I am outraged by the current news that a Kansas doctor who preformed abortions has been shot and killed.
Reproductive rights have been one of the key issues at play on my Midwestern campus. Countless protests and counter protests, picketing for access to safe and affordable birth control. A good friend of mine works at the only clinic in our area to offer all kinds of abortions and they have a steady stream of anti-choice protesters issuing them bomb threats and tracking down their staff and doctors. These sort of incidents serve as reminders of how much work needs to be done to undo the christian influenced sex "education" of many places in the US that serve up bullshit information as fact. Women need truth, not lies. Women need choices not oppression.
More details on Kansas abortion laws can be found here.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Traditional Marriage
Not only is this new gay marriage PSA from Educate Against Prop 8 sorta funny, it also serves as a good reminder how sucktastic the Biblical equivalent of "traditional marriage" was for women. Ugh. Is this what the NOMers want?
Friday, May 29, 2009
Apathy
Take a look at this image:
See the blue line? That represents the number of people who visit cnn.com. The red line? It represents the most popular blog (The Huffington Post). The cyan line? Feministing, the most popular (so far as I can tell) feminist website.
Yeah.
Think about this for a minute. An order of magnitude more people visit the boring, business-as-usual site (represented by CNN) than the mainstream liberal (in the most general sense) site (represented by Huffington). And an order of magnitude more visit Huffington than the real social change site (represented by Feministing). And Feministing is constantly under fire from other feminists for being too status quo and privileged!
I'm not complaining. I'm not trying to claim that feminism is somehow irrelevant. I'm not even unhappy about the small numbers - in fact, the deviant part of me would probably want to do something else if everybody was doing it! But I am curious, even frightened: What on earth are all those people, the CNN readers so to speak, even doing?
Lest you think I'm assuming that these (admittedly inaccurate) Internet statistics are representative of the whole world, let me assure you that I did attempt to research other statistics as well. They didn't make much sense - supposedly, some 20% of women consider themselves feminists. It depends on who you ask, too: One study showed that 60% of women and men were favorable to the 'women's movement', whatever that may mean. But I'm not sure I buy it. There are 1.5 BILLION internet users. Somebody is visiting CNN (and Facebook, etc.). Are 20% of those people really working in any way for social change?
Have you ever noticed when an article about feminism (or anti-racism, or gay rights, or any other social movement) gets published in some major news outlet? Most people respond with indifference. A few identify, but more respond with outright hostility. You'd think that would provide the motivation for that 20-60% to act, but it doesn't.
People are simply... apathetic.
I attend a university with some 20,000 other students. There's no feminist organization - it died from lack of interest. There's a GLBT organization - which managed to score a grand total of 10 protesters at a recent marriage equality event. A student wanted to start a women's center recently - got published in the student newspaper and everything. On further investigation though, it turned out she really wanted the university administration to start a women's center - the students were only needed for lobbying, and she didn't have a plan to actually do anything.
Do nothing, and hope someone else does it for you. That's the way of the world, it seems. It seems that every time I turn around, someone's insisting that people are busier than ever. That we rush around, and don't take the time to appreciate life, etc. But for all that supposed rushing, there's very little being done. People, eat, sleep, watch TV (assuming they live in a privileged country), have sex, and die. They're miserable, but they don't care.
Back to the Internet for a second - how is it that millions upon millions can read the news, visit some random entertainment site, and never even consider that they might be able to do something worthwhile, to change the world in some little way? And the Internet users represent the most privileged fifth, the people most responsible for oppression. It's not that they actively mean to oppress, of course - they're merely apathetic in a patriarchal society.
Feminists like to make a lot of noise about some small specific issue. "If only that violence could be stopped, that inequality rectified, we'll have accomplished something", we say. And that is true, without a doubt. We'll have accomplished something, done some good. But is it enough?
