Pitcairn Island

On Fresh Air yesterday, British journalist Kathy Marks spoke with Terri Gross about her new book, Lost Paradise, a nonfiction account of the child abuse sex scandal on Pitcairn Island. Pitcairn Island is a British outpost in a remote part of the South Pacific. It is and has always been extremely isolated, with no airstrip and reachable only by a grueling 6 or 7 day sea journey from Australia. Only about 50 people live there, most of them descended from British sailor Fletcher Christian and the crew of the Bounty, which fled there in 1789.

In 2000, while British detectives were on the island investigating rape allegations made by a 15 year old girl, they discovered evidence that suggested most of the adult male population, 10 men, had been sexually abusing the island's girls for decades. And most of the victims, who had chosen to leave the island over the years, had been initially raped as young as 7 or 8.

How does something like this not just happen but become an embedded community norm practiced without impunity for years? Marks' explanation is a troubling one: she says that Pitcairners had lived an isolated existence in a male dominated society where men were doing exactly what they pleased." Raping children, eh? Was there just not a good game on?

Marks says the women on the island (who had overwhelmingly been victims themselves) felt unable to blow the whistle on the abuse or even to admit such things were occurring. She says, "If you are the mother of a girl who's being abused, what can you do? There's no one to complain to. The people in authority are doing it as well. Your own husband and brother are doing it." Even 10 years later, there is still a very strong sense of denial in the community, which Marks attributes to patriarchy: "It's ingrained in the mentality of the men in Pitcairn that this is an OK thing to do."

As unbelievable as it sounds, she has a point. A Google search of the island doesn't turn up much more than fluffy travel journals that call it a paradise and praise the islanders' virtuous, crime-free lives. If any mention of the sex scandal is made, it laments the loss of manpower that occurred when 9 of the 10 men were sentenced to prison terms in 2004 – not the physical and emotional injuries endured by the first- and second-grade girls who were sexually assaulted. One site even made a big deal about how the jail hadn't been used since 1922.

Throughout the trial most of the international community hemmed and hawed over the British investigations, fretting about ethnocentricity and British cultural imperialism. I, however, find it a bit suspect for men to cry "Culture!" when they're caught with their dicks in little kids' mouths. Or when he wants to confine his wife to the home. Or when he wants to excise her clitoris. Or when he wants to forbid her from earning money or casting a vote. No matter what the atrocity, so long as the victims are all women, a pretty effective case can be made for cultural relativism. Judging by the reactions in the media and international community to the Pitcairn scandal, there are plenty of people willing to look the other way and let Pitcairners do to "their women" as they like.

A couple announcements

Occasionally people email me with links and press releases and such that they'd like me to post on the blog and while I'm not always the most timely of email correspondents, I do like to try to help out and publicize other blogs and organizations as long as they're relevant. So, here are a couple things that have come my way in the past few weeks.

Feel free to post your own news, links, blogs, etc. in the comments!

1. The All Girl Army is recruiting new young feminists for its network of blogs:

The main part of the All Girl Army site is the individual blogs for no more than 29 girls and women between the ages of 10 and 25 who identify as feminist, and a single, collective blog which highlights entries from the individual blogs, as well as news items pertinent to women and girls and topics given for more writing and discussion.

For more information, check them out!

2. The Fresh Air Fund is looking for volunteer families to host city-area kids so they can have a summer "fresh air experience":

THE FRESH AIR FUND, an independent, not-for-profit agency, has provided free summer experiences to more than 1.7 million New York City children from low-income communities since 1877. Nearly 10,000 New York City children enjoy free Fresh Air Fund programs annually. In 2008, close to 5,000 children visited volunteer host families in suburbs and small town communities across 13 states from Virginia to Maine and Canada. 3,000 children also attended five Fresh Air camps on a 2,300-acre site in Fishkill, New York. The Fund’s year-round camping program serves an additional 2,000 young people each year.

And, don't forget, feel free to post your own links below!

Two videos to brighten your Monday

This is from a few months ago, but I just discovered it: Carrie Fisher roasts George Lucas at the AFI Life Achievement Awards. As I recently re-watched Star Wars and have always adored Princess Leia (and, quite separately, Fisher herself), who is quite a feminist character (at least in the first two movies), this seemed appropriate:



And, for your further Monday cheering, check out the March 11 episode of Amy Poehler's Smart Girls at the Party (H/T Choices Feminist Campus):

Why I Love Hillary, Reason #347

R.I.P. Bea Arthur

Bea Arthur, 1922-2009

You're freakin' awesome and will be greatly missed:



From some other memorial posts for Bea Arthur, check out, in no particular order:

Bitch Ph.D.
Alas, A Blog
Women's Media Center
Bitch Magazine
Salon Broadsheet
Shakesville
Women and Hollywood
Hoyden About Town

If you know of any other good memorial posts for the eminent Ms. Arthur or you've written one yourself or you found some great video clips on the interwebs you'd like to share, feel free to post links below!

Feminist Flashback #34

http://www.crimethinc.com/

(H/T Sally's tumblr)

Susan Boyle, Talent, and the Audience

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last couple of weeks (one of those cheap rocks that comes without internet or TV), you've heard of Susan Boyle. (If you really haven't, you can watch her video here.) It seems like such a simple story: Ugly old lady (relatively speaking) gets laughed at by the 'Britain's Got Talent' judges and audience because they assume she can't sing. She sings very well, and they all look like idiots. Score one for the ordinary people, right? All of those judges are jerks. Ha, ha, she really showed them!

But it's not that simple.

Personally, I was very confused when I saw the video for the first time. They were all laughing at the beginning, so I thought she was some sort of stand-up comedian. Then they started talking about singing, and I couldn't figure it out - what was so funny? She sang, and I thought, she sings really well, but she's not the greatest singer ever. What's the big deal? Eventually I figured it out, of course. They thought that since she didn't look like the typical 'good' singer on the show, she couldn't sing. Unattractive people are apparently very humorous.

