit from the road that'll take you down. Just try listening for a minute.

Related: How to Enter Feminist Discussions at the 101 Level

"Don't Be That Girl" is Utter BS

2013-04-26T12:00:00.000-05:00

[Content note: detail discussion of rape, rape culture, and rape apologism. Originally from Facebooksexism.tumblr.com]

Over at my Tumblr, I recently published this submission. I didn't add any analysis because I assumed that people could see what was inherently wrong with the statement which read: “Just because you regret it…doesn’t mean it was rape. Don’t be that girl.” But I assumed wrong. I mean, I was even called sexist for this post because and I quote, “how is this rape apologism? there ARE in fact women who claim they were raped when they werent. are you saying that women never regret the sex they had and lie about it? that itself is sexist. [sic]"

(Um, maybe look up what sexist means.)

So let me break this down point by point.

1) False rape accusations are actually exceedingly rare. Like I linked yesterday, this campaign is taking on a non-issue. Only about .6% (or 3 in 500) accusations of rape are false. Why would we need a campaign to address this insignificant issue when it directly conflicts with an actually significant social problem which is that…

2) Rape is exceedingly common. As a VERY conservative number (due to rampant underreporting) 1 in 6 women is the victim of sexual assault. That is 17% of ALL women, compared to .6% of accused rapists. (POINT 6%, not even 6%.) The difference in social problems here is so vast that they are truly in different leagues. Any compassionate, logical person should see that the real problem we face as a people isn’t that women are falsely reporting rape, it’s that PEOPLE ARE BEING RAPED.

3) Rape is underreported. This campaign is framing it as if the real problem is false accusations when in reality we know that not only is rape exceedingly common, but it is also underreported so that actual rapists are never facing consequences for their actions. THAT’S something we should be worried about.

4) It is not for the public to decide when there is a “false” rape accusation. I saw a BUNCH of people writing their personal anecdotes of they knew a girl who lied about rape or they knew someone who was such a total slut but then said she got raped and that can’t be true or that they had a male friend/family member/boyfriend who could never do that and was falsely accused so therefore the false reporting of rape is a real issue we should all be super-de-duper worried about.

No.

Just no.

How in the world can you, as some objective outside person know what happened to a woman that makes her accusation false? So she’s a slut? That doesn’t mean she consented to the time in question! So you don’t like her? That doesn’t make the accusation not true! So you like the dude in question? That still doesn’t mean that he’s not a rapist. I know this is hard to accept, but it is possible that someone close to you IS a rapist. Seriously.

Rape culture narrowly defines rape as some grotesque stranger who attacks a victim in a dark alley, when in reality there are rapists all around us. Take a look again at the stats linked in #2. This is no small thing. (I hate that I need to put this caveat out there but NO I’m not saying all men or even many men are rapists, I’m just saying that it’s possible you know one and you might even like/love him, but that doesn’t change what he did.)

5) You cannot consent if you are really drunk. This is such 101 stuff. I can’t believe I have to specify, but people on the post were actually suggesting things like “getting drunk and sleeping with someone is not rape!” without even entertaining the fact that consent requires someone to be aware of what is happening. MRAs and other rape apologists might try to frame it as “she got drunk, we had sex, and she just regretted it” when in reality the woman was taken advantage of in her intoxicated state and did not consent.

6) This campaign is mocking an actually productive campaign. This is a reaction to the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign which asks men to examine their role in sexual violence. That original campaign made the positive assertion that, “In order to effective change and end rape we must put the onus on the ones responsible for the assault to be responsible for stopping it. Don’t Be That Guy is intended to address alcohol-facilitated sexual assault without victim-blaming.”

That’s fucking amazing and can actually make a change in our rape culture, but then this BS reaction came along and brought us back to myths…

7) This campaign perpetuates myths about false rape accusations. In case I didn’t hit this hard enough in point #1, there isn’t a substantial problem of false rape accusations. Rape victims are so shamed by our society that there aren’t really women lining up to claim something so serious unless it’s true (and AGAIN they often don’t say it even when it IS true.) But this campaign makes it seem like false accusations are so rampant that we need some kind of public awareness raising. This which could have horrible consequences like creating even more public skepticism and negativity toward every victim and…

8) This campaign can further shame victims into silence. At its worst, this campaign could make women who were raped feel like they will be causing a problem if they speak up. According to the data, it’s much more likely that rape victims will come into contact with this messaging than false accusers. If a woman internalizes the messages of this campaign it could make her turn blame inward and think things like, “Well I shouldn’t have had so much to drink.” It could drive even lower levels of reporting. Whereas, if you think about the original ”Don’t be that guy” campaign, if a man internalizes that messaging the outcome would just be him being more aware of when a woman is truly consenting.