Sometimes I wonder: Can we effect real change at all, without somehow convincing the apathetic people? Won't the stories simply repeat themselves? Even if people only noticed that there was something wrong, I believe it could make all the difference.
Just something to think about.
See the blue line? That represents the number of people who visit cnn.com. The red line? It represents the most popular blog (The Huffington Post). The cyan line? Feministing, the most popular (so far as I can tell) feminist website.
Yeah.
Think about this for a minute. An order of magnitude more people visit the boring, business-as-usual site (represented by CNN) than the mainstream liberal (in the most general sense) site (represented by Huffington). And an order of magnitude more visit Huffington than the real social change site (represented by Feministing). And Feministing is constantly under fire from other feminists for being too status quo and privileged!
I'm not complaining. I'm not trying to claim that feminism is somehow irrelevant. I'm not even unhappy about the small numbers - in fact, the deviant part of me would probably want to do something else if everybody was doing it! But I am curious, even frightened: What on earth are all those people, the CNN readers so to speak, even doing?
Lest you think I'm assuming that these (admittedly inaccurate) Internet statistics are representative of the whole world, let me assure you that I did attempt to research other statistics as well. They didn't make much sense - supposedly, some 20% of women consider themselves feminists. It depends on who you ask, too: One study showed that 60% of women and men were favorable to the 'women's movement', whatever that may mean. But I'm not sure I buy it. There are 1.5 BILLION internet users. Somebody is visiting CNN (and Facebook, etc.). Are 20% of those people really working in any way for social change?
Have you ever noticed when an article about feminism (or anti-racism, or gay rights, or any other social movement) gets published in some major news outlet? Most people respond with indifference. A few identify, but more respond with outright hostility. You'd think that would provide the motivation for that 20-60% to act, but it doesn't.
People are simply... apathetic.
I attend a university with some 20,000 other students. There's no feminist organization - it died from lack of interest. There's a GLBT organization - which managed to score a grand total of 10 protesters at a recent marriage equality event. A student wanted to start a women's center recently - got published in the student newspaper and everything. On further investigation though, it turned out she really wanted the university administration to start a women's center - the students were only needed for lobbying, and she didn't have a plan to actually do anything.
Do nothing, and hope someone else does it for you. That's the way of the world, it seems. It seems that every time I turn around, someone's insisting that people are busier than ever. That we rush around, and don't take the time to appreciate life, etc. But for all that supposed rushing, there's very little being done. People, eat, sleep, watch TV (assuming they live in a privileged country), have sex, and die. They're miserable, but they don't care.
Back to the Internet for a second - how is it that millions upon millions can read the news, visit some random entertainment site, and never even consider that they might be able to do something worthwhile, to change the world in some little way? And the Internet users represent the most privileged fifth, the people most responsible for oppression. It's not that they actively mean to oppress, of course - they're merely apathetic in a patriarchal society.
Feminists like to make a lot of noise about some small specific issue. "If only that violence could be stopped, that inequality rectified, we'll have accomplished something", we say. And that is true, without a doubt. We'll have accomplished something, done some good. But is it enough?
Sometimes I wonder: Can we effect real change at all, without somehow convincing the apathetic people? Won't the stories simply repeat themselves? Even if people only noticed that there was something wrong, I believe it could make all the difference.
Just something to think about.
Feminist by any other name...
This is my first post here on Fourth Wave and I am excited and energized to be a part of such a wonderfully brilliant team of feminists. Feminists...or are they? The term makes me think of an interesting conversation I had about the aversion to that term.
I was recently in a classroom, surrounded on all sides of a conference table with bright Women’s Studies students. We kicked off a conversation about bell hooks' essay “Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression” by trying to define our feminisms (Check out the article here). hooks’ article speaks about the fraught relationship to the term “feminist” many women, particularly historically-oppressed groups of women, experience. She explains “that many women are reluctant to advocate feminism because they are uncertain about the term. Other women from exploited and oppressed ethnic groups dismiss the term because they do not wish to be perceived as supporting a racist movement; feminism is often equated with a white women’s movement”. Hooks goes on to speak about the many understandings and perceptions of feminist that serve as means to distance women from the term, negating the power of claiming an identity that embraces women’s equality. hooks instead offers the idea of “one who advocates feminism” working to sidestep the problem of naming and defining for a broader need to push forward women’s rights.