I suppose this all seems obvious (that they would pre-judge and laugh). I'm not sure that it is so obvious. Usually, when we see someone on stage, we assume they can perform until proven otherwise. And it's not as if most singers are at all good-looking! Ever been to the opera? I attended a community concert the other day. I'd estimate that around half of the performers were as plain-looking as Susan Boyle. Yet somehow, nobody laughed. The applauded politely and enjoyed the music. People really can appreciate talent. So why is 'Britain's Got' Talent different?

From what I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong, as I've never watched an episode of any of them), the *'s Got Talent and *ian Idol shows derive around half of their entertainment value from the judges' and audience poking fun at poor singers. The producers intentionally mix some terrible performers in with the legit ones, purely so they can be insulted. I'm guessing that most of those performers look rather like Susan Boyle (to increase the fun, I suppose). So it's not that the audience and judges are horrible people who are biased against unattractive older people; instead, they've developed a Pavlovian response to those sorts of people due to the past history of the show. See an ugly person, get ready to laugh.

That there is an occasional surprise is irrelevant. The producers are simply exploiting that response to increase ratings, as the viewers enjoy watching people insulted and made fun of.

That's the tragedy of this entire situation. If Boyle had sung poorly, there wouldn't have been any story. No triumph over the 'pretty people'. No art snobs complaining that these 'modern singers' only exist for 'the look', that they don't have any real talent. No outrage that society considers it unacceptable to not be beautiful. Just a short laugh at the poor deluded fool.

While I'm glad that Susan Boyle is doing so well, and I hope she has a successful career, it's sad that people don't seem to be learning the real lesson here. The lesson is not that it is wrong for people to judge only on appearance. Everyone knows that, or at least pays lip service to it. The lesson is that you shouldn't enjoy judging people on any arbitrary criteria, and more importantly shouldn't laugh at people to boost your own ego.

I'm afraid that we'll be just as surprised and shocked when the next Susan Boyle comes along.

Good Lord, WHY?

Can someone please explain this shit to me?



My eyes! It burns.

Basically: stand-up black man is lured away/stalked by an evil blond seductress ensuing in a black-on-white-woman catfight. Awesome.

This is the most horrific idea for a film I've seen a while. And, no, watching more clips from the film doesn't make it look any better.

Please...make it stop...

More good news!

Remember the trial of Allen Ray Andrade, who beat an 18-year-old transgender woman to death when he discovered that she had male genitalia? Well, the jury came back with the verdict today, after only 2 hours of deliberation.

Andrade gets life for murder of transgendered woman

Makes me proud to live in this little Colorado town!

Happy 100th Birthday, Rita Levi Montalcini!

Just a little inspiring news item on the 'women in science' front (H/T my awesome father):

Rita Levi Montalcini, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist, said Saturday that even though she is about to turn 100, her mind is sharper than it was she when she was 20.

Levi Montalcini, who also serves as a senator for life in Italy, celebrates her 100th birthday on Wednesday, and she spoke at a ceremony held in her honor by the European Brain Research Institute.
[...]
"At 100, I have a mind that is superior — thanks to experience — than when I was 20," she told the party, complete with a large cake for her.

The Turin-born Levi Montalcini recounted how the anti-Jewish laws of the 1930s under Benito Mussolini's Fascist regime forced her to quit university and do research in an improvised laboratory in her bedroom at home.

"Above all, don't fear difficult moments," she said. "The best comes from them."

I can only hope I still have half of her spirit at 100!

The Gaythering Storm

Everyone's posting this and, since it's hilarious, I might as well jump on the bandwagon:

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

"People of every creed, race and color are coming together to build a giant umbrella of faith, morality and righteousness that will protect us from this gay rain-army."

Advocacy & the Western Woman

Funny how entering an international studies program precipitated my growing aversion to theorizing about people on the other side of the world. Life could be easier if my timing was better and my ethics just a little quicker on the uptake. Not so long ago I was two weeks into law school and having epiphanies about the pointlessness of competition and confrontational debate – both like kryptonite to me yet at the time were(and sometimes still are) perversely my go-to mannerisms. Now a year in an international studies program has left me reluctant to even gossip about my neighbor.

Should I really be so upset though, about not wanting to make snappy cultural judgements? Well, no. But it is crucial that a radical feminist be able to competently assess cultures and institutions for their gendered aspects. And don't we have a concomitant obligation to name and fight injustice wherever it operates? Feminists ought to be adept at identifying commonalities and therefore possibilities for empowerment whenever women are in need. And despite all the First-World meddling and agenda setting, I still believe in an international feminist movement that can transform women's and men's lives.

My role and agenda as an international feminist partly hinges on the resolution of this issue. No one has to come down on one "side" of the debate "between" multiculturalism and universal human rights. Toleration is not 'against' principled judgment - but if you're one of the hegemons, I believe more and more that it would be wise to back away slowly from judging anything more than 4-H competitions. And if an unawareness of privilege blinds you to the fact that the breathtaking view is made possible by the folks you're standing on, then for christ's sake watch your step. I do bitch a lot about injustice and inequity – but as a white, upper middle-class American do I truly have that much to gripe about? Sure I do – but I try to remind myself that bellyaching over "the Canon" does not compare with the way real hunger gnaws at the stomach (Haitians describe this as "Clorox" hunger, because the sensation of starvation feels as if bleach were eating their stomachs – a sharp, acidy feeling ). It is perfectly fine for me to be resentful about having to time a baby and a dissertation, but this means squat beside women who've had radically different reproductive "options" as victims of genocidal wartime rapes.

We must be able to rank and prioritize injustices if we are serious about stopping them. Wrongs and discriminations are concrete events that happen every day, and some of them are lethal. I may be resentful of many inequities I see in my reference group, but I am not hungry, carrying an unwanted child, prevented from driving, legally excluded from politics or suffering from poorly executed rituals involving my vagina. I would love to blame my family for picking out my really bad first husband (though the honor is indeed all mine) and my education hasn't been hindered by much except my hand getting too tired to sign another IOU. No one, for one of the first times in recorded history, has really prevented me from attaining general fulfillment (or at least as much fulfillment as most men) When I take myself seriously, it must be in a global context and I'm doing o.k.