OK, I think that’s all I’ve got for now…I hope that’s enough to lay out why this “Don’t be that girl” nonsense is THE WORST.

Call for Contributors

2013-04-25T10:12:00.000-05:00

Hey everyone,

I've been mulling this idea over for a while, but I decided to go ahead and finally make the announcement.

I've been writing here since 2008, but I didn't start taking it seriously until 2010. In the three years following I have poured my brain on to the page 2-5 times a week. Unfortunately, the world is a never ending source of blog material for a culture critiquing feminist.

However, I've recently taken on other time consuming endeavors (like my Tumblr project) and it's become more of a challenge to keep the content at Nerdy Feminist interesting. I don't want to lose the momentum I've built but I also am trying to avoid burning myself out by trying too hard.

So basically, I'd love to add some contributors in order to increase the variety and freshness and to take the burden off of me to blog when I'm not feeling it. Nerdy Feminist is certainly no hot spot of the internet (total transparency: I get about 14-18k hits a month) but if you have a knack for feminism and writing but you've never blogged before and you'd like a forum to start, I'd be happy to partner up.

Here's how you can throw your hat into the ring: Email alynn(at)nerdyfeminist.com with a bio, 2 blog samples of the type of stuff you'd like to contribute, and topics that you consider your "expertise." I consider the tone here to be laid back and informal, but I try to keep things well reasoned and clearly argued. I'm looking for intersectional feminists who can write on a variety of topics but I lean toward pop culture criticism.

My idea is that I'd select 2-3 people to be on a trial basis where you could send me blogs and I'd review/post them, then after a while I would add you as an official contributor to the blog w/ your own log in. I'd ultimately be looking for people who could commit to one solid blog post a week.

This is just a preliminary foray into this process, so I might change it up as we go. I just wanted y'all to be the first to know. Please feel free to share these details with anyone who might be a good fit. Thanks!

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Rape Culture and Unhealthy Relationships: A Case Study

2013-04-23T17:00:00.000-05:00

[Content note: discussion of rape/pressured sexual acts/lack of consent/victim blaming]

Yesterday I posted a submission on Tumblr that I received via email and in less than a day, it's already reached well over 1100 notes. This is pretty atypical, as most of my posts max out at 30-50, but this particular topic seems to have invoked a firestorm of discussion.

The post in question displays a man saying that he believes that his partner owes him sex.

Here's the actual screen shot.

[Image text: Facebook post that reads, "I'm sorry but if you and I are in a relationship and I really want to have sex, telling me you don't 'feel like' doing it is just not a good enough excuse for me. Do you think I 'feel like' always buying you something for your birthday? Do you think I always 'feel like' taking you to dinner? Do you think I always 'feel like' listening to you complain about your job and your friends? Do you think I always 'feel like listening to you when you talk for hours in hopes I can catch something you like so I can do it for you, which I probably don't even 'feel like' doing? And yet, I do it. Why? Because I'm in a relationship and whether or not I 'feel like" doing something doesn't really matter, what matters is the needs of my partner. So if I'm willing to do things for you whether I 'feel like' it or not, the least you can do is give me some sex when I want it. I feel like that's fair."]

Typing out that image description made my skin crawl. Revisiting every word from this entitled asshole's brain really drove home how messed up this thinking is.

Please note, that I will be using "he" as a pronoun for the poster of this status and "she" as the pronoun for the hypothetical girlfriend, as that was indicated to me in the email from the submitter.

I wish I could say that the problems here are self evident, but because the post has actually received some criticism (ie a few people have jumped in to defend this mindset!) I'm going to break down point-by-point why this Facebook post should warn every person on this dude's friend list that he is not only a misogynist but also a potential rapist and abuser.