When I first read the essay I was sort of shocked by the move to distance one's self from the term feminist. I happen to like the backlash that I get when I casually drop the f-bomb on someone in conversation. But it was sitting with these women from different backgrounds that I realized the trouble—or potential trouble—that the term could present to women who feel that their “feminism” is not presented or accurate in the term’s public image. I think most feminists--or at least little ol’ Midwestern feminists like myself and my peers--have experienced this sort of feminist misunderstanding. It’s what I refer to as the feminist swear, or the act of using “feminist” as a means of dismissing, negating, and undermining someone’s political agenda. It unfortunately has done severe damage to the feminist movement as women gradually step away from other women’s rights advocates for fear of be called man-hating, ball-cutting, lesbians. From this has emerged an awe-inspiring number of feminist qualifiers to better define one's feminist image: eco-feminist, liberal feminist, black feminist, radical feminist. Instead of limiting the definition of feminist, these terms, as hooks suggests, have served as a way of making a clear definition much more complex. I tend to believe that it is the basic misconception of feminism that poses trouble. Feminist is not some unilateral term that can be broadly swept over the population to describe everyone. Feminism is a term of multiplicity! Feminisms! I believe that is the means of using constructionist ideology to try and define something that has an intimate relationship to each person who chooses to employ it in conversation. So the question remains, how do we cope with the multiplicity of feminisms while continuing to push forward social change?
So, dear reader, what do you think? Do you think shifting to “one that advocates feminism" is a friendlier way of incorporating different feminist views? How do you define feminist? Do you use a feminist prefix like liberal or eco? If so, what does it do for you?
I was recently in a classroom, surrounded on all sides of a conference table with bright Women’s Studies students. We kicked off a conversation about bell hooks' essay “Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression” by trying to define our feminisms (Check out the article here). hooks’ article speaks about the fraught relationship to the term “feminist” many women, particularly historically-oppressed groups of women, experience. She explains “that many women are reluctant to advocate feminism because they are uncertain about the term. Other women from exploited and oppressed ethnic groups dismiss the term because they do not wish to be perceived as supporting a racist movement; feminism is often equated with a white women’s movement”. Hooks goes on to speak about the many understandings and perceptions of feminist that serve as means to distance women from the term, negating the power of claiming an identity that embraces women’s equality. hooks instead offers the idea of “one who advocates feminism” working to sidestep the problem of naming and defining for a broader need to push forward women’s rights.
When I first read the essay I was sort of shocked by the move to distance one's self from the term feminist. I happen to like the backlash that I get when I casually drop the f-bomb on someone in conversation. But it was sitting with these women from different backgrounds that I realized the trouble—or potential trouble—that the term could present to women who feel that their “feminism” is not presented or accurate in the term’s public image. I think most feminists--or at least little ol’ Midwestern feminists like myself and my peers--have experienced this sort of feminist misunderstanding. It’s what I refer to as the feminist swear, or the act of using “feminist” as a means of dismissing, negating, and undermining someone’s political agenda. It unfortunately has done severe damage to the feminist movement as women gradually step away from other women’s rights advocates for fear of be called man-hating, ball-cutting, lesbians. From this has emerged an awe-inspiring number of feminist qualifiers to better define one's feminist image: eco-feminist, liberal feminist, black feminist, radical feminist. Instead of limiting the definition of feminist, these terms, as hooks suggests, have served as a way of making a clear definition much more complex. I tend to believe that it is the basic misconception of feminism that poses trouble. Feminist is not some unilateral term that can be broadly swept over the population to describe everyone. Feminism is a term of multiplicity! Feminisms! I believe that is the means of using constructionist ideology to try and define something that has an intimate relationship to each person who chooses to employ it in conversation. So the question remains, how do we cope with the multiplicity of feminisms while continuing to push forward social change?
