Thursday, October 30, 2008

If Not Now, When?

SOMETIMES THERE IS A WATERSHED MOMENT IN HISTORY WHEN IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THINGS MUST CHANGE AND LEADERS MUST ACT. THAT MOMENT IS NOW FOR THE WOMEN OF THIS COUNTRY.

THE LESSONS OF THIS CAMPAIGN WERE ABUNDANT:

• As the economy became the single most critical issue in the election, the role that women play in our economic structure has never been clearer. Women are the backbone of the nation’s workforce and control 70 percent of its buying power.

• The candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, while inspiring women and girls around the country to imagine what can be, exposed extreme gender bias in the media and throughout our culture.

• Women, who make up 56 percent of the voting population, were targeted as never before as the critical bloc that would determine the outcome of the election.

In 1961, as the nation grappled with the issue of women in the workplace, President John Kennedy convened the first Presidential Commission on the Status of Women and appointed Eleanor Roosevelt as its chair. Kennedy recognized the moment was right.

That was 47 years ago, and it’s time to do it again. As in 1961, women are at the forefront of our political discourse – and we are committed to keeping them there.

A record number of women are seeking ways to participate more fully in all aspects of American life, politics and policymaking. A Presidential Commission on Women is the right vehicle to initiate a national conversation on the future of women. If Not Now, When?

SIGN THE PETITION

(From WomenCount.org)

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

You don't have to be a fan of marriage to support marriage equality...

...you just have to believe that all people should be equal in the eyes of the law.



It's Write to Marry Day, and I've decided to join hundreds of other bloggers (Yes, hundreds. The list of contributors over a Mombian's blog is already over 200 blogs long!) to write about the importance of marriage equality for same-sex couples.


I'm actually not a huge proponent of marriage in general. Partner benefits, family health benefits and legal recognition of my relationship with my partner -- Yes. Marriage as a normative cultural institution with the white dress and bells -- No. I feel strongly that marriage has become more of a religious and/or commercial institution than a civil one, which makes me extremely uncomfortable (separation of church and state, anyone?). Also, I personally do not feel that I need a ceremony to prove (and prove to whom?) that I love my partner. That said, I'm not wholesale against marriage (although I'm in full support of Renee's ode to unmarriage and agree with Cara that the whole institution is pretty messed up) nor should my personal feelings reflect on what other people choose to do with their lives and in their relationships. I may not be keen on marriage myself, but I would never presume to impose my views on other people.

What I fail to understand is how anyone can make an argument against same-sex marriage on any grounds, religious or otherwise. I think the moralizing "traditional marriage" argument is ridiculous and wrong wrong wrong, but at least I've grown accustomed to the fact that when it comes to some religious institutions people don't seem to have any qualms about saying they're better or more worthy than other people. If you don't have the false judgmental security of "God on your side" (whatever that means), what's your excuse? Everyone should be outraged by this blatant discrimination, because that's what it is. And it scares me that so many people don't see it that way. It may seem like not that big a deal. It's just marriage, who cares? But if you claim you're against same-sex marriage for any reason, no matter how you rationalize it, you're really just saying that you think LGBTQ people are less than, that we don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. And we all know where that line of thinking leads.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

~Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Unless you think, as some people do, that equality is un-American, I find it hard to even wrap my mind around the outright discrimination implicit in denying same-sex couples the right to marry. Even more mind-boggling? The lying and coercion perpetrated by those opposed to gay marriage. You can bet your hat that if the "liberal elite" were trying to deny, I don't know, say, right-wing conservatives the right to marry each other, there would be an outcry of discrimination to beat the band. And rightfully so. But apparently, in the eyes of some, only certain (straight) people are equal in the eyes of the law.

California's Proposition 8 (which would make same-sex marriage illegal) and Florida's Amendment 2 (which would not only legally define marriage as between a man and woman, but also disenfranchise unmarried couples whether homosexual or heterosexual -- thanks to Britni for the info) are discriminatory and hateful. Please, if you live in either of these states, vote NO. If you don't live in either of these states, consider donating time or money in these final, crucial days before the election. I just made a $25 donation to Equality California because that's all I can afford right now. My partner made a donation as well. Why are these votes in California and Florida so important when we don't even live there? Because every state-wide opposition to same-sex marriage is another blow to LGBTQ freedoms and rights across the country (it all has a ripple effect).

It doesn't matter if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or asexual. It doesn't matter if you never plan to get married, if you're hoping to get married one day in a big church with all the frills or if you married years ago at City Hall. We should all cry out in outrage against laws that seek to discriminate against a group of people, regardless of if they effect us personally or not.

"Your silence will not protect you." ~ Audre Lorde

Porn Wars and Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality

Yes, I know that's a scary post title.

Today I'm writing about an exercise in stretching my brain and my opinions on porn. That's important to do, and books like Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality by Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, and Ann Russo are the background for dialogues about porn and sex work today.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit I read this book for a research project I'm doing for my Women's Studies honors thesis. I'll be examining "feminist" porn and the tactics it uses to address critiques like the ones brought up in Pornography. I'm starting by reading a whole slew of books written by anti-porn feminists so that I can be fluent in their criticisms of porn.

One of the things that was striking to me in reading this book was the way the authors framed their arguments in relation to sex-positive feminists who they called "sexual liberals." The first couple of chapters were devoted to naming and disputing "sexually liberal" criticisms of anti-pornography feminism. As the book went on it got a little more nuanced, but the first two chapters set the tone for the narratives about porn.

I'm probably not going to make myself popular with people on either side by saying this, but I have a huge problem with the divisiveness we see surrounding the issue of porn in feminism. It's a problem on both sides, and I think it's really unproductive.

I agree with the anti-porn feminists that a lot of porn does represent and reinforce the patriarchal gender roles of our society. Including a tendency towards violence against women.

I agree with the sex positive feminists that porn can be a very powerful tool for exploring and expressing female sexuality. I think that any consciously navigated choice to be sexual as a woman is an act of rebellion against the stupid virgin/whore complex.

Which, by the way, is hugely at play in the conflict between these groups. The anti-porners basically call the sex pos-ers whores for advocating for what they see as the always patriarchal representations of sex in porn. The sex pos-ers call the anti-porners prudes for criticizing sex and porn and fucked up power dynamics between men and women.

It's a bad show.

I'm having a real "Ack! I've been identifying solely with one side of this argument, but I think the other has solid points too!" kind of moment.

I still think that the sex positive movement has a more productive approach to porn: actually making porn and REconstructing gender roles in it by altering the circumstances of its production and consumption. However, I don't think they'd be much of anywhere without the efforts of the anti-porn movement to highlight the sexual inequalities that are prevalent everywhere.

I think that where the anti-porn movement reacts to a negative sexual situation in our country, the pro-sex movement acts to change it. That's why I'm writing about feminist porn; I want to see how they're doing.