Firstly, let's address the obvious overall point of this post: that his partner owes him sex. I don't have any other way but than to say this incredibly clearly: if you feel pressured, obligated, or coerced into having sex, then you are not actually consenting. And if something is nonconsensual, it's rape. This man is essentially advocating that women "grin and bear it" and submit to sex with their partners when they don't want to...that's rape! There's no way around it. No matter what someone has done for you...you never, ever owe someone sex. EVER. End of statement. Period. Goodbye.

The fact that someone could sit down at their computer and write a status which essentially advocates for rape and think that is a totally OK thing to publicly sign his name to all the more reminds me that we do a huge disservice when we don't teach everyone about enthusiastic consent.*

Secondly, look at how he describes what he does for his partner in a relationship...everything he says that he does for her is coated with such spite and hatred. He portrays this hypothetical partner as someone who is always talking and complaining. If that's not evidence of a deeply misogynistic view, what is? Every example he listed is so disdainful that he actually sounds kind of miserable in this relationship. I mean, he comes across as actively antagonistic about her, which leads me to believe that the only reason he is with this person is to have sex, which of course serves to further disgust me about the point he is making.

This whole tirade is laden with red flags for an abusive relationship. The first is the obvious fact that he feels he is entitled to unrestricted access to his partner's body with no concern for her feelings. The very specific examples he lists imply that he is talking about his real partner or perhaps an ex-partner. If that is the case, to air a very private concern (even one not as horrifying as this one) is abusive. It's a public shaming technique, which I'm happy to do to random sexists in the world, but that is NOT how you address an issue you have with the person you are dating. Right there in black and white he blatantly insults all of these things this woman does as a way of trying to show how awesome he is. (When in reality he depicts himself as a selfish prick who only acts like a decent person in his relationship to get what he wants.)

Fortunately, the overall tone of those 1100+ notes are in support of calling out this example of rape culture and outright indignation that this was posted in the first place. But, like I said, there were a few commenters who spoke up to his defense. Here's one such gem:

Seriously if the guy wants sex then give him sex! It’s a good point, he doesn’t feel like doing crap for you all the time, but he does because e loves you, so u should give him what makes him happy because he loves you and you love him! I get so annoyed when girls flip out about how their boyfriend wants to have sex, I mean if you are a minor, it’s different, but I you are an adult, act like one and show your man that you care, just like he shows you tht he cares

(Huge SIC on all of that.)

The last point I'd like to make about all of this is that both this reaction and the original status display the hugely problematic idea that women are the gatekeepers of sex and it is something they "give" to men. This idea ties into faulty positioning of women as morally superior to men and therefore responsible for being "good" while "boys will be boys." This mentality excuses men of the responsibility for their own actions, shames female sexuality, and can even result in rape victim blaming (ie "She shouldn't have been wearing that! What did she think would happen!")

All in all, this man, his entitled rant, and his supporters are seriously fucked up.

I want to make it clear that I'm not saying that people can't talk about their sexual desires in a relationship and tell their partner if they'd like to have sex more. There are, of course, healthy ways to navigate those conversations and make your wishes respectfully known without exerting pressure or coercion. I believe that open communication is critical to a happy, healthy sex life. But this guy has done absolutely nothing to build toward one such experience. Instead he has show what a horrible person he really is and I hope all of his potential future girlfriends saw this on their newsfeed and ran the other direction.

My only regret is that the anonymous submitter sent the screen cap with his name blocked out.

*As a caveat, I'd like to mention that I've read about and recognize that there are asexual people who don't believe in the enthusiastic consent model but when I use it I mean what Esti said in the liniked Feministe piece when she commented, "Enthusiastic consent is about making sure your partner really wants to do whatever it is–that they’re not just giving in because they feel like they have to or because you badgered them. It shouldn’t be about requiring people to experience desire or attraction the right way, whatever that might be, before their consent is recognized as 'real.'" But let's set that aside for a moment because this guy blatantly said he wants sex from someone who outwardly stated they did not want to do it.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

A Little Dose of Feminist Happiness

2013-04-22T14:30:00.000-05:00

I think we can all agree that the past week has been a pretty tough one here in the states. So I thought it might be a nice moment to highlight some of the feminist victories and inspiring stories that have also been taking place:

First, Zimbabweans have approved a constitution that includes gender equality as a principal of the nation. From UN Women:

The draft Constitution approved by referendum opens with provisions stating that respect for gender equality is one of the country’s Founding Values. The Declaration of Rights includes a section on women’s rights, has been expanded to include socioeconomic and cultural rights, and it could be used in legal or judicial proceedings. This means new opportunities for women in jobs, education, finance and credit must be ensured by the government and in national funding.