So, dear reader, what do you think? Do you think shifting to “one that advocates feminism" is a friendlier way of incorporating different feminist views? How do you define feminist? Do you use a feminist prefix like liberal or eco? If so, what does it do for you?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California Upholds Prop 8 Gay Marriage Ban
I'm so annoyed right now I don't think I have the wherewithal for an intelligent and thoughtful rant, so I'll just take the time to say this to the world:
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Okay, that didn't really make me feel better. But the flurry I've email I've been receiving in the past few hours from various pro-LGBT organizations does make this disheartening moment a little less hard to handle.
In case you're in need of a little community therapy, like I was, go get a free "I Love Love" bumper sticker from CREDO, check out Equality California's campaign to overturn Prop 8, and watch the Courage Campaign's video "Fidelity". And, of course, feel free to donate if you can.
Again: ARRRRGGGGHHHH.
That is all.
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Okay, that didn't really make me feel better. But the flurry I've email I've been receiving in the past few hours from various pro-LGBT organizations does make this disheartening moment a little less hard to handle.
In case you're in need of a little community therapy, like I was, go get a free "I Love Love" bumper sticker from CREDO, check out Equality California's campaign to overturn Prop 8, and watch the Courage Campaign's video "Fidelity". And, of course, feel free to donate if you can.
Again: ARRRRGGGGHHHH.
That is all.
New Supreme Court Nominee
I've just been watching the announcement of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nominee for the supreme court. She seems like a very exciting nominee and I just wanted to post this great quote, from a 2001 speech, that has already caused a bit of scandal with her nomination, but for me its a good sign:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”
You can read the full article at the NY Times.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Some feminist lol silliness to brighten up my rainy Memorial Day
My friend Lauren just sent me a link to Bitch Magazine's new I Can Has Feminizm? blog featurette. It's undoubtedly silly, but who doesn't need a little silliness every once in a while.
A couple more over at Bitch.
A couple more over at Bitch.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Feminist Flashback #38
This week, a flashback to my childhood--She-Ra: Princess of Power--the awesome-ist Saturday Morning Cartoon ever!
Also, if you want to check out more She-Ra, the first season is available courtesy of YouTube.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Gender and the Classical Music World
While making my morning espresso, I did what I so often do: listen to NPR. This morning featured Scott Simon's interview with composer Jennifer Higdon and conductor Marin Aslop. Give the interview, and the sample recording of their music, a listen. Simon planned the interview to celebrate the fact that next month, Higdon's Violin Composition will be performed by Hillary Hahn with Aslop conducting her Baltimore Symphony Orchestra: female composer, performer and conductor. No mean feat in the male-dominated classical music world. Obviously, Simon saw this performance as both a reason to celebrate women's achievements in the classical music world and an opportunity to discuss why such achievements are so few and far between.
Yet, Simon was quite surprised to discover that Aslop and Higdon, long-time friends, had never explicitly discussed issues of gender in the classical music world--a fact that I, too, found shocking. Aslop insisted on this point, stating that "the interview Jennifer and I did with NPR's Scott Simon was the first time we'd talked seriously about women in the music industry. I think we did so only because we expected others to be curious about it." While Aslop did clarify that they both "examined the issue, especially in our positions as mentors to the next generation of women coming up through the ranks," she also insisted that gender rarely enters her mind when she works because she is simply too busy focusing on the music itself.