After that long word vomit, back to the book. I did really like the last few chapters where the authors talked more about their personal interactions with porn and how it affected them emotionally. These three closing essays showed, finally, a much more complex view of how to deal with porn.

I think that in the end the three authors are somewhat open to dealing with sex positive types (or "sexual liberals" as they're called in the book). I hope that we can all find a common ground. We're all working towards the same thing anyway: equality between men and women.

Cross posted at Paper Cuts and Plastic.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Women in Rwanda

Just a quick post today to encourage you check out an article in today's Washington Post about how women in Rwanda are taking charge. Apparently Rwanda's parliament is the first in the world to have a female majority.

An excerpt:
Women hold a third of all cabinet positions, including foreign minister, education minister, Supreme Court chief and police commissioner general. And Rwanda's parliament last month became the first in the world where women claim the majority -- 56 percent, including the speaker's chair.

One result is that Rwanda has banished archaic patriarchal laws that are still enforced in many African societies, such as those that prevent women from inheriting land. The legislature has passed bills aimed at ending domestic violence and child abuse, while a committee is now combing through the legal code to purge it of discriminatory laws.

[...]

"This was a broken society after the genocide," said Aloisea Inyumba, Kagame's former gender and social affairs minister, who was also a prominent official in his ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front when it was still a rebel group fighting the country's genocidal government. "We made a decision that if Rwanda is going to survive, we have to have a change of heart as a society. Equality and reconciliation are the only options."

The article is part of a special report on women in the world. So go. Read more.

(H/T My Parents)

Monday, October 27, 2008

JuicyCampus.com and Slut-Bashing

One of my friends just sent me a link to a new "social networking" site called Juicy Campus. According to the home page, "this is the place to spill the juice about all the crazy stuff going on at your campus. It's totally anonymous - no registration, login, or email verification required."

What this means is that students have free reign to post whatever, anything at all, about anyone or anything. So of course it's a huge racist, sexist, classist, sizeist, ableist, just-prejudiced-in-general party.

If I had any extra time this semester, I'd want to write a research paper about this site. It takes all the bigoted tensions under the surface of our culture and brings them right out into the light. I mean, it's pretty awful stuff on there and it kind of sucks to read it, but it's fascinating nonetheless.

I've never seen more obvious examples of slut-bashing than on the site. I'd say a majority of the posts on the site (or at least on the pages for my college) are about specific girls and their sluttiness. (They cut off search results at 150 posts so I couldn't compare the number of "slut" posts to anything.) It's just a reminder of how hurtful that stuff can be.

There were a couple of girls from my school who were specifically targeted over and over again. One of them bravely stood up for herself on the site and said that she knew the posts were mostly made by a guy she rejected. Shocking, right, a girl labeled "slut" because she wouldn't have sex?

If you read Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation by Leora Tanenbaum, which I highly recommend, you'll find out that the slut label is often completely disconnected from sex. Not always, of course, but a lot of the time it's just a way to punish girls who aren't "normal," who dare to be "deviant" in some way. It's a punishing word, a weapon.

It is also, of course, a word that reinforces sexual stereotypes and the female gender role. By forcing girls and women to toe a line between being called a slut and being called a prude, patriarchal culture keeps our sexuality strictly controlled. We have to fight hard in order to have a respectful, healthy relationship with our own sexual desires. It's yet another way the patriarchy strips our personal power, leaving us so caught up in living up to its standards that we don't notice how ridiculous they are and throw them over.

In the last year or so, I've been on a personal crusade to stop slut-bashing when I find it. It doesn't always work, of course, because some people are stubbornly mean. There are lots of people, though, who don't think about what they're saying when they call a girl a slut. "Do you mean she has a lot of sex? Sex is fun. Why is that bad?" actually gets a pretty thoughtful response, especially if someone's using the word in a way unconnected to sex. "Do you mean you think she's mean and you don't like her?"

So I encourage all of you to combat "slut" when you hear it. It's such a "small" thing, but it makes a big difference in individual people's lives, and it's the combination of a million small things that leads to big patriarchy.

Cross posted at Paper Cuts and Plastic.

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Feminist Flashback #8

For some reason, all the previous Feminist Flasbacks have been video clips of one sort or another; that situation needs to be rectified. I am, after all, an art historian (sort of...but that's another story). So, Fourth Wave Feminism's Feminist Flashback for this week is Judy Chicago's (in)famous 1979 installation piece The Dinner Party:


The Dinner Party has inspired some controversy both within feminist art and in the more male-dominated art world. It was and continues to be an extremely popular piece (housed permanently now in the Brooklyn Museum of Art. However, it's been criticized by third wave feminists for its essentialism and lack of criticality (among other things).

Each plate, placed around the large triangular table central to the installation, is designed and crafted for a different woman from history. The installation includes not only the table, but also wall panels with historical descriptions of the women represented, floor tiles covered in the scripted names of hundreds of other women who were not given individual plates, and hanging tapestries with texts about the eternal unity of women. Each place-setting is elaborate, the ceramic plates carefully designed and crafted, and the tablecloths intricately embroidered to emphasize certain aspects of each woman’s life or accomplishments. The motifs for almost all of the designs are vaginal, emphasizing an identification of female sexuality with biological destiny (one of the factors that allowed deconstructivist feminists to denounce the work as essentialist).

For more information, and a contemporary feminist prospective, check out the April 2007 Washington Post article "Her Table Is Ready: Judy Chicago's 'Dinner Party' Is Still a Conversation Piece."

For more images and a virtual tour, you can check out the Brooklyn Museum's Dinner Party website.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Feminist Anthems: Mountain Moving Day

So - an anthem for Second-Wave feminism.

I really didn't know what I was getting myself into when I gave myself this task last week. At the time, I thought I would end up with a solo-acoustic guitar womyns music sort of song. For whatever reason, though, the feminist singer-songwriter song that I listened to are either quite recent (and thus influenced by recent feminist developments), or simply didn't fit in some way.

In the end, I decided on Mountain Moving Day by the Chicago Women's Liberation Rock Band.

Perhaps this was the overly obvious choice; that's okay, if it is. I think it's a perfect anthem for the ideals of Second-Wave feminism. It's about Women, with a capital 'W'. It's serious, thoughtful, intelligent. It's not mindlessly optimistic, yet exudes confidence about the future.


The Chicago Women's Liberation Rock Band was the musical expression of the Chicago Women's Liberation Union, an early feminist organization. The CWLU was formed in 1969, and the band soon after. Now, I certainly wasn't alive during this time, so I perhaps have a bit of a romanticized view of the early feminist movement, but here are a few thoughts that I feel are relevant to the song:

  1. Back than, feminism was really a movement. That is, it was defined by rallies, protests, marches, and educational endeavors. Saying you were a 'feminist' didn't just mean "I support equality", it meant "I work for equality. Everyone was an activist, if you will.