TIME Magazine has released its list of the 100 most influential people and 15 year old Pakistani Malala Yousafzai is on the cover. As they said at TIME:

The Taliban almost made Malala a martyr; they succeeded in making her a symbol. The memoir she is writing to raise awareness about the 61 million children around the world who are not in school indicates she accepts that unasked-for responsibility as a synonym for courage and a champion for girls everywhere. However Malala concludes her book, her story so far is only just beginning.

And finally, from West Virginia, we have Katelyn Campbell who protested her schools slut-shamey abstinence focused assembly. As reported at Think Progress,

George Washington High School recently hosted a conservative speaker, Pam Stenzel, who travels around the country to advocate an abstinence-only approach to teen sexuality. Stenzel has a long history of using inflammatory rhetoric to convince young people that they will face dire consequences for becoming sexually active. At GW’s assembly, Stenzel allegedly told students that “if you take birth control, your mother probably hates you” and “I could look at any one of you in the eyes right now and tell if you’re going to be promiscuous.” She also asserted that condoms aren’t safe, and every instance of sexual contact will lead to a sexually transmitted infection.

[Katelyn] Campbell refused to attend the assembly, which was funded by a conservative religious organization called “Believe in West Virginia” and advertised with fliers that proclaimed “God’s plan for sexual purity.” Instead, she filed a complaint with the ACLU and began to speak out about her objections to this type of school-sponsored event. Campbell called Stenzel’s presentation “slut shaming” and said that it made many students uncomfortable.

When the news is flooded with images of violence, racism, and oppression, as it often is, it can be hard to see the small victories taking place each day, all over the world. But the truth is that there is always much to be happy for--it's just that when profit and ratings are your motivation, the happy stories take a back seat to fear. It's important to be informed but it's becoming increasingly clear to me that the major news networks are not able to present information in a way which is not also disgustingly sensationalized. (I know that this is not a revolutionary realization.) I'm finding that news consumption is much more manageable for me when I choose how, when, and from whom I receive updates. That way I can also get the good with the bad and feel much less burned out.

Anyway, here's hoping for a less "eventful" week ahead of us.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Simpsons Tapped Out and the Case of the Missing Women

2013-04-19T14:00:00.000-05:00

Let it never be said that I am person with purely serious pursuits. I don't think it HAS been said...but let's just clear up any lingering doubt.

Confession: I play Simpsons Tapped Out. It's a frivilous mobile game that takes zero skill but requires a bunch of patience and wasted time. It's pointless, and I know it's pointless and Ronald frequently reminds me it's pointless as I mindlessly tap on stupid little Simpsons characters collecting "money" and having them to "tasks." But ya know, whatever. I can spend my time as pointlessly or purposefully as I'd like.

I originally downloaded the game because I have a long history with The Simpsons, who were a staple of all of my formative years. Although I haven't watched it consistently since 2002-ish, I was an AVID consumer to that point and the show really mattered to me. For example, when this graphic was floating around Tumblr, I couldn't help but comment that Lisa Simpson vs. Malibu Stacy was EVERYTHING to me as a 10 year old.

[Image text: Lisa Simpson holding a Maliby Stacy doll saying, "Millions of girls will grow up thinking that this is the right way to act--that they can never be more than vacuous ninnies whose only goal is to look pretty, land a rick husband, and spend all day on the phone with their equally vacuous friends talking about how damn terrific it is to look pretty and have a rich husband!"]

Lisa was so often the voice of morality and reason it the show and she was certainly a character I could relate to as a precocious kid in a community of many folks who believed some really backward stuff. However, the truth is that overall, the show is chock full of every -ism there could ever be so it shouldn't surprise me that Tapped Out is a equally disappointing experience. Specifically because of the, I don't know, 20+ characters I have unlocked, there are exactly 4 women and 0 women of color.