God knows I'm an unfairness hawk, so these days I find myself in a perplexing situation when I can't find the right words to point out glaring injustices. Hey, I might be an American but I read – and the bottom line is that I have had the leisure time and emotional space not only to notice the suffering of others, but to amass the material resources that can relieve it. Much of the time I'm furious about how we're taught – through our cultural and political discourse – to think about other cultures. When we talk about how any minority group "treats its women," we tacitly reinforce the idea that men comprise the core of any identity, and that women are the passive agents of culture. How did we end up in a situation where human rights are dismissed as unique Western constructs? When I'm not mad about linguistically reinforcing patriarchy, I'm pissed at the absurd idea that "those women over there" must not share with us some basic desires or precepts of humanity – to live free from emotional and physical violence, to protect their children, to have a say in the laws that regulate their lives and families. Only women in the West want these things? This is a deeply awful idea – and one we should get away from right now.

I'm concentrating these days on tempering outrage with humility – and mostly failing – but I'm trying to strike a balance between being empathetic and so goddamn overpowering. Knowing my culture's colonial legacy cannot preclude me from honestly trying to do better. If we – relatively privileged Western women – aren't willing to be honest about our own roles in American cultural and economic imperialism, then what legitimacy do we have? Sleeping with the enemy, though we do it still, is never the way to resist. But as long as we benefit from economic policies that impoverish other women, as long as we hire them cheaply to raise our children and clean our homes, as long as we don't exercise what autonomy we've wrested from the patriarchy, we really can't claim to have an ethic to our names. I so want to believe like Virginia Woolf that as a woman I have no country - but the truth is that I represent many things I never wanted to be or do. I'm still not sure what to say about that.

Feminist Flashback #33

Since my partner just finished teaching this film in one of her courses, today's feminist flashback is the 1991 Ridley Scott film Thelma and Louise.


And, since some asshole on a bike groped her while she was running today--grabbing first her ass and then her breast before shoving her down (she chased after him swearing and swinging her fists, but, of course, he was a complete coward and biked away)--here's the most appropriate clip imaginable. The ultimate revenge for a lifetime of unsolicited physical and emotional trespasses by men:

Girlschool (and Motorhead)

Once upon at time, long, long ago (okay, the early 1980s - I'm young, don't laugh), and far, far away (unless you live in England) there were two rock bands, Motorhead and Girlschool. Motorhead almost quit playing after being voted the 'worst band ever', but got on their feet and released a couple of UK top 30 albums. Girlschool started out as 'Painted Lady', took a while to get its line up straight, released a popular single, and then began supporting Motorhead on tour. They released a top 30 album, Motorhead released a number 4 album, Girlschool released a number 5 album, Motorhead released a number 6 album. The two bands collaborated on an EP, 'St. Valentine's Day Massacre' which reached number 5 on the UK singles chart - the highest charting single either band would ever have. Motorhead reached its height a few months later with a number one album, then both bands began to decline along with heavy metal in general. Girlschool suffered from further line up problems and disbanded in 1988 without producing another hit. Motorhead kept playing, retaining some popularity from the various [speed|thrash|other]metal musicians they had influenced.

One more thing - Girlschool is an all-female band; Motorhead is an all-male band.

Interesting, isn't it?

Ever since I heard these two bands, I've always wondered what it would have been like had things happened differently. Both bands were of almost equal popularity - what if Girlschool had started a year sooner, Motorhead a year later? What if Girlschool had been a bit more popular, and Motorhead had opened for them, instead of the other way around? Would all of the *metal rockers be worshiping Girlschool? After all, the two bands sound remarkably similar:
Girlschool:

Motorhead:

Yet somehow, Motorhead is considered one of the great bands of their era and style, while Girlschool is almost unknown outside the UK with only a (albeit sizable) cult following. No, Girlschool didn't have anyone as flamboyant as Lemmy for the band's public face. No, they aren't quite as trashy.

And oh, yeah - sexism. It's hard to believe how horribly some Motorhead fans run down Girlschool. (I had one guy tell me that Girlschool was "some bitches that Lemmy screwed, then took with him on tour just to be nice." Of course. In reality, needless to say, the collaborations were mostly the bands' management's idea, but that doesn't stop the rabid idiots.)

But it's still interesting to wonder what could have been. Also: fun to listen to! Girlschool is touring again, despite the tragic death of one of their original members. And from what I hear, they still rock pretty hard:

Targe Women: Your Garden

Remember that ludicrous "mow the lawn" commercial? Well, here's Sarah Haskins' take:

Presidential Commision on Women

Women Count helped facilitate the introduction of a bill to Congress to form a Presidential Commission on Women. Obviously, we've still got to get the bill passed by both the House and the Senate, but, in the meantime, Women Count wants to know what ideas you have regarding what this Presidential Commission should and could do. Head on over to their blog and let them know!

R.I.P. Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

I'm a few days late, but I just wanted to post a brief, through very heartfelt, note about the tragic loss of feminist and queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, who died the evening of Sunday, April 12th from breast cancer at the age of 58.

There's an excellent tribute by Richard Kim in The Nation, beginning with a sentiment I wholeheartedly share:

I have only ever worn out one book. The first copy--which I still keep as an artifact of my 20s--became a palimpsest of sorts, its text underlined in four different colors of pencil, emblazoned with streaks of yellow and green neon highlighter. Little enigmatic notes crawl up and down the margins of dog-eared pages, and decomposing Post-it notes jut out untidily from the edges; the spine has long since given way. At a certain point, picking up this particular copy became too overwhelming an encounter with my old selves, and so I bought a fresh one, which I tried in vain to keep clean. That book is Epistemology of the Closet, and its author is the brilliant, inimitable, explosive intellectual Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, who died last night from breast cancer at the age of 58.

It is difficult to calculate the impact of Sedgwick's scholarship, in part because its legacy is still in the making, but also because she worked at a skew to so many fields of inquiry. Feminism, queer theory, psychoanalysis and literary, legal and disability studies--Sedgwick complicated and upended them all, sometimes in ways that infuriated more anodyne scholars, but always in ways that pushed established parameters.