  2. Things were bad for women back then. Very bad. Sexism was something that happened to every women, all day, every day. The early feminists were trying to change a social structure that was almost unchanged, even after years and years of the women's suffrage movement.

  3. The goals of those women were seemingly impossible, yet clear: while there were certainly arguments about what needed to be done, I don't see the divisiveness that plagues modern feminism.


So, let's listen to the song again. It's mountain moving day. Mountain moving day, and "I know that it's true". Their task was not a small one. But they knew that they would succeed. And they realized, "the waters now will tear the canyons down." That is, it only takes a few to began to accomplish something. But eventually, "All sleeping women now awake and move", all women will realize what is happening, and join. And, strangely enough, the women are also the mountain! "Only a while the mountain sleeps/In the past all mountains moved in fire." So, the 'mountain' both moves, and is moved.

And they succeeded. The mountain was moved. Regardless of what we may think of Second-Wave feminism, any problems we may have with it, they got the job done. The face of culture was changed forever. And modern feminists would do well to listen to the message of "Mountain Moving Day" - there are still mountains to move, and we need to move them together.

Next week, since it's election time, we'll look at election music, and an anthem for First-Wave feminism - assuming I can find one!

Friday, October 24, 2008

A siren's call

In her Washington Post article "Something about Sarah", Kathleen Parker asks the recurring question of this election--why did Senator McCain pick the relatively unknown and untested Governor Palin as his running mate?--and comes up with an answer so ancient that it's somehow new again. McCain was smitten. He couldn't help himself. His "judgment was clouded by the presence of an attractive woman."

No. Really:
As my husband observed early on, McCain the mortal couldn't mind having an attractive woman all but singing arias to his greatness. Cameras frequently capture McCain beaming like a gold-starred schoolboy while Palin tells crowds that he is "exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief." This, notes Draper, "seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful."

It is entirely possible that no one could have beaten the political force known as Barack Obama -- under any circumstances. And though it isn't over yet, it seems clear that McCain made a tragic, if familiar, error under that sycamore tree. Will he join the pantheon of men who, intoxicated by a woman's power, made the wrong call?

Who knows? Maybe Parker's right. It's not like McCain is ever going to tell us why he really decided to choose Sarah Palin (except that it was a "cold, calculated move" apparently perfectly primed to piss off all those unattractive, unhappy liberal feminists). That said, I don't begrudge Parker her op-ed. She certainly makes some interesting points (especially in regard to a Canadian research project--the published article titled aptly "Do pretty women inspire men to discount the future?"--which studied the effects of attraction on decision-making). However, her piece really irked me because of the gendered socio-cultural assumptions on which her opinion is founded.

I am so so so tired of the "pretty woman" excuse. And I have a hard time understanding why men aren't furious. (Unless it's true, which to me, were I a man, would signal a problem I'd want to work on.) Isn't it as bad to say that men are easily distracted by beauty (and hence make poor decisions) than to claim--as is so often done--that women are too emotional to be rational thinkers? Actually, it's the exact same indictment--passion trumping logic--except that women are to blame in both cases. Women are too emotional. That's our own fault. But if a pretty woman distracts a man into making a stupid decision, that man just couldn't help himself. What. The. Fuck.

This is not a new argument, obviously. It's frequently used to defend rape ("she was asking for it"). It's cited as a reason why Islamic women must wear a hijab or burqa. It goes all the way back to Adam and Eve:


To the Sirens:


And Delilah:


And Salome:


Not to mention Helen of Troy:


Oh, right, and...Sarah Palin:


How is it possible that after hundreds of thousands of years of human civilization (arguably more), we're still laboring under this notion? The femme fatale seduces and destroys the hopeless, unsuspecting man. The powerful, evil, gorgeous woman weakens the man's resolve through no fault of his own. He succumbs to her beauty. In these narratives, why do men not have any agency when in many other scenarios men have all the agency?

I'm not saying women can't wield power sexually. Of course we can, as can men. We can also be powerful in many other ways, as can men: through intelligence, might, intimidation, charisma, fortitude...the list goes on. So why does this idea of the femme fatale--the man helpless in the wake of a seductress--persist? Is it a convenient excuse? Is it yet another of the myriad examples of female objectification and villainization (vagina dentata, anyone?)? Is it simple misogyny, another way to diminish women's agency/female power as suspect? Is is vagina envy? I mean seriously, I'm flummoxed.

Cross-posted at Open Salon (I'm trying it out...)

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Girls say yes...


This recent pro-Obama poster has been making the rounds. The feminist blogosphere seems to be in disagreement. Bust Magazine says "yea," Salon's Broadsheeters and Feminist Law Professors say "nay." What do you think? Cool or uncool? Appropriate or inappropriate?

Would you say yes?

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Carnival of Feminists #67

The 67th Carnival of Feminists is up over at Jump off the Bridge, and Sally received a lot of great post submissions in the last few weeks on a diverse variety of topics--from politics and Palin to religion, sex and "isms". Check it out!

Also, I'm very pleased to announce that we here at Fourth Wave will be hosting the next Carnival of Feminists (that would be number 68; click on the link for more information) on November 12, 2008.

For now, there's no theme, as long as your posts are somehow related to feminism. You can submit posts by filling out the online form or sending an email directly to me at fourthwave[dot]feminism[at]gmail[dot]com. Submit away! It's an excellent chance to network and introduce your blog to a larger audience.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Liberal feminists hate happy women.

Rachel Maddow's hilarious segment tonight on why liberal feminists apparently hate Sarah Palin (answer: because she's happy, attractive and a working mother):

Did he really just say what I think he said?

Why, yes. Yes, he did.


(H/T Shakesville)

Jeez, McCain. Tell us what you really think.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Manic Pixie Dream Girls



I saw this great story a couple of weeks ago on NPR.com and I wanted to share it with the fourth-wavers to see what you all think. Check out the video on NPR then you can see some of the film clips. I wanted to post it after seeing Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist which I found incredibly disappointing. I'm not sure Nora is a MPDG, maybe Nick is, but the shallowness of the characters reminded me of this story.

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl was named by Nathan Rabin in a review of Elizabethtown "to describe that bubbly, shallow cinematic creature that 'exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.'"
At the Onion AV club you can read about their top 16 MPDG's, films include Garden State, Almost Famous, The Apartment, Joe Vs. the Volcano, and Annie Hall.

As the writers point out the MPDG is a divisive figure, you either love her or hate her, wish you were as impulsive and fabulous as her, or cringe with embarrassment for her. One of the key criteria is the the MPDG serves the usually male protagonist and has no real substantial inner life of her own. For me the best MPDGs are in movies that are about fantasy like Breakfast at Tiffany's and Bringing up Baby. In these films the men don't have very substantial inner lives either, and the film ask us to suspend disbelief and enter the world of these zanny wonderful women. The subject of the inner life of the MPDG is one up for debate, who counts, who doesn't count, and what does it all mean. Who is your favorite or least favorite MPDG? Are there any Manic Pixie Dream Boys? Discuss!