I know, I know...why am I bothering to think about something as trivial as this? I guess my point is that this "trivial" stuff really adds up to a culture which makes women invisible in small and big ways. For example, it results in facts like...only 28% of speaking roles in G rated movies are for female characters. And I think it's pretty clear why that's a problem. Girls (and other marginalized groups) don't get to see people who look like them and when they do the choices of characters are limited. It reminded me of this ask I received where a guy accused a girl of being sexist because she choose to always play video games as the one woman character.

That's right...he totally missed out noticing that there are almost no female options and instead got in a tizzy about her always choosing a woman.

Sigh. Male privilege.

I mean, all of this is not news to me. But it's just an endlessly frustrating process to noticed at every turn (even in a silly mobile game) how very underrepresented women, people of color, queer people, fat people, and disabled people are.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

There's Nothing Wrong With Me, You're Just Not Funny

2013-04-16T17:30:00.001-05:00

This type of submission is exceedingly common on my Tumblr:

[Facebook status from Brendaa Lizette Gonzalez: "I don't mind the women in the kitchen jokes. I make a pretty fucking legit turkey/ham/bacon sandwich. Girls who get all butt hurt about it probably suck at cooking lol."]

Let's ignore a few of the fails going on here for a moment (the extremely problematic term "butt hurt," the fact that making a sandwich actually isn't cooking) and hone in on two things:

There are so many women who internalize misogyny (congratulations, enjoy your brownie points from the patriarchy!) and
What is this ridiculous notion that when someone is offended by a joke, it's a reflection of some deficit within them?

I've already written about #1 and why I think it's important to identify and call out internalized misogyny, so let's take a look at point 2 for a minute.

All in all I'm just over people acting like because something was said under the guise of "humor," everyone is just supposed to be fine with it. But the accusation that if you are offended by a "joke" it is because there's something "wrong" with you, is an added level of rage induction for me. And I see it everywhere! Someone posts something slut shamey. A woman calls it out. She's accused of being a slut. Or in one submission I received a few weeks ago, when a woman called out a man's sexism, his reaction was to go off on her about her looks, calling her sad and unconfident, and asserting that hot chicks wouldn't have an issue with what he said.

Sigh.

The truth is, of course, that there's no correlation between looks and the capacity to care about the dignity of other people. And it actually takes a ton of confidence to stand up to a bigot publicly. In fact, I would assert that the people who try to hurt others are actually the ones who display low self-esteem. They're the ones who need to take a minute to self-reflect and examine their behavior/attitudes. Think about it...if you truly love yourself and if you are truly happy, you have no incentive to bring others down. People who make "jokes" at others' expense and who think that oppression is funny are often trying to position themselves as better or special because they are compensating for feelings of inadequacy or sadness.

So no...when I find your oppressive "joke" offensive and when I care about the dignity of all people, that's not me being humorless. There's nothing wrong with me. You're just not funny.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

The Place Beyond the Pines and Male Emotions

2013-04-15T15:30:00.000-05:00

This post is part of my 2013 blockbusters series.

This weekend, I saw The Place Beyond the Pines, a drama starring Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, and Eva Mendez. I will try to make my point without spoiling anything.

I'll be honest, I went for the Gos, but I was pulled in by the story. A movie really has to be compelling to make 2.5 hours fly by, and fortunately it was. The trailer billed the film as "An exhilarating epic of fathers, sons, and consequences." It's very male-centric (which is fine for some movies to be, I just wish that MOST of them weren't...) but nevertheless, it got me thinking about how sexism in our culture routinely hurts men and boys.

Let me be clear, I believe the root of all sexism in our society is tied to misogyny, and that women suffer far more negative consequences. But that doesn't mean that men make it out unscathed.

What I'm talking about in particular is the expression of emotions. There is a scene where Bradley Cooper's character is seeing a psychiatrist about something traumatic and he literally cannot speak the words about what he's really feeling. She has to pull it out of him...he's repressed and stifled. And beyond that--the movie is peppered with men lashing out by using violence and anger as their only way of processing deeply felt pain. Almost all of the men in the movie behave in this way. When presented with a challenge, or when something hurts them, their reaction is a lot of isolation and stoicism until things explode with rage and violence.