I, too, have an earmarked copy of Epistemology of the Closet and I deeply admire not only Sedgwick's body of work but also her singular intelligence and remarkable insight.

From Epistemology of the Closet:

...the question of gender and the question of sexuality, inextricable from one another though they are in that each can be expressed only in terms of the other, are nonetheless not the same question, that in twentieth-century Western culture gender and sexuality represent two analytic axes that may productively be imagined as being as distinct from one another as, say gender and class or class and race. Distinct, that is to say, no more than minimally, but nonetheless useful. (p. 30)

And, from her seminal article "Jane Austen and the Masturbating Girl":

Today there is no corpus of law or of medicine about masturbation; it sways no electoral politics; institutional violence and street violence do not surround it, nor does an epistemology of accusation; people who have masturbated who may contract illnesses are treated as people who are sick with specific disease organisms, rather than as revelatory embodiments of sexual fatality. Yet when so many confident jeremiads are spontaneously launched at the explicit invocation of the masturbator, it seems that her power to guarantee a Truth from which she is herself excluded has not lessened in two centuries. To have so powerful a form of sexuality run so fully athwart the precious and embattled sexual identities whose meaning and outlines we always insist on thinking we know, is only part of the revelatory power of the Muse of masturbation. (Critical Inquiry, vol. 17, no. 4, Summer 1991, p. 822)

Rest in peace, Eve Sedgwick. You will be greatly missed, in academia and beyond.

Hate and Murder on Trial

The trial of 31-year-old Allen Ray Andrade begins today in Greeley, Colorado, the place I now call home. Andrade is accused of bludgeoning 18-year-old Angie Zapata to death with a fire extinguisher, hitting her at least five times, in her own home. As horrible as this crime is, you might wonder why this particular case warrants a write-up here on Fourth Wave. Well, this trial is garnering national attention because it will not only involve charging Andrade with first-degree murder, but also violence based on bias against sexual orientation. According to the prosecuting attorney, when Andrade discovered that Angie Zapata was "biologically male," he responded with a hate-filled attack on the transgender woman. According to the defense attorneys, when Andrade discovered that he'd been "tricked" by Justin Zapata (Angie's birth name was Justin), Andrade was shocked and engaged in a passion-filled attack that resulted in "his" murder.

Individual attorneys' perspectives aside, the Andrade case is ground-breaking in that it will be the first case to use hate-crime legislation to prosecute an attack on a transgender victim. Obviously, this verdict will have profound ramifications well beyond our city of approximately 76,000. Colorado is one of only 11 states that currently include transgender and gender identity in its hate-crime statutes.


Many groups working to ensure the safety of the LGBT community have been lobbying for federal protection via more expansive federal hate-crime legislation. Unfortunately, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act--the Matthew Shepard Act--is currently languishing in Congress and many lobbyists see the Andrade case as a chance to increase the profile of this legislation. The extremely violent nature of this crime certainly points to the pressing need to pass such legislation in order to protect some of this nation's most vulnerable people. While past cases have shown how difficult it is to prove that a crime is bias-motivated, such legislation sends a powerful message to both the potential perpetrators and victims.

When this case hit the news in July, I was very impressed by the response of Greeley officials. I heard Greeley's chief of police state that his officers were here to protect all the city's citizens, particularly its most vulnerable. The police were also quick to insist that this particular crime was motivated by bias against Angie's transgender status--in large part because Andrade confessed that he killed "it" when he discovered she was 'really a man.' (Unfortunately, the judge has thrown out that confession because it came more than an hour after Andrade said he was done making statements.) Not all the coverage has been positive, however. I have read readers' comments in local newspapers that decry the murder but place considerable blame on the victim for "tricking" Andrade by not revealing her "real" gender. I have read that the judge has refused to allow any evidence about the murder suspect's substantial involvement in gang violence and other criminal activity, but will allow information about the victim's past sexual activities. It looks like the judge will not permit the inclusion of a taped phone call in which Andrade admitted to his girlfriend that the "gay things need to die" and vocalized numerous other hateful statements about homosexuals. I have read comments that claim Angie was an online "sexual predator" who victimized Andrade, much like the pedophiles who troll the internet looking for child victims. I have seen people present dictionary definitions of the noun "pervert" in order to describe Zapata, decry her decision to live as a woman, and justify Andrade's violent murder.

This case will challenge the public's understanding and sympathies and push the boundaries of state bias-crime legislation. With any luck, it will increase the national dialogue about hate crimes in the LGBT community, and the dangers faced by members of the transgender community in particular. And perhaps it will encourage legislators to take another serious look at the Matthew Shepard Act. The Zapata murder, and the public response to it, certainly suggests the profound need for legislation to protect this particularly vulnerable segment of the population.

If you'd like to learn more about Zapata, as told by her friends and family, please take a look at this youtube video. I'll also do my best to provide updates on the case as they are presented by local news sources.

Harper Valley PTA

I don't usually listen to country music, but I'm going to make an exception today! (I just don't like it that much... sorry country fans, I'm working on it!). Anyway, this weekend I was digitizing a bunch of vinyl records, and ran across this song:

It's a number-one hit (1968) about a woman who refuses to be slut-shamed!

There are a lot of things to like about Harper Valley PTA. For one, the mother is presented without judgment - just like she wants to be treated. In fact, the narrator seems to be quite proud of her mother! And better yet, there's no sexual undertones to the mother's character, like in so many modern country music songs. In fact, the mother's partners don't enter in to the song at all, except as 'rumors'. We're told she's widowed (this was '68, of course - I doubt she could have been allowed to be a single mother) but she is now apparently quite independent.

Furthermore, it's interesting how she exposes the PTA's flaws. She's not reversing the accusations. There's no "I might be trashy, but you're worse!" vibe present. She's merely pointing out that the others are just like her. It's equal opportunity hypocrisy-exposure as well - she mentions three men and three women. And the omnipresent low-key, almost bored tone common to most country makes her seem completely calm and non-judgmental, however strongly she may be making her point. There's no whiny bitching here.

Her point is, of course: "My life, my decisions - and the same goes for you."

Not too bad for 1968. Or, for that matter, today!

(By a curious coincidence, 1968 was the year that the modern feminism really began to heat up - first women's lib. conference, and all that!)

So now I'm curious - are there any other (proto)feminist/womanist country hits I'm missing?

The White House LGBT-family-friendly Egg Roll

While the LGBTQ community chews down its collective fingernails over the possible betrayal by retailer Amazon.com, we can at least take heart in the spectacle of today's LGBT-inclusive White House Egg Roll.

(Image "borrowed" from The Advocate)

More information about the Egg Roll can be found on both the White House website and over at the Family Equality Council site. Also, check out the summary of events over at Pam's House Blend, and The Bilerico Project's Dustin Knight's liveblog of the event.

There was also an interview with one of the LGBT families on NPR's All Things Considered last night.

Amazon Fail

I have no words. And not just because this rising scandal has been up and down the Internets today and everyone's already said everything I'd like to say re: censorship, discrimination, and sheer stupidity. I can't wait to see how this is going to pan out. And I'd really like to hear a better explanation from Amazon.com than that it was a "glitch." Via Salon:

While the much of the country spent Easter Sunday gorging on marshmallow peeps and pictures of the president's new dog, your trusty local blogosphere fired up a four-alarm scandal over goings-on at Amazon, which had mysteriously stripped the sales rankings of hundreds (thousands?) of books, many of them with LGBT subjects, and reclassified them as "adult" content. The move prevents those books from showing up on the site's Best Seller list and can seriously screw up search results, pretty much rendering some titles invisible.

[...]

So what constitutes "adult" material? What were these terrifying, racy tomes from which the public needed to be protected? Well, as the LA Times blog reported, they include Augusten Burroughs' "Running With Scissors," Annie Proulx's "Brokeback Mountain" and the National Book Award winner, "Becoming a Man" by Paul Monette. Oh, and Ellen Degeneres' autobiography. Of course. So many books had been wiped out of the search terms that, on Sunday night, a book search for the term "homosexuality" turned up this: "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality."

Some glitch. Amazon better fix this...and fast.

ETA: More news on the glitch from Feministing's Jessica Valenti whose books Full Frontal Feminism and Yes Means Yes were both affected.

ETA #2: Kate Harding over at Salon reports on Amazon's official statement (though not really an apology), in which their spokesperson calls the whole debacle a "an embarrassing and ham-fisted cataloging error."

Feminist Flashback #32

For this week's Feminist Flashback, I present Angry Alien Productions' rendition of the great (feminist) action movie Alien, in 30-seconds and re-enacted by bunnies. The site's creator, Jennifer Shiman, has a lot of amazing 30-second cartoon movie re-enactments; she's been doing this since 2005 after all. You should, of course, check out the whole site.

But first, in honor of Easter, click here to watch the flash version of Alien in 30 seconds, re-enacted by bunnies. Enjoy!

Also, if you haven't happened upon the The Washington Post's Annual Peep Diorama competition, you'll definitely want to have a gander (H/T Feminist Law Professors).

Feminist Blogger Friday: Interview #4 with Jennifer Kesler of The Hathor Legacy

It's the second Friday of the month again, which means it's time for another Feminist Blogger Friday interview. This month, I'm especially pleased to present my interview with Jennifer Kesler. Jennifer runs the collaborative media critique blog The Hathor Legacy, which interrogates film, television, advertising, books, and video games through a feminist/humanist lens. I occasionally blog for Hathor, and I can honestly say that The Hathor Legacy is one of my favorite group blogs (besides FWF, of course). And the comment sections are always fascinating and fired-up! For more information on Hathor, its origins and its mission, click here. For more information about Hathor's founder, tag along below the cut.


1. Jennifer, in The Hathor Legacy’s mission you write that you hope to “create a record of dissenting voices, so the film/tv industry is forced to admit our opinions exist,” and you’ve written a number of posts over the years since the blog’s inception in 2005 about the film industry’s general disregard for female characters, especially as central, independent protagonists. Can you talk a little bit about what made you decide to start a blog and what you get out of Hathor personally and professionally?

I was spending an inordinate amount of time on Stargate forums, arguing about the character of Sam Carter. One day, I was looking for sources to back me up and instead found a blogger arguing that the reason female characters were vapid was that women in real life were vapid. That was the last straw for me. I immediately bought a domain, installed some blogging software and started writing.

What I get out of the site personally is the knowledge that it's not just me. I never believed it was, but starting the site meant putting my money where my mouth is. As far as I'm concerned, it's paid off.

Professionally, Hathor has pushed me to improve my writing and communication skills -- to improve my thinking. It's exposed me to a lot of viewpoints I hadn't considered before, and I've learned much from them.

2. You’ve written a series of posts describing your own experiences as an aspiring screenwriter and why you ultimately left the film industry [see here, here, and here for starters]. What made you want to be a screenwriter in the first place? Do you feel that your creative drive is met elsewhere now? And, by the same token, what inspires you to write—whether for the blog or on other projects?

I believe storytelling is how culture evolves its thinking and gives individuals new ideas to consider. Film was reinforcing the idea that white heterosexual men belong at the center of our culture and everyone else should just orbit them. I thought if film told more stories about women and other so-called minorities, more people would begin to get the idea that every human life is a story potentially worth telling.

I'd really like to get back to writing fiction -- I've actually got two novels outlined and can't find time to start writing them. But for now, the instant gratification of audience feedback that blogging provides is very satisfying.

3. How would you characterize your relationship with feminism? Do you feel it's changed over the four years since you founded Hathor? If so, how and why?

Broadly speaking, feminism is just the belief that women are as worthy as men. But the term feminism also refers to a movement that's caused some pain to women who aren't white, straight and of means. So I've always had mixed feelings about wearing the label. But when writers started joining me on Hathor, many of them were self-identified feminists who criticized the same aspects of the movement that bothered me, and associating with them made me more comfortable with the label.