Sunday, October 19, 2008

Feminist Flashback #7

I almost forgot! Feminist Flashback Sundays presents The Eurythmics and Aretha Franklin singing "Sisters Are Doin' It For Themselves." Tragically, the embedding function has been disabled by Sony, but you can watch the video (and bop along) here.

(Brianna, if you were planning to use this for your Feminist Anthems series, I'm sorry! I won't post any analysis, so feel free to use it anyway...)

Sarah Palin on SNL

From the October 13, 2008 issue of The New Yorker:


Uh. Yeah.

What did you all think of Sarah Palin's opening appearance on SNL last night (not to mention the later Weekend Update rap which was disturbingly catchy)? I was simultaneously somewhat amused and deeply horrified (hmm...seems I've had this feeling before). Even though I was half laughing, the whole thing made me uncomfortable, especially Alec Baldwin calling Palin a "horrible woman" right in front of her. And did anyone else notice how Tina Fey brushed past her? Maybe it was just an act, but I feel deeply conflicted by her appearance. And I don't even like her! Thoughts?

Edited to add the videos, below the cut:






Saturday, October 18, 2008

Feminist Anthems: Step Aside

I just couldn't write a music column for very long without mentioning Sleater-Kinney. (They're pretty much my favorite band!)

But the song I want to look at today is unusually interesting: It's essentially a feminist dance song:


I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that this song is perhaps the embodiment of third wave feminism. The Third Wave Feminist Anthem, if you will. Let me explain:

Now, I'm not going to try and define third wave feminism here. For one thing, it would take a whole book. For another, as a quick visit to you local feminist blog will tell you, nobody else really knows what it means either!

For the purpose of this post, though, some attributes of third wave feminism include: A rejection of the narrow focus of the second wave on women's rights to the exclusion of all else, an broader acceptance of sexuality, an emphasis on individuals, and individual action as a means for change, etc.

Back to the song:

It's a dance song. Not a protest song, not a ballad, not a love song, not a song that tells a story. You dance to a dance song. This is interesting. Dancing is a... frivolous activity, and one full of existing societal meaning. It previously wouldn't have presented itself as a feminist activity, but yet, here it is.
why don�t you shake a tail for peace and love
move it up one time for love

And the song is not focused on middle-class, white women, either, and it's about an individual's story:
this mama works till her back is sore
but the baby�s fed and the tunes are pure

And it's about other issues, too:

when violence rules the world outside
and the headlines make me want to cry
it�s not the time to just keep quiet
speak up one time to the beat

But of course, feminism is still about women:

janet, carrie, can you feel it?
(knife through the heart of our exploitation)
ladies one time can you hear it
(disassemble our discrimination)

I'm probably over-thinking this, (it's a pretty simple song, in the end), but hey, it's fun!

Next week, I'm going to try and find the second wave feminist anthem.

Farewell to Opus

Berkeley Breathed, the Pulizer Prize winning cartoonist responsible for Bloom Country and Opus will be publishing his last Opus cartoon on November 2nd. In his interview with Salon he cautions:
We're not a movie. In most aspects, there's no arc to the human story. Only a line heading upward. For nearly everything. In this case, the coarsening of the National Discourse. We aren't returning someday to any sort of golden era of political civility.[...]It's not so much dark times now, as profane and loud. Satire you'll have, oh dear me, indeedy yes. "Vomitous" and "awash" are two words that come to mind. It used to be that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. How antediluvian. Rather, everyone will now want a satirical YouTube film with 15 megabytes. Satire we'll have. Rather, the real dearth in our world will be sweetness, comfort, thoughtfulness and civility. If I could do "Peanuts," that's what I'd be doing. Alas, I've tried.

I've included a couple Opus strips as homage below the cut (click to enlarge):

H/T Yoga for Cynics


Friday, October 17, 2008

More stereotypical characters, please!

How many times have you heard or read these phrase: "<Random strong female character> is a good character because she's strong without giving up her femininity." or maybe, "It's good that <random female character> isn't just a male character in a woman's body, because that is boring and stereotypical."

I can't seem to come up with any links to this kind of thing right now, but I keep hearing this kind of talk, over and over again - especially when I'm discussing something like Buffy with male friends. I just have one question: When has this ever been done? When have we seen a 'male character in a female body', and where can I find it?

Alien? Terminator? Ripley/Sarah Conner are cast in a mother role.

Alice or Jill in the Resident Evil series? Maybe. Some of Elizabeth Moon's characters? I suppose.

I'm sure that there are more examples, but I think that we can agree - such characters are very, very rare.

Now, I love the complex, wonderful characters that are created when strong female characters are 'done right' i.e., not stereotypes. I wouldn't have Buffy, or Ripley, or Xena, or Elizabeth Bennett, or whomever written any other way. Writers should strive to create complex, well-rounded characters of all genders. Sometimes, however, it just doesn't happen. And sometimes, I'm just not up to digesting a complex, realistic character - I just want something simple. And stereotypes, ideals, are important to out cultural mythmaking...

But, where are these stereotypes? It seems like even the toughest female action-oriented characters resort to seduction on a regular basis. (c.f. Max from Dark Angel, Xena) And those that don't are still supposed to be sympathetic to family members, spouses/boyfriends, starving orphans, etc, to a degree unheard of by their male counterparts. We wouldn't want them seeming any less female, now would we? And if they are less female, they're invarabily evil.

So here's what I want:

I want a female western hero, Lone Ranger style. The kind that comes into town on a big white horse, defeats the bad guys, and rides of into the sunset. No weird former relationships, no serious love intrest, no noticeable weaknesses.

I want a female James Bond clone. Not an Alias-type female spy, but the whole masculine-fantasy Bond. Suave, perfect gentleperson, yet an amazing detective and fighter, who has an astonishing sense of luck, inept sidekicks, and who gets all the girls without trying, but who remains cooly detached throughout. For even more bonus points, make her straight and give her feminine, 'woman in a man's body', male love interests.

(Side note: why is it that male characters often have love interests that are weak and girly, but female characters always dispise and reject weak male love interests, only accepting those that are close to their quality?)

I want a female buddy comedy. Baby Mama doesn't count. It couldn't have been made with male characters.

I want a romance movie with the roles reversed. Completely. Enough said.

I could go on and on.

We probably won't ever get any of these things. There's been such a rejection of cliched characters of any gender, that nobody's going to try anything this different, but I can wish! Still...

The male ideal stereotype, the 'White Knight' if you will, is still pervasive in the culture. Even if modern fictional characters tend to be less idealistic, less heroic, the ideal is still there, and the modern characters still approximate it, even if they remain human. By refusing to create female characters who embody the masculine stereotype, even the strongest women will invarabily be compared, not to that stereotype, but to the existing feminine stereotype. This tendancy leads to a rejection of certain roles for women and men in real life. By denying this stereotype, we essentially deny half of human expression for half the human race.