I'm sure Aslop's position is common among artists of all genders. Who wants to be thinking consciously about politics, more specifically the politics of discrimination, when brandishing that conductor's baton, paintbrush, or pen? On the other hand, I firmly believe that, unless the artist lives in an isolationist bubble, politics necessarily inform art, both consciously and unconsciously. Must not a female musician feel the impact of a professional world where few women work as conductors? Where few compositions created by women are performed by major orchestras? Where women rarely fill the roles of conductor, composer, and soloist all in one evening? Given this belief, I cannot help but be skeptical when women express such hesitancy to discuss how their work is informed by feminism and the gender biases it works to combat. Now let's be clear: classical music is a subject of which I know very little. Most of what I do know has been culled from interviews like this one. My thoughts here are not about their music, which I appreciate from my particular perspective as a total classical music philistine. What I would like to comment on, however, is Higdon and Aslop's seeming desire to distance themselves from feminism.
In my own professional life as a professor, I often heard my female students deny that their gender has every substantially interfered with their own ability to succeed. Such remarks often leave me amazed, thinking are you really living in the same world I occupy? I'll admit to feeling some small bit of jealousy for their ability to live their lives free from confronting the heady and often-frustrating issues at the heart of the feminist cause. On the other hand, I wonder if they are deliberately distancing themselves from a blatant feminist message for fear of being branded whiners? Or do they really believe that there is simply no room (or need) for feminism in their lives? I frequently have to convince my students that gender biases still exist, that feminism is not a dirty word, that one doesn't have to be a bitter, man-hating woman (usually the assumption is lesbian, of course) in order to be invested in the feminist cause, that having discussions about feminist issues can be worthwhile and productive. I wonder: would either Aslop or Higdon call themselves feminists? Their statements and their art make it clear to me that, even if they are hesitant to adopt the label, they fit the definition to a T.
Yet, Simon was quite surprised to discover that Aslop and Higdon, long-time friends, had never explicitly discussed issues of gender in the classical music world--a fact that I, too, found shocking. Aslop insisted on this point, stating that "the interview Jennifer and I did with NPR's Scott Simon was the first time we'd talked seriously about women in the music industry. I think we did so only because we expected others to be curious about it." While Aslop did clarify that they both "examined the issue, especially in our positions as mentors to the next generation of women coming up through the ranks," she also insisted that gender rarely enters her mind when she works because she is simply too busy focusing on the music itself.
I'm sure Aslop's position is common among artists of all genders. Who wants to be thinking consciously about politics, more specifically the politics of discrimination, when brandishing that conductor's baton, paintbrush, or pen? On the other hand, I firmly believe that, unless the artist lives in an isolationist bubble, politics necessarily inform art, both consciously and unconsciously. Must not a female musician feel the impact of a professional world where few women work as conductors? Where few compositions created by women are performed by major orchestras? Where women rarely fill the roles of conductor, composer, and soloist all in one evening? Given this belief, I cannot help but be skeptical when women express such hesitancy to discuss how their work is informed by feminism and the gender biases it works to combat. Now let's be clear: classical music is a subject of which I know very little. Most of what I do know has been culled from interviews like this one. My thoughts here are not about their music, which I appreciate from my particular perspective as a total classical music philistine. What I would like to comment on, however, is Higdon and Aslop's seeming desire to distance themselves from feminism.
In my own professional life as a professor, I often heard my female students deny that their gender has every substantially interfered with their own ability to succeed. Such remarks often leave me amazed, thinking are you really living in the same world I occupy? I'll admit to feeling some small bit of jealousy for their ability to live their lives free from confronting the heady and often-frustrating issues at the heart of the feminist cause. On the other hand, I wonder if they are deliberately distancing themselves from a blatant feminist message for fear of being branded whiners? Or do they really believe that there is simply no room (or need) for feminism in their lives? I frequently have to convince my students that gender biases still exist, that feminism is not a dirty word, that one doesn't have to be a bitter, man-hating woman (usually the assumption is lesbian, of course) in order to be invested in the feminist cause, that having discussions about feminist issues can be worthwhile and productive. I wonder: would either Aslop or Higdon call themselves feminists? Their statements and their art make it clear to me that, even if they are hesitant to adopt the label, they fit the definition to a T.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Victims by Choice?