This depiction is very in line with how we teach boys to express their emotions; or rather don't teach them. Above all else, men and boys aren't supposed to be "weak." We tie the expression of emotions to femininity and women to weakness. Crying, especially, is associated with women and is positioned as totally off limits for men. It's highly discouraged even in young boys, despite the fact that crying can also be a totally healthy, cathartic, and safe act. Other safe, healthy expressions of emotion like journaling, therapy, talking about your feelings, etc. are similarly coded as "girly." When men do these things they're subject to merciless bullying and are called misogynistic slurs like "pussy" or "bitch."

The only outward emotional expressions that we truly code as masculine are the ones which are tied to anger, power, strength, and yes, violence.

Also in the film, the main characters are very isolated from other people generally, and male role models in particular. I think in this way, the movie does carry a cautionary tale about fathers and sons, much like that line from the trailer states. It's a reminder that while the "lone wolf" character might look like a bad ass on the surface, things can be much more troublesome and complicated underneath. People, even men, are social creatures and they're not meant to be so isolated.

The film doesn't necessarily confront any of these issues head on, and teach a fully revealed lesson about the suppression of emotion or the dangers of isolation. But I interpret the film as a tale about the possible disastrous consequences of living without healthy, emotional outlets and support. Just another reminder of the ways that our misogynistic culture disservices all people.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Our Celebrity Obsession

2013-04-11T15:00:00.000-05:00

Ya know, I am tired of what it means to be a celebrity in our culture. I know this might seem incredibly hypocritical as someone who is always blogging about celebrities, but bear with me.

Recently I was helping out some coworkers brainstorm a list of people for an ice breaker with teen girls...the criteria for the list was this: each person had to be a woman, she had to be a positive influence, and she had to be someone the girls would know.

Needless to say, it was kind of an exercise in making ourselves frustrated because we could think of famous women the girls would know and we could think of positive female role models they SHOULD know, but the combination of all three traits was pretty rare. This particular activity would only work if the girls could easily identify who each woman was, and the women we were sure they would know were figures we weren't comfortable putting in the activity as a representation of what we do.

It all made me think about what it means to be a celebrity and who the women are that rise to that level of public recognition. I remember reading a book way back when I worked at a whole other girls organization and was their curriculum writer. I was charged with creating activities for girls that would help them "redefine beauty." My boss at the time gave me the book "All Made Up: A Girl's Guide to Seeing Through Celebrity Hype to Celebrate Real Beauty." While written for your average 10 year old, it actually sparked a lot of thought in my then 22 year old mind. Somewhere in my research (either in that book or another, forgive my foggy memory) I came across an activity that had girls brainstorm "famous" women in general and then asked them to list female politicians, humanitarians, philanthropists, business leaders, etc. The point was to illustrate our vast gap in knowledge between the two groups and point out that even though women DO exist in the latter fields, we're only really aware of women who are actors, singers, and models. (Don't even get me started on people who are famous just for being famous. I see you Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian.)

That stuck with me because even as a young adult actively immersed in women studies courses, the second list was so much harder to generate.

When I say that society still values women for their looks and bodies above all else, this is what I'm talking about. (And I understand this phenomena also occurs for men, but to a lesser extent. People tend to be much more aware of famous men who aren't stereotypically attractive.) The women who are household names are almost all conventionally beautiful. That's not to say that women who rise to our collective conscious (like Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez, Lady Gaga, Zooey Deschanel) are totally devoid of any talent. I'm just saying that what they contribute substantively is always coupled with good looks. And the careers where looks play such an important role are the ones catching our attention.

It makes it really hard for the women who are doing amazing things in a non "celebrity" field to get any recognition for what they're doing. And, of course, this effect is vastly compounded for women of color, queer women, disabled women, etc. who are facing multiple axes of oppression.

The advancements of technology have played a huge role in pushing forth celebrity hype to be greater than ever before. I was certainly plugged into pop culture as a middle schooler, reading Seventeen and watching VH1 and MTV like no one's business. But the girls we work with now live pop culture connected lives far beyond anything I could have imagined. Even though I had internet in my home at that time, instantaneous outlets like Twitter were still a decade away. It was unimaginable to think of receiving immediate messaging from the celebrities I worshipped. Girls now have access to the media literally in their hands at any given moment. They are constantly flooded with a barrage of updates about what celebrities are doing--in real time. Celebrity wealth combined with fairly careful brand management, personal stylists, and good old fashioned Photoshop frequently makes their lives look near perfect and desirable, especially to someone who is just figuring out her identity and feels alone, awkward, ugly, and confused. The results are not only a desire to "be famous" but also a loss of self-esteem when comparisons are made against these seemingly perfect people.

The fact that our culture places unhealthy value on celebrity is part of the reason that this blog exists (and many others). I don't see the obsession with celebrity ending any time soon...like I said, it seems to be on the rise. So while it is important for us (meaning feminists and adults generally) to teach kids that there is a whole world of women who are contributing to the collective good outside of how they look, it's equally important to analyze, critique, and discuss products of the celebrity-centric environment. Without ongoing cultural criticism, the cult of celebrity would remain unchecked.

It's amazing to me to contemplate how the state of women (if there is such a unified thing?) has evolved over the three waves of feminism. Anti-feminists posit that our work is done because women can work outside the home, buy birth control, and vote. But the nature of misogyny is an ever moving target and certainly the representation of women in the media is an area that is still doing very real damage to women and girls.

I just yearn for a time when your average 14 year old is as aware of Alice Walker, bell hooks, or Elizabeth Warren as she is Katy Perry or Rihanna. And all of this isn't to say that there aren't extraordinary young women who dive fully into feminism and women's studies on a daily basis and are totally aware of those names. It's just to say that our our collective fixation on celebrities and the Hollywood lifestyle as the ideal is doing girls, and everyone, much more disservice than not.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Believing in Yourself

2013-04-10T10:00:00.000-05:00

This is kind of a preemptive post, but I don't care. Under the advice of several people, I've decided to read Sheryl Sandberg's "Lean In." What I've heard of the book interests me, so I figured I'd go ahead and give it a shot. I've been mega swamped so I've only made it a few chapters in, but something has already stuck with me. It's the passage that is basically the thesis of the book:

We [women] hold ourselves back in ways both big and small, by lacking self-confidence, by not raising our hands, and by pulling back when we should be leaning in. We internalize the negative messages we get throughout our lives—the messages that say it’s wrong to be outspoken, aggressive, more powerful than men.

And later she adds, "Career progression often depends upon taking risks and advocating for oneself—traits that girls are discouraged from exhibiting."

Oh lord do I need these messages right now. To put it simply, I'm currently in the midst of a big batch of self doubt. You see, I recently took a big risk. Yay, first steps. This professional risk is beyond anything I've done before and it means that my career path has recently become much more challenging. I'm out of my comfort zone and just sort of figuring things out as I go.

So, cue the nagging of self doubt and anxiety.

It's so cliche, but a huge part of success really is believing in yourself, so thanks to Sandberg for this reminder. There is something to the old adages of "fake it until you make it" and "you can achieve anything your put your mind to!" Learning this lesson is particularly important for women and girls, some of whom might be their only supporter. I mean, just as an example that comes easily to mind, I recently received an ask on my Tumblr from a young woman who is regularly told by her uncle that she'll never make it in sports journalism, her dream career. If she internalizes this message and doesn't believe she can make it anyway, how will she ever stand a chance? She's got to invest in herself and block out the noise to make that dream happen.

Even for those of us who have lots of support and affirmation (myself included) the most important source of our strength still must come from within. If we don't take time to love, value, and support ourselves, we'll get nowhere. We've got to block out the nagging voices from the outside but also from ourselves that make us feel inadequate and hold us back. We've got to take those creative risks Sandberg is talking about, put ourselves out there, and push ourselves. And when we are successful, we can't believe the voices that tell us that we shouldn't toot our own horns or be proud of our accomplishments.

Like I said, this is all a bit preemptive, and I'll follow up with a review of Lean In later when I've actually read it. But damn if I didn't just need to take a moment to reflect on this, no matter how fluffy a message it might be.

EDITED 5/14/13: I just wanted to follow up and note that I've decided not to fully review the book because overall I was disappointed with it. I think it got a lot of media hype because of who Sandberg is and as I was reading I kept thinking, "where's the part that supposed to change my life?" Spoiler: it never came. I'm sure it's a good primer for a white, upper class, hetero, professional woman who have never taken gender studies classes, but for people outside that group, it will probably fall flat (like it did for me.) That's not to say I wasn't inspired by a reminder to believe in myself when I wrote this...it just didn't go much beyond that.