And let's not even start on feminine male characters...

(Crossposted from Constant Thoughts)

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Why girls are important

Two great (though very different) videos about the importance of girls and why we shouldn't underestimate their value. The first is an incredible PSA/ad for The Girl Effect, an organization dedicated to helping educate girls living in poverty on ways to care for themselves, provide for their families and create a brighter future:


(H/T Feministing)

The second is a trailer for what looks like it will be a fun and inspiring new online show, Amy Poehler's "Smart Girls at the Party." We'll keep our eyes peeled for the first episode:


(H/T Fangrrl Magnet)

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Debate Recap

I seriously wish I had just drunk myself into a stupor before the debate. Then maybe I wouldn't have had to fight so hard with myself to not get up and throw my television out the window. I was so infuriated by McCain's eye-rolling and condescension and scoffing and outright lies, that I wanted to scream. Also, does McCain think that constantly interrupting Obama and being a jerk is going to win him points? Really? If so, then that's not the America I want to live in.

MSNBC correspondent Rachel Maddow commented: "McCain grimacing and rolling his eyes and playing eyebrow-hockey is probably going to be a regret for him by the end of the night." She also declared that Obama won. I only hope she's right on both counts.

The debate basically boils down to this: Obama was respectful and collected and cool and McCain returned to his talking points and Joe the Plumber so many times that I thought I might hurl. Want a bit more detail. Here's a summary:

On taxes

MCCAIN: Cut taxes for everyone. Even though we have a huge national debt. No one, even the wealthy and large, rich companies, should have more taxes.

OBAMA: I, personally, would be willing to pay more taxes and huge corporations like Exxon Mobil should have to pay more taxes, too, but 95% of Americans would get tax cuts (like I've said four thousand times before).

MCCAIN: Joe the Plumber. Joe the Plumber. Joe the Plumber.

OBAMA: First of all...

MCCAIN: Joe the Plumber!

OBAMA: Oh, never mind. You're not listening anyway.

On balancing the budget

MCCAIN: I can balance the budget in four years. And now my secret can come out. I'm [drum roll] Iron Man! Oh, and ipso facto I'm not George Bush.

On negative campaigning

MCCAIN: Well, it's been a tough campaign and Obama said he would do more Town Hall style meetings with me and he didn't so we're justified in attacking him.

OBAMA: I'm going to take the high road here. "I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply."

MCCAIN: But you are hurting my feelings.

OBAMA: I don't think we should even be talking about this, but, okay, fine. People were yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" at your rallies and "your running mate" didn't stop them.

MCCAIN: "I'm proud of the people that come to our rallies."

OBAMA: Oy.

MCCAIN: Even though "I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist" like Ayers, what's your relationship with him?

OBAMA: Bill Ayers is a professor. He was a terrorist when I was 8 years old (and you were 33), and he's not involved in my campaign. Why is he important again?

On running mates serving as President

OBAMA: Joe Biden has an incredible amount of experience, his foreign policy credentials are outstanding, he's fought on behalf of the working class, and he supported the Violence Against Women Act.

MCCAIN: Sarah Palin is a good role-model. And she knows how to help children with autism (even though her baby actually has Down's Syndrome, but I can't be expected to remember minor details like that). Her husband's a tough guy, too, because that's important.

On foreign oil

OBAMA: I'm optimistic we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil in ten years, but we need to look into alternative energies: wind, solar, biodiesel and geothermal energy.

MCCAIN: Obama is so eloquent, which is clearly a bad thing. He talks so pretty, he clearly doesn't understand what he's saying.

On health care

MCCAIN: I want to give everyone $5000 because we have so much money lying around in Washington and because I'm sure that will cover everyone's health care costs.

OBAMA: I want everyone to have health insurance. Is that really so hard to understand?

On Roe v. Wade (best question of the night)

OBAMA: I support the decision made with Roe v. Wade, and I think that women are smart enough to make their own choices and it's really none of our business. In other words: "But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote." Also, we have to improve sex education and access to birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And, while we're talking about the Supreme Court, I'll make a quick reference to the Lily Ledbetter case and say that I support equal pay for equal work.

MCCAIN: Obama supports the "health of the mother." That's such an extreme pro-abortion view and can be used to mean almost anything.

OBAMA: I'm going to make a very important distinction here between being pro-choice and being pro-abortion, which are not the same thing, even though you're probably not listening to me.

MCCAIN: Pro-abortion. He wants to kill your babies.

OBAMA: See what I mean.

On education

OBAMA: Children are our future. Everyone who wants to go to college should be able to go to college without being in debt. If we invest in our youth, we invest in all aspects of our country.

MCCAIN: I'll just quibble about vouchers and charter schools here to buy time.

Closing remarks

MCCAIN: My eyes hurt from rolling around in my head all night. Oh, and, er, I'm a veteran. Vote for me.

OBAMA: I haven't broken a sweat. I've got this.

(Needless to say, I'm paraphrasing, though statements in quotes are verbatim as per CNN's transcript.)

Obeying orders

I went to see a Dar Williams concert last night at the Boulder Theater. She was incredible, as always, and she played her new song "Buzzer," which meditates on Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiments from the early 1960s.

The song:
(Lyrics here)

For those who don't know, the Milgram experiment was designed to understand how people respond to authority and how far they are willing to go to obey authority figures even if what they're being asked to do is harmful to another human being. Some people aren't convinced that Milgram's experiment was scientifically-viable in terms of the conclusions he drew from the results, but nevertheless the experiment is still relevant.

Milgram advertised the experiment, conducted at Yale University, as learning study in which one person would administer increasingly strong shocks to another person whenever they answered certain questions wrong. The actual experiment--which wasn't shared until after all the results were collected--was seeing how many people would be willing to go to the maximum voltage of shock treatment if they were told to do so by an authority figure (Milgram himself). The results were astounding: most participants went all the way up to the highest voltage even when the person being shocked (who was an actor only pretending to be shocked) screamed in pain and begged them to stop.

In an essay querying, "When is it proper to refuse to obey authority figures, even if they have been democratically chosen for their positions?" a man who took part in the original Milgram experiment explains, "The results of the Milgram experiment should not surprise us. Most people unquestioningly obey orders from authorities, and refusal is unusual. As children, after all, we are taught to obey our parents, teachers, employers and law enforcement officers."

Have times changed? Would most people go into an experiment like this nowadays and blatantly refuse to participate? Last year, ABC News re-created the experiment with similar results (although their testing pool was quite small and, hence, not a scientific cross-section).