One of the most disturbing things Hathor has taught me is that all you have to do to get labeled a feminist is publicly state that you think women are okay. Is this such a radical idea that it needs a special term?

4. Great point! One of the things I like about writing for Hathor myself is that nothing, not even the term "feminism," is taken for granted. On that note, when I got involved with your blog, it was through a sort of “help wanted” post, but Hathor also has a long list of other contributors. How did you develop relationships with the women and men who write with you? Did some of your connections spring up organically—i.e. with other bloggers you followed and/or friends—or have people contacted you over the years asking specifically to write for Hathor?

All of the above, actually. At first, the blog had open registration, where people could just sign up and post. Finding their posts on my site was actually how I first met some of the contributors. As the blog got more popular, we had to shut down open registration. Some people asked if they could write for us, others we invited from the blogging community - and then we did the "help wanted" thing a couple of times.

Contributors to Hathor are a pretty varied group, and I've learned a lot from them. The knowledge I've picked up ranges from ideas about privilege and entitlement to the history of fashion and what certain fashions might say about the societies that wore them. But I've also learned by example about various ways of communicating and handling situations that keep things constructive. And when I fail at that, it's really great to have someone else's perspective on what went wrong and how to not let that happen again in the future.

5. You’ve managed to build Hathor into quite an impressive site, with a plethora of contributors and an active, engaged and vocal readership. Do you have any advice for people relatively new to feminist and/or media blogging about how to gain readers and encourage comments? Did anyone give you any great advice when you first got started that you’d like to share?

Get noticed by somebody on LiveJournal who has tons of friends! It’s easier said than done, but social networking sites can totally launch a small blog, so interact with people on them. Participate in forums and on other people’s blogs, and link to your own posts/site when (and only when) relevant. Don’t just drop comments and links everywhere – take the time to get to know the communities a little so you can make a genuine contribution.

Strongly opinionated posts provoke a lot of comments, but I recommend using a lot of qualifying phrases like “as I see it” to avoid the perception you're stating your opinion as fact. We still occasionally screw this up, and believe me, readers let us know it when it happens.

As for people new to feminism, I recommend reading feminist blogs. The people participating at those sites are the people likely to find your site and comment on it, so get to know them and their ideas.

6. Have you had any industry responses (film, television, gaming or publishing) to Hathor? If so, what interactions have you found most rewarding? What sort of impact do you envision Hathor having in regards to its media criticism?

We've had articles quoted in reviews by the CBC, Salon and the Guardian [see here for links], but no one has communicated with us directly, except a few book publishers interested in getting us to review upcoming novels. It may sound strange, but what I really want is for Hathor to get noticed by the mainstream and start a conversation - that's it, just a conversation about the issues we've been talking about for four years, and where the industry should go from here.

7. In a similar vein, what recent film do you think have made strides in the direction of (mainstream) entertainment featuring strong female characters? Can you recommend any films from the last few years that you enjoyed and/or feel really attempted to shatter the hegemony of the white male protagonist?

Ironically, being the webmaster for Hathor has radically reduced the amount of time I can spend watching movies in the past few years. I just watched an independent film called Whalerider that I can't recommend highly enough.

As for older films, there's Dolores Claiborne, A League of Their Own and Ever After. Most of the stuff I find "shattering" is on television.

8. And as for television, what shows are you enjoying right now, and why?

Criminal Minds, because I love the exploration of abnormal psychology, and while it's not really breaking any molds, it does feature some complex female characters both among the regular cast and guest stars. I also love Burn Notice because it's smart and funny, and Sharon Gless’ character actually does break a few molds. Those are the only two current shows I'm watching.

9. I know you’ve got a busy life outside of Hathor. How do you negotiate the demands of your real life and your day job with the demands of running a large blog? Do you see a life of blogging and/or writing full-time in your future?

I negotiate those demands very poorly! My disorganization level is reaching critical mass. Both blogging and writing are extremely low-paying for all but a select few, so I don't see either as a full-time career in my future. But last November, I came up with an idea for a Hathor-related business enterprise I hope to get off the ground this year.

10. That sounds promising. Any exciting plans in the works that you want to share?

My current plan is for Hathor to become part of something bigger, but that's all I'm ready to say about it right now. The blog itself will stay the same.

Well, we'll just have to stay tuned and see what Hathor's got up its sleeve! Jennifer, thanks again!

On Intellectual Rape

I find it hard to believe that for centuries the contributions of women have been so few and insignificant as to relegate them to the margins of history. Most syllabi today or the people who wrote them obviously disagree. At the risk of seeming petty, a quick tally of the authors represented on my syllabi (10 courses so far) reveals that 12% of the articles or books I was required to read were written by women. Now in my third quarter of a graduate program in International Studies, had I not actively sought out and read women’s work, my “education” would be comprised almost entirely of concepts and theories generated by men. This is an intellectual rape.

What kind of mutiny would occur if men found themselves looking at a reading list comprised entirely of work from women in their discipline? How quickly would we call bullshit if an instructor tried to justify such discrimination by insisting that men had simply been marginal players in their societies and didn’t have much to say anyway? And do we, as women, perpetuate this outrage by acquiescing to the current and woefully inadequate patriarchal model of education?

Just as women in the home have a double work day, women in the academy – if they’re intellectually honest and committed to learning anything – must ingest double the information simply to find themselves among the theories being discussed. To listen to my professors, women haven’t put down the mop or closed their legs long enough to impact international affairs. How dare they list the social, political, and economic discrimination women have endured and leave it at that? How dare they have knowledge of WHY the voices of women were denigrated, excluded, and erased yet still insist men are the world’s “natural” movers and shakers? Until we make a commitment to call them out on their lies and refuse to participate in their delusion, I worry about seeing the kind of feminist transformation that can truly liberate us all.