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.

Check Your Privilege, Mr. Obama...a Country Full of Boys is Watching

2013-04-05T10:30:00.000-05:00

Last night I caught Zerlina Maxwell schooling the heck out of Politico's Dylan Byers for tweeting, "How did it become so difficult to call a woman good-looking in public?" I learned that this comment was in response to President Obama saying that Kamala Harris is California's best looking attorney general, and the backlash against those comments.

Among the many things Maxwell tweeted were:

Men wondering why it's not ok to comment on a woman's looks whenever/whereever they want need to google "male privilege." Now.
It's crucial to set standards, especially w/ someone as influential as POTUS. He's an ally but made a messed up here.
Is POTUS sexist? No. He's an ally to us feminists but it's ok to call him out when he makes a mistake.

I, of course, wholeheartedly agree with her. It doesn't take a doctoral level social scientist to show how discussing a woman's looks in relation to her job is incredibly sexist. Any man who might have the impulse to try to fight for the ability to do this really, really needs to do what Maxwell said and Google male privilege. You can read a full piece on her views about this situation at The Grio.

Irin Carmon at Salon also shared her thoughts on this topic. She wrote,

Almost as obnoxious as the men talking about how put-upon they are by p.c. harpies who aren’t interested in the unsolicited feedback — positive or negative — were the supposed liberals talking about how we should all just chill out. This was the position of the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart, who pointed out that Obama and Harris are friends, that this wasn’t tantamount to “luridly cat-calling a woman he doesn’t know,” and who finished up with an exhortation to “lighten up, people.” (Pissed-off people love to be told to lighten up.)

I want to just scream at Jonathan Capehart, but I'll refrain and try to form coherent sentences instead...This would be a great time to draw our collective attention to the term "benevolent sexism." I have no idea if it's related to this story, but a friend shared this good overview/101 primer of it on my Facebook wall yesterday. As the article shares, the terms means:

We define benevolent sexism as a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver) and also tend to elicit behaviors typically categorized as prosocial (e.g., helping) or intimacy-seeking (e.g., self-disclosure)

[Emphasis mine.]

In lay terms that means, it's possible to make "nice" statements that are also sexist. Obama's words are a great example. It's so, so important to understand: these comments can come from our friends just as easily as they can from a douche bag in the street. However, when they come from a friend, there can actually be more pressure to let it slide. We, as women, are often socialized to be non-confrontational and added to that is the fact that it's just human nature to not want to piss of a friend. But when we don't address things like this, stereotypes about women are reinforced. (In this example the stereotypes are that Harris's looks are somehow important to her job and more generally that women's looks are the most noteworthy things about them.)

I would be annoyed by this even if I just heard in my group of friends, but President Obama isn't some guy hanging out in my apartment He's the President, and his behavior is observed by most people in our country and many people around the world. Like Maxwell said, he is typically an ally...but that doesn't give him a pass. Real allies listen to women. In fact, I would argue that as an ally, it makes it even more relevant for him to check his male privilege because that's what allies do. I never expect Rush Limbaugh to examine this privilege. I don't care about him. He's not where progress can be made. He routinely says things a million times worse, so if he made these same comments, it might not even make the news.

But Obama has both the ability and opportunity to show how someone who truly respects women can recover from a sexist blunder and admit he was wrong.

We still operate in a world where a rape victim is blamed for drinking to the point of unconsciousness, so apologizing for publicly saying a woman is good looking seems like small potatoes. But the fact of the matter is that all of these "little things" normalize sexism and lay the foundation for systematic oppression. If Obama can play a role in reversing that trend, I would hope he would take it.

UPDATE: YAY!

This blog has strict comment moderation intended to preserve a safe space. Moderation is managed solely by the blog author. As such, even comments made in good faith will be on a short delay, so please do not attempt to resubmit your comment if it does not immediately appear. Discussion and thoughtful participation are encouraged, but abusive comments of any type will never be published. The blog author reserves the right to publish/delete any comments for any reason, at her sole discretion.