Milgram was interested in understanding the cause behind "evil" actions and, in particular, how fascism takes root among "ordinary" citizens. But I don't need to conduct an experiment in order to see that some McCain-Palin supporters, with their racist, scary mob mentality, are running headlong in that direction:

H/T Feministing

Monday, October 13, 2008

Columbus Day Linkage

Some great posts on what it means to celebrate Columbus Day and why there's really nothing to celebrate:

Día de la Resistencia Indígena, Womanist Musings

A Day that Lives in Infamy, elle, phd

Happy Día de la Raza!, Nezua

Columbus Day Observed, Mamita Mala

Speaking of racism, The Bilerco Project analyzes the McCain campaign's scary race tactics and its effects and Tim Wise weighs in on the cost of silence.

And Cara at The Curvature decries another one of those awful, "provocative" victim-blaming anti-rape PSAs.

On the flip side, on an amusing/day-making note, my hero Tina Fey says she'll leave the planet if McCain-Palin win:
The "SNL" veteran who has come back to play the Republican Vice Presidential candidate (and whose own show, "30 Rock," is still nowhere to be seen), said, "We're gonna take it week by week. If she wins, I'm done. I can't do that for four years. And by 'I'm done,' I mean I'm leaving Earth."

Sunday, October 12, 2008

The line between sexism and fun

Becky Drysdale (of Time Traveling Lesbian/Big Gay Sketch Show fame) recently made a video entitled "L Word Serenade". It's been around for couple of weeks or so, and it's rather funny:


Ha, ha, silly lesbians watching the L Word for the sex, right? I thought so too, at first. But after watching it several more times, I'm not so sure.

What if the song had been performed by a man, about some other show? My reaction to that would likely be, "Oh, great, another stupid rap about some guy's sexual prowess." I know, I know, it's "just a joke", right? But sometimes it seems like we have a lot more tolerance for objectification if it's being done by a woman.

It seems like there are two way to view objectification:
  1. It's a social construct, and it's a problem because it's pervasive, constant, and nearly completely biased against women - if it was equally distributed and less prevalent, it would be okay. Lots of feminist adjacent men seem to think like this, mostly in terms of "It's okay to objectify someone a little." A number of lesbians seem to agree, cf. Sandy from the Lesbian Mafia, who thinks that porn would be just fine, if only men wouldn't look at it!

  2. It's a moral issue: objectifying someone's body is essentially always wrong. This, curiously enough, is a view held by both right-wing Christians, and by some of the most radical feminists: Andrea Dworkin comes to mind.

I personally tend to float somewhere in between: I think that it's possible to appreciate sexuality without objectifying the person, but I think that it becomes wrong as soon as you actually start treating them only as an object. I'm not always sure where exactly that line is, though. This song, while not offensive per. se., still bothers me somewhat.

Or, perhaps I'm just still mad about the Margeret Cho incident.

What do you think? Does the 'L Word Serenade' offend you, or is it just funny?

Feminist Flashback #6

Foxy Brown, 1974
(Warning: There's some offensive language and imagery in this trailer, including the use of the "N" word. But it was the best overview of the film I could find. I apologize if it offends anyone.)



A quick caveat for this week's feminist flashback: not everyone would categorize blaxploitation as feminist since it is, by definition, about exploitation of certain racial and gendered tropes. Significantly, blaxploitation is a genre very-much based in the 1970s – urban crime, the war on drugs, post-civil rights. Gary Morris’s article on the genre in Bright Lights Film Journal defines it fairly well:
The plots of most of these films — and they are conventionalized enough to confidently treat them as a group — are pastiches of old Warner Bros. melodramas, with dashes of MGM fashion glamor — via the street — thrown in. Most are gangster melodramas with elements of social protest, dominated by a single (male or female) charismatic personality. They fall loosely into two overlapping categories. First are the stories of the pimp or pusher at a crisis point, caught between the needs of his people (black nationalism) and sellout pressure from The Man. […] The second is the straight-on revenge drama, in which a character — often female, more violent and less conflicted than her male counterpart — single-handedly destroys a white-based power structure that's harmed her, her family, and by extension the black community.

Many people -- particularily reviewers -- found (and find) blaxploitation films to be degrading and unrealistic. However, in a 1977 interview, Pam Grier (star of Foxy Brown, among other things) stated
I feel I portray all images of a woman on all levels because I am product of my environment. As far as people insisting that I have been cast in blaxploitation movies, I don't know what black exploit means. All the roles I have had were reflections of our society. Those were real people from real elements. The heroiness I portrayed always showed concern for the terrifying social conditions and it is only in this area that I feel I meld with the screen characters I depicted.

Even though it's violent, hyper-sexualized and gratuitous, I love Foxy Brown because Pam Grier's character is kick-ass. What do you all think? How do we define feminism in text when so many other factors--violence against women (and men), racist stereotypes, revenge, etc.--seem counter to that ideal?

Friday, October 10, 2008

Happy National Coming Out Day

Today is National Coming Out Day. Why is that important? Because when people come out--as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual, etc.--they're telling the world that they're not ashamed of their sexuality, themselves or their lives. That they're proud to be who they are. The more people come out, the more obvious it will become that LGBTQ folks are just the same as everyone else, that being LGBTQ is only a part of our identity. We have families and pets and jobs and houses/apartments and coffee tables. And, chances are, people who know LGBTQ people are more likely to stand up for LGBTQ issues (except if you're Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin).

But you don't necessarily have to be gay to revel in the spirit of coming out day. Today, even if you're straight, come out as something as a sign of solidarity with the LGBTQ community (H/T to the Pride group at my graduate institution, who did this last year). Are you a feminist? Come out as a feminist. Are you a Buddhist? Tell the world. Each of us has many identity positions we occupy day after day, sometimes without even realizing that we take certain rights and privileges for granted. So, whether you're LGBTQ or not, today is a day to own your identity and to think about how your life is shaped daily by all the little pieces that make up who you are.

I'll start. I'm a lesbian, biracial, agnostic, a democrat and a feminist. Everyone I'm close to knows that I'm gay, from my parents--who were and are terrific about it--and relatives (even though it took me quite a while to tell them) to my friends. Still, I used to be very wary of coming out to people I only knew casually, to the extent that I attended the same karate dojo for five years (and worked there for one of those years), and only came out to two people there. But this summer I moved and made a decision; I wasn't going to hedge anymore. If someone asked me why I moved, I would tell them (to be with my partner) and if they didn't like it, tough. Four or five times now I've encountered the same question from people I just met, "Oh, so why did you come all the way out here?" and I've answered, "To be with my partner." And when they ask what my partner does, I always start the sentence with "she." It seems like a small step, but it's a huge deal to me, and every time so far the person I'm speaking with has responded positively and without hesitation. And that's how I realized that all these years I've been isolating myself. No, not everyone is going to be okay with the fact that I'm a lesbian, but I'll never know if I don't tell them and give them a chance. That's what Coming Out Day is about to me--not worrying what people will think of me and being proud of who I am and whom I love.