How we think about ourselves – our history, our desires, our shortcomings – depends on the information we have to work with. My intelligence is insulted when I have to battle the stereotype that women never shut on one hand and the claim that we’ve never said anything worth writing down on the other. As Ani DiFranco said in her poem Grand Canyon, “people, we are standing at ground zero of the feminist revolution . . . it was an inside job, stoic and sly, one we're supposed to forget and downplay and deny.” How much do you really know about Susan B. Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton? How about Ida Husted Harper or Alice Paul? What about bell hooks or Womanism? How the hell can I situate my American identity in a landscape of nothing but swinging (white) dicks?

The bottom line is that women must record and preserve our own history – we can’t rely on the oppressors to do it for us. When we do, we risk the job not getting done and then wonder why women’s writing falls by the historical wayside. This isn’t some conspiracy theory – the empirical evidence is right here. I challenge you to take a look at the authors your education relied on. Or do an informal survey of course syllabi at ANY university – many are online – to see who gets listened to and read.

The architects of the American women’s suffrage movement noted as much. They suspected their work to win political rights for American women (although mostly the white ones) would be lost to future generations if they didn’t document it. Because of their skepticism, we have The History of Woman Suffrage, consisting of six thick volumes. The first three volumes of the set were compiled by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage in 1886, volume 4 by Susan B. Anthony and Ida Husted Harper in 1902, and volumes 5 and 6 were compiled by Ida Husted Harper alone and published by The National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1922. But because we have let down our guard, an invaluable source of American political history is nearly inaccessible and has been out of print for years. To my knowledge, the only way to access the material is by purchasing a CD (available, among other places at The Feminist Majority Foundation website). While it’s usefully searchable, I’m ashamed we haven’t ensured the books themselves sit beside other seminal American political documents in our libraries and classrooms.

I don’t know what the solution is. Most days I’m too busy keeping myself from being erased to peel back the layers of history to find my heritage. But Virginia Woolf said “we think back through our mothers if we are women” and I don’t think we’re getting very far as orphans.

Fling: chocolate for women?

I've got a new post up at The Hathor Legacy about Mars' new chocolate bar, Fling, which is being specifically marketed towards women as a low-calorie, high-indulgence treat, with a sexy twist. Here's a snippet of my post; feel free to check out the rest and join the discussion over at THL:

The new treat, Fling, is being billed as “chocolate for women,” because it’s low-calorie but highly indulgent. Or, in the words of Fling’s tagline: “Naughty…but not that naughty.” How very clever.

In a promotional video detailing their New Zealand launch, Mars reveals its marketing strategy as one which relies heavily on the idea of guilt-free cheating (in both the adultery and the “cheating on one’s diet” sense). While a number of other products have used this sort of marketing (Jello’s “every diet needs some wiggle room” comes to mind), Mars seems to be very focused on drawing parallels between its product and some pointedly non-gastronomical pleasures of the flesh. For example, the now-defunct New Zealand launch site included virtual men with whom you could have “guiltless” virtual affairs...

Also, check out this heinous Schick Quattro "mow the lawn" ad that everyone's been talking about...

Three Cheers for Vermont!

From the New York Times:

Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage -- and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.

Also, apologies to the state of Iowa that I didn't give you your fair due last week. Three belated cheers for Iowa, too!

Suck it, California "Yes on 8"-ers! The world's going to change eventually, with or without your help.

Heineken beer ad -- funny or not?

I'm torn. The first time I saw this commercial on television last week, I found it absolutely hysterical. But now, I'm not sure. Should I be offended?

I haven't found an English version of the video online yet, but there's not much talking anyway...



On the one hand, I know that stereotypes are bad, can lead to skewed perceptions about gender roles, and shouldn't, in practice, be encouraged. On the other hand, I feel like this commercial makes both the women and the men look absolutely ridiculous. It's so clear that the advertisers are playing on very common stereotypes about men and women, that I'm not finding myself too upset about it.

What do you think?

Feminist Flashback #31

In honor of Gaypril, this week's Feminist Flashback brings you the work of Dyke Action Machine (DAM), a two-person team (Carrie Moyer and Sue Schaffner) whose public art projects have graced the city streets since 1991. According to their website, their campaigns "dissected mainstream media by inserting lesbian images into recognizably commercial contexts, revealing how lesbians are and are not depicted in American popular culture. While questioning the basic assumption that one cannot be “present” in a capitalist society unless one exists as a consumer group, DAM! performed the role of the advertiser, promising the lesbian viewer all the things she’d been denied by the mainstream: power, inclusion, and the public recognition of identity."

DAM encourages people to re-print and plaster their own neighborhoods with DAM posters. The artistic duo also just created a 16-page pamphlet explaining how to "convert lesbianism into a viable commodity." It's oh-so-very educational.

Check out a few of their older projects below and definitely head over to their website to see what they're up to these days:

The Gap Campaign, 1991

Family Circle, 1992

Do You Love The Dyke In Your Life?, 1993

Lesbian Americans: Don't Sell Out, 1998

A critical look at Avenue Q

I very much liked Avenue Q when it came out 5 or so years ago. It seemed witty, intelligent, and socially relevant - even if it was rather vulgar. Not to mention, it was pretty funny. I hadn't heard it in a while, though, so today I pulled out (or rather, clicked up) the soundtrack.

It was... less than impressive. Avenue Q just wasn't quite how I'd remembered it.

It's not the pervasive sex, or the overall message (which is okay, I suppose), or the gay storyline (which was handled fairly well) or anything big like that. It's more that, despite purporting to be different, to attack societal stereotypes, Avenue Q fall into them on a regular basis. Take, say, racism:

Now, they're obviously not in favor of racism. But they seem to think that acknowledging racism it makes it just fine in small amounts. There's definitely something wrong with this - thinking that 'mexican busboy's should learn to speak goddamn english" also causes you to not want to hire them, for example. The question, of course, is whether the satire is honest (the song is truthful) or whether the joke is on micro-racism itself. A quick check around the Internet shows that everyone else is uncomfortable too - which shows that it is definitely a problem. Come to think of it, Avenue Q seems to have a real problem with people generally:

Now, when I first heard this, I thought it was hilarious. (I was a good deal more cynical and angry back then.) But seeing someone suffer shouldn't make you feel good! It should make you feel worse. It's not even worth laughing about. And I don't think there's a good argument here (as there was with 'Everyone's a Little Bit Racist') that they are really making fun of people who laugh at others. It's more of a black humor sort of feeling, minus the subtlety that would make it work as such.