I read this article the other day by conservative radio host, Phil Valentine. Honestly, I had never heard of the guy but the title of the article, “Some members of society just want to be victims”, was so captivating, I could help myself (www.tennessean.com). He discussed the findings of a recent American Journal of Public Health study of 5th graders that links racism to mental health. Now, being the awesome journalist that he is, Mr. Valentine doesn’t just report on the study. He also gives his readers insight to his thoughts on how “these people” are taught to be victims, walk around with a chip on their shoulder, and are always looking for a way to be offended—his example being the paranoia that springs up when “they” are passed over for a promotion or not given party invitations. He goes on to say that kids will be picked on for one thing or another. For example, he was 4’11” as a high school freshman and although he got bullied, he learned a valuable lesson through those years—never let anyone define you!
Well, as one of “those people” he speaks of in his article, I must say that Mr. Valentine is amazing—a white male comparing the racism to being short. Seriously?! There are so many things wrong with that argument. It’s something I face everyday and I don’t need people reminding me of it, but they can’t seem to help themselves. As a minority and depending on the way I dress (as ridiculous as it is), I am judged as soon as I am seen.
Those judgments may be a careful glance my way as they grab their purse tighter; a cashier who drops the change in my hand as if she can “catch” my color; or random people who ask me why “you people voted for him…”
I’ll take it one step further and tell you as a minority woman, the criticism or judgment I receive is far worse than anything a bully could ever have done to Mr. Valentine in the 9th grade. This touches every part of life—social situations, work environments, you name it. It’s a constant adjustment on my part because as soon as you think you’ve got it down, somebody comes along and you have to find a new way to fend off the foolishness. It is easy to tell someone not to let anyone else define you—it’s another to make you understand that I have been defined since the day I was born by my race and gender.
Look, there will always be those who choose to play the “victim” role. However, they may be of any race, any gender, any ethnicity, etc. so, it is totally unfair to classify the entire group as “victims”—we all make our own choices and react to things differently. I believe it is up to us to encourage openness and understanding. There are more resources out there that will help you understand a culture than hate it. And even if you don’t understand or agree with something, respect it. At the end of the day, we have got to figure out how to live amongst one another without judgments and criticisms that divide us because honestly, we’re more alike than different. It just sucks that there are people that would rather ignore that fact and fight to remain ignorant.
Well, as one of “those people” he speaks of in his article, I must say that Mr. Valentine is amazing—a white male comparing the racism to being short. Seriously?! There are so many things wrong with that argument. It’s something I face everyday and I don’t need people reminding me of it, but they can’t seem to help themselves. As a minority and depending on the way I dress (as ridiculous as it is), I am judged as soon as I am seen.
Those judgments may be a careful glance my way as they grab their purse tighter; a cashier who drops the change in my hand as if she can “catch” my color; or random people who ask me why “you people voted for him…”
I’ll take it one step further and tell you as a minority woman, the criticism or judgment I receive is far worse than anything a bully could ever have done to Mr. Valentine in the 9th grade. This touches every part of life—social situations, work environments, you name it. It’s a constant adjustment on my part because as soon as you think you’ve got it down, somebody comes along and you have to find a new way to fend off the foolishness. It is easy to tell someone not to let anyone else define you—it’s another to make you understand that I have been defined since the day I was born by my race and gender.