What about you all? Come out, come out! And, remember, you don't have to be LGBTQ to participate. Share your stories in the comments.

Update: Check out Hahn at Home's great coming out post over at Lesbiatopia and Queers United's Coming Out Day open forum. Also, a wonderful coming-out-as-an-ally post from Renee at Womanist Musings and Britni explains over at her blog why it can still be so hard to come out even when you're open about everything else.

Yay Connecticut!

Despite my "tolerance" for the Democrats' pro-civil unions anti-gay marriage stance, I am of course beyond thrilled that the state of Connecticut has decided to legalize same-sex marriage:
The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled on Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, reversing a lower court decision that had concluded that the civil unions legalized in the state three years ago offered the same rights and benefits as marriage.

With the 4-to-3 ruling, Connecticut becomes the third state in the nation to legalize same-sex marriage. California legalized gay marriage in May 2008, and Massachusetts in 2004.

“Today is really a great day for equality in Connecticut,” said Bennett Klein, senior lawyer at Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which argued the case before the Supreme Court. “Today’s decision really fulfills the hopes and dreams of gay and lesbian couples in Connecticut to live as full and equal citizens.”

Is it too early to be optimistic and say that things are starting to look up?

(H/T Pretty Much Everyone)

Woman with a Gun (Part 1)

Much has been made in the six weeks since we were introduced to Sarah Palin of her gun-totin' ways, her life-long NRA membership (unsurprisingly the NRA has come out in support of the McCain-Palin ticket), her rather extreme views on gun control (or lack thereof) and her propensity for shooting things. For a while now, I've been interested in media representations of violence (or implied violence) and so Palin's predilection for firearms has me intrigued. What follows is the first part of a three-part analysis/exploration of the "woman with a gun" trope in popular/media culture. From politics to film to television and back to politics.



Part 1: They Shoot Wolves, Don't They?

In the interest of full disclosure, I should admit something before I even begin: I'm not really anti-gun, nor do I have a moral problem with hunting in general. I do believe in stricter gun control, including required background checks and permits to purchase both rifles and handguns, but I don't think firearms should be illegal. (Some states already have these requirements and some don't. If you look around, you can find up-to-date gun control laws on the internet with little trouble, but--just for illustrative purposes--this map of gun control laws by state is straightforward and succinct and gives you a general overview, even though it's a little outdated.) As regards hunting, I've never hunted myself and I'm not sure I'd ever want to hunt, but as long as hunters handle the animals humanely (i.e. not dragging out the chase or carelessly maiming) and use the animals they hunt for food and not trophies, I don't really have a problem with it. (It'd be pretty hypocritical of me to get up-in-arms over animals being hunted for food when I regularly eat meat. In fact, responsible hunting is probably more humane than what happens at slaughterhouses. But I digress.)

That said, we all know Governor Palin likes to hunt and she's happily asserted that "We hunt as much as we can, and I'm proud to say our freezer is full of wild game we harvested here in Alaska" (Newsweek). We've also seen the pictures of her with her spoils:


(The bear was actually shot by Palin's father, but now resides in her Anchorage office.)

You've probably also heard about her promotion of an aerial wolf gunning program, which is quite a bit more insidious than shooting the occasional caribou. The program, started by previous Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski, was designed to control the population of wolves so they would leave more prey for human hunters:
Wolves, Murkowski believed, were clearly better than humans at killing elk and moose, and humans needed to even the playing field.But that was before Sarah Palin took Murkowski's job at the end of 2006. She went one step, or paw, further. Palin didn't think Alaskans should be allowed to chase wolves from aircraft and shoot them -- they should be encouraged to do so. Palin's administration put a bounty on wolves' heads, or to be more precise, on their mitts.
(Read the full article at Salon.)
Here's the ad against the practice paid for by the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund:


While hunting prey animals may be partially about "living off the land" and feeding your family (although I imagine the percentage of hunters who only care about food is small), the aerial wolf gunning program is solely an assertion of power. The mastery of (wo)man over nature. It not only enacts human dominance over animals for our own gains but also implies that we have the right to exert our superior weaponry and machinery however we please. It doesn't take a huge leap of logic to imagine where that kind of thinking can lead us (and has already).


And what of the image of Sarah Palin with a gun--from the faked bikini photo and Tina Fey as Palin pretending to cock an invisible gun on SNL, to the real McCoy (see the first photo above)? In the first two instances, the emphasis is clearly on sex appeal. Woman with a gun = hot.


And the latter case? The actual Sarah Palin holding an actual gun? Take a look at this very short video made by Palin supporters before the rest of the country even knew who Sarah Palin was (the video was posted to Youtube way back in July by the Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President folks, who are probably patting themselves on the back right about now):



What visual associations do they make with Governor Palin? Integrity. Sarah Palin is sworn in as governor. Leadership. Sarah Palin speaks with Army officers. Courage. Sarah Palin shoots an assault rifle. And then the kicker: "Republicans are much more open to strong women." Following on the heels of rat-a-tat gunfire, the only spoken words in the video make implicit connections between firearms/courage and courage/strength. So, again, we're back to guns as symbols of power (certainly not a new idea in and of itself). The photos speak: This woman can shoot and kill a 1200lb moose, a swift caribou or a vicious wolf, so she's master of the natural domain. She knows how to fire a rifle and doesn't blink, so she has the strength to lead and the courage to defend our nation.

But...there's more. Stay tuned for Part 2. In the meantime, what's do you think is the (theoretical) appeal of Sarah Palin and her guns? Why are they important to her image?

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Carnival of Feminists, #66

Check out the 66th Carnival of Feminists over at Apu's World.

The next Carnival will be hosted on October 22nd by Sally over at Jump Off the Bridge, so don't forget to submit your recent feminist blog entries to share with the world.

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Can I Be a Feminist and a Bottom in Bed?

This is my first post to Fourth Wave, and I feel a little like I'm dropping into your world in mid-sentence. I maintain a blog at papercutsandplastic.blogspot.com and I will be cross-posting feminist-y bits and pieces from that site here. Hopefully that won't make my writing here too scattered; I figured it's just best to dive right in.

That said, here goes:

I'm a huge bottom in the bedroom. My best friend calls me "Little Nelly Bottom."

Depending on what sexual subculture you spend your time in, this could mean any of a million things. I spend most of my time in the lesbian community, and a little in the BDSM world, so that colors my understanding of the term. I use it to mean I like someone else to be in the driver's seat for sex, and I like to be on the tied-down end of bondage, a little spanking, and some power play.

Now, being in the passenger's seat doesn't mean I don't communicate my needs or that I'm not contributing to the action. I just like to get fucked. I like it when my lover takes control; I like to be pushed around a little, and I like being told what to do. As I've said before in my blog, I love to tease, but then I want to be thrown down and made to stop. (With appropriate consent, of course.)