But it's the women that are the most offensive, and not in an empowering way. Lucy is a Slut (with a capital S). Ha. Then, she becomes a born-again Christian. Double ha. The big question is, of course, what's wrong with any of those? Shouldn't she be able to do what she wants? But she moves from bad to bad, and it seemingly escapes any commentary.

Kate Monster has many redeeming qualities (and an actual purpose!), but she apparently needs a boyfriend to really complete her life. Lovely.

Worst of all is Gary Coleman. (Who is played by a female singer, if you didn't know.) When I first saw Avenue Q, this seemed quirky, fun, different. Now, it just seems like they're saying, "Look at this loser. He's such a loser, he's no better than a woman." After all, the writers have stated that Coleman was supposed to be a symbol of failure. Apparently, failure is synonymous with being female.

What do you think? Perhaps I'm over-thinking this. Or perhaps I'm just too dense to truly see between the lines. But just I couldn't help but be disappointed and sad at listening to Avenue Q.

Why analyzing your stats can be depressing

Ever week or so when I look at my statcounter, I marvel that the fact that after almost six months some of the most common search phrases that bring people to my blog are still the lyrics of 3OH!3's obnoxious song "Don't Trust Me," which I posted about back in November.

Searched variations from the past week include

"talk with your hips"
"shush girl shut your lips do the helen keller and talk with your hips"
"talk with your hips lyrics"
"shut your mouth do the helen keller"

And I seriously doubt people looking for lyrics have any interest in my critical feminist perspective on the song's offensiveness and misogyny. UGH!

What are the most inappropriate/weird/obnoxious search terms through which people have found your blog(s)?

Target Women: Carl's Jr.

I think this might be one of my favorite Target Women segments yet. I hate those awful Carl's Jr. ads.

And, "So yesterday I went to get a milkshake, but I ended up giving someone a handjob!" is just priceless.

Rachel Maddow on America's legacy of torture

Rachel Maddow's impassioned--not to mention imminently cogent and smart--report tonight on two American journalists being held in North Korea was truly a sight to see. And if you didn't watch her show tonight, you should definitely watch the clip below now. Maddow really doesn't hold any punches:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Men, watch out! Lesbians are stealing your women!

A few days ago, my father directed my attention to an article by Mary A. Fischer in this month's Oprah Magazine. The article's entitled, "Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women," and my dad's of the opinion that Oprah's paving the way for her own coming out. (I'm not really one to speculate, but if I were, I would agree that she does spend an awful lot of time with that Gayle!)

Anyway, the article is moderately interesting, although it doesn't say anything earth-shattering and there are some problematic moments. FeministGal points out a few issues, such as Fischer's use of 'lesbian chic' as evidence of society's acceptance (rather than exploitation, a more accurate term) of lesbian relationships:

Lately, a new kind of sisterly love seems to be in the air. In the past few years, Sex and the City's Cynthia Nixon left a boyfriend after a decade and a half and started dating a woman (and talked openly about it). Actress Lindsay Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson flaunted their relationship from New York to Dubai. Katy Perry's song "I Kissed a Girl" topped the charts. The L Word, Work Out, and Top Chef are featuring gay women on TV, and there's even talk of a lesbian reality show in the works. Certainly nothing is new about women having sex with women, but we've arrived at a moment in the popular culture when it all suddenly seems almost fashionable—or at least, acceptable.

Lesbianism is fashionable? Um. Yay? Also, I've heard that before (e.g. Laura Cottingham's book(let) Lesbians Are So Chic...: ...That We Are Not Really Lesbians at All and Linda Dittmar's article "The Straight Goods: Lesbian Chic and Identity Capital on a Not-so-Queer Planet," both written in the mid-1990s and a long time before the age of Katy Perry and Tila Tequila).

Fischer also points to a landmark 2004 study (referenced a few months ago in this New York Times Magazine feature) as evidence that female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality. I don't know. I haven't read the study itself, but it seems that Fischer is vastly simplifying the results. Regardless, I don't have too much of a problem with the idea that women's sexuality is more fluid--stereotypical though it may seem. Who knows, maybe it's true? I have a much bigger problem with the conclusion Fischer draws toward the end of the article: that women who leave men for other women tend to be more attracted to butch lesbians, androgynous women or bois. She writes:

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain "masculine" qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity. This was definitely true for Gomez-Barris, whose partner, Judith Halberstam, 47, (above right, with Gomez-Barris, left) says she has never felt "female." Growing up in England as a tomboy who had short hair and refused to wear dresses, Halberstam says people were often unable to figure out whether she was a boy or a girl: "I was a source of embarrassment for my family." As a teenager, she was an avid soccer player—not that she was allowed on any team. And her 13th birthday request for a punching bag and boxing gloves was met with the demand to pick something more feminine. "Throughout my youth," she says, "I felt rage at the shrinking of my world." Halberstam channeled her anger into a distinguished academic career and authored several provocative books, including, in 1998, Female Masculinity. It was during the past few years that she started calling herself Jack and answering to both "he" and "she."

With all due respect to Judith (Jack) Halberstam, whose work I really admire and whose own sexuality isn't really the issue here, it does seem a little reductive for Fischer to argue that most "straight" women tend to fall for masculine/androgynous women, and the article seems to come to some sort of unspoken conclusion that socially-sanctioned gender binaries (male as rational and female as emotional, for example) still play a role, even for women who fall in love with other women. This may be true for some people. It may even be more often true for straight women who date lesbians. But it's certainly not something I'd be willing to build an argument around.

Do you think female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality? Do any of you who are gay, bisexual or heteroflexible want to speak to whether or not you tend to be attracted to more "masculine" or more "feminine" women? And what that might mean, if anything? Is this even something about which we can make generalized claims?

Lest I sound too grumpy, I think the article's mostly fine, especially for something published in a mainstream publication. What do you all think?