Look, there will always be those who choose to play the “victim” role. However, they may be of any race, any gender, any ethnicity, etc. so, it is totally unfair to classify the entire group as “victims”—we all make our own choices and react to things differently. I believe it is up to us to encourage openness and understanding. There are more resources out there that will help you understand a culture than hate it. And even if you don’t understand or agree with something, respect it. At the end of the day, we have got to figure out how to live amongst one another without judgments and criticisms that divide us because honestly, we’re more alike than different. It just sucks that there are people that would rather ignore that fact and fight to remain ignorant.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Fling: Chocolate for Women (redux)
Just so ya'll don't think I'm hopelessly passé, not following trends in the blogosphere and stuff, I wrote a post on the new Mars chocolate bar for women over at The Hathor Legacy...er...a month and a half ago, before NPR's recent coverage. Just sayin'. :-)
Films You Should Watch
With summer imminent, my partner and I have been trying to catch up on our Netflix cue. And, hence, I bring you my list of great 2008 films with strong female characters that you really should check out as you relax with an iced tea (or Long Island iced tea) in the summer months. I'm only including films that are already out on DVD, for your renting ease. Please add your suggestions in the comments!
Four 2008 Films You Should Rent This Summer
(in no particular order)
1. Let the Right One In
There's good reason this film was nominated for a screenwriting Oscar and that Sally Hawkins won a Golden Globe for her role in this charming, sharp vehicle about a woman named Poppy and her incurable optimism. But Happy-Go-Lucky isn't just your run-of-the-mill playful comedy; it's also a thoughtful exploration of the human psyche and much more complex than it's cheerful title might suggest. Happiness, like all things, is in the eye of the beholder. And besides the joy of watching a smart comedy, I also really loved the heartfelt and completely uninhibited friendship between Poppy and her best friend/roommate Zoe (Alexis Zegerman).
Kristin Scott Thomas and Elsa Zylberstein will take your breath away in this poignant French drama about two estranged sisters who were separated by a horrible tragedy and reconnect after fifteen years. A truly phenomenal actor, Kristin Scott Thomas only gets better and better, and I think this might be one of her most stunning performances to date. She and Zylberstein will break your heart and then slowly put it back together as their characters reconcile their shared history and come to terms with the traumas of the past.
I never gave Anne Hathaway much thought before I saw this film and now...I absolutely adore her. She's really quite brilliant as the black sheep, home from rehab to attend her sister's wedding. The film is equal parts heartrending drama and familial comedy, betrayal and forgiveness, guilt and redemption. Touching and clever and full of music (TV on the Radio's Tunde Adebimpe guest stars as the groom), it's no small wonder that Anne Hathaway was nominated for an Oscar and the film came out to critical acclaim this past summer.
But those are just some films I've enjoyed? What would you recommend I watch this summer?
(PS: Isn't it funny how all the film posters/DVD covers seem to favor the same basic layout--i.e. the face of the leading lady offset to the right and surrounded by text and critics' praise? Interesting...)
Four 2008 Films You Should Rent This Summer
(in no particular order)
1. Let the Right One In
There's good reason this film was nominated for a screenwriting Oscar and that Sally Hawkins won a Golden Globe for her role in this charming, sharp vehicle about a woman named Poppy and her incurable optimism. But Happy-Go-Lucky isn't just your run-of-the-mill playful comedy; it's also a thoughtful exploration of the human psyche and much more complex than it's cheerful title might suggest. Happiness, like all things, is in the eye of the beholder. And besides the joy of watching a smart comedy, I also really loved the heartfelt and completely uninhibited friendship between Poppy and her best friend/roommate Zoe (Alexis Zegerman).
Kristin Scott Thomas and Elsa Zylberstein will take your breath away in this poignant French drama about two estranged sisters who were separated by a horrible tragedy and reconnect after fifteen years. A truly phenomenal actor, Kristin Scott Thomas only gets better and better, and I think this might be one of her most stunning performances to date. She and Zylberstein will break your heart and then slowly put it back together as their characters reconcile their shared history and come to terms with the traumas of the past.
I never gave Anne Hathaway much thought before I saw this film and now...I absolutely adore her. She's really quite brilliant as the black sheep, home from rehab to attend her sister's wedding. The film is equal parts heartrending drama and familial comedy, betrayal and forgiveness, guilt and redemption. Touching and clever and full of music (TV on the Radio's Tunde