I try to be comfortable with my naughty subservience, but as a feminist and a fiercely independent person, it's an awkward thing to feel and admit to. I get this niggling sense that I should be large and in charge all the time, like my personal politics should be carrying over into my sexual preferences. I'm trying to overthrow gender roles, here. Being submissive in bed is a stereotypically feminine thing. Bad feminist!

I don't consciously subscribe to that way of thinking, but it sneaks up on me a lot. One unfortunate consequence of feminism's emphasis on the personal as political is that it becomes too easy to discriminate against people for not being "feminist enough." I think that feminism is largely about personal choice regardless of gender, and when we try to name some behaviors as always feminist and others as always anti-woman, we're losing sight of that.

It's absolutely true that the patriarchy is created and perpetuated in our personal lives and our culture. There are millions of little ways we all contribute to it every day, without even noticing. It's so programmed into us that it's nearly impossible to get rid of completely. It's good to try not to perpetuate male privilege.

I think there are as many ways to fight patriarchy, though, as there are feminists. I think I can be a sexual bottom in a feminist way. If what I want is to be handcuffed and fucked and I name that, claim it, and go out into the world trying to make it happen, that's a feminist action. Being a woman and respecting my own sexuality and honoring it is a powerful thing.

Controlling female sexuality has been a big way the patriarchy has controlled women. By resisting that and writing my own narrative of sexuality, whatever that may entail, I'm coming into my feminist own. So long as I'm conscious and deliberate, I feel good about being a bottom.

Cross-posted to Paper Cuts and Plastic.

Bill Maher: "a lot of girls...are just hos"

Maybe I'm a bit too touchy, but in my channel surfing last night I ran into the ever classy Bill Maher on Leno, and he was off on this tangent about how the people who were trying to get rid of wall street corruption (Elliot Spitzer) and who are trying to address poverty (John Edwards) were needlessly taken down by sex scandals. In the process of arguing the point with Leno, and trying to argue that pontificating about prostitution is exploitative is absurd, he said "a lot of girls in America, jay, are just hos, they wanna be hos..." I was really disgusted by these comments, as I was with Maher discussion of rich people, as though he is not one of them. I understand what Maher is trying to say, but I'm not sure I understand why women have to be taken down in the process, but apparently according to Maher, boys will be boys. Tell me what you think. All I could find was was the whole show at NBC.com it is the October 7th show in "chapter 4." I'm curious to know if you all think I'm crazy or maybe Maher is just a hack?

Are we objects or people?

Someone else was as pissed off as I was when McCain referred to Obama as "that one". Actually, if the various debate live-blogs and commentaries are any indication, most people are pissed off. Which is good. We should be. Donna Brazile explains further:


H/T Feministing

Also, on a not quite related note, check out this video made by the Human Rights Campaign about how LGBT Alaskans feel under Sarah Palin's watch:


H/T Queers United

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Sarah Palin and Tina Fey Redux

I was going to just post a short comment on my SNL skit analysis responding to all the thoughtful and compelling comments I received from others around the blogosphere, but then I realized that my response might actually warrant its own post (because it got way too long for a comment), so here goes.

I don't think that it's SNL's job to change the world nor do I deny that its satire can and has made a difference in this campaign--at the very least, it's thrown all the hypocrisies and incongruities we've witnessed in the debates specifically and in the presidential race in general into sharp relief. Perhaps it's done more than that, but it's hard to measure a television show's effect on the politics of individual voters (unless someone's done a poll, though I don't know of any so far).

What I was getting at in my analysis is two-fold. On the one hand, in their comments both Erin and Kekla emphasized my point that "it's not SNL's job to bring home the political reality that Palin is a threat" (although commenter Bruce doesn't quite agree: "Tina Fey isn't just trying to amuse, she's trying to provoke as well.") This is exactly right--that SNL is comedy and should be held to comedy, not news show, standards--but it's also a bit like saying that fake news shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report don't affect people's outlook on politics just because they're supposed to be funny. So we can't overlook SNL's influence or the impact of the Fey-Palin association.

On the other hand, commenter drink me writes: "I find it very hard to believe that there's anyone who loves watching Tina Fey satirize Palin, and also is planning to vote for McCain/Palin. I understand the disconnect you're feeling, but in actual votes, I don't think it will make a difference." This commenter's point is well taken. It's probably true that most people who love Tina Fey's satire aren't McCain/Palin voters. However, I'm more worried about Democratic voters than Republican ones. The impetus for my analysis was working out why I found the SNL skits so disconcerting. One of those reasons, which I perhaps did not emphasize enough, is that these skits seem so funny, so obvious--and Fey is so good at making Palin seem ridiculous and, therefore, harmless (which was Le Loup-garou's original point)--that these skits may seduce us into thinking that everything's fine, that Palin's inexperience (for example) is clearly apparent to everyone in the country.

It disturbs me when I see that SNL skits and Daily Show clips get more (or even equal) net time than actual news stories, political analyses or clips from the real debates. I'm basing this concern on my very personal and completely unscientific experience with my friends' Facebook postings and email forwards, but that's how information travels these days, so I don't think it's an entirely specious assessment. That said, I'm not admonishing anyone. My previous post was a personal working-through, but I came to a conclusion that I think is important in a more widespread way. SNL is fantastic, but we need to keep striking while the iron's hot and bolster the effects of satire with continued political vigilance and public outcry. We can't rest on our media-sanctioned laurels.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Campaigning Women

I'm exhausted today, so while I've been working on a longer post, I just don't think it's going to happen tonight. Instead, I thought I'd post a couple things I've been meaning to share since late August, when I attended a few events at the Democratic National Convention with my friend Few.



The first is a link to the website of the Women's Campaign Forum's She Should Run project. WCF is an organization dedicated to encouraging and supporting pro-choice women who want to run for office, be it on the local, regional, state or national level:
We are delighted that a record number of women are serving in federal and state government in 2008, but there is still a long way to go. With 16 women in the U.S. Senate, 71 women in the U.S. House, eight women governors and 1,746 women serving in state legislatures, we have only scratched the surface. Also despite the tremendous class of women who ran in 2006 and 2007, the overall numbers of women running for office are still alarmingly low. But this is a story about more than numbers – example after example shows us that women (or even just one woman) make a huge difference.

With the She Should Run campaign, Women’s Campaign Forum will find and provide the critical ask to women who will make that difference. And by encouraging women at the beginning of their political careers, we will build a pipeline of pro-choice women to lead our country for years to come.

If you know a woman who should run for public office or if you've ever considered politics yourself, check out She Should Run. They even have a Step-by-Step Guide with candidate resources.

Secondly, check out this trailer for Director Mary Lambert's film 14 Women, co-produced by Sharon Oreck and Nicole Boxer (Senator Barbara Boxer's daughter). 14 Women is a documentary about women in the U.S. Senate (since filming, the number's risen to 16). It came out in 2007, but hasn't yet had a wide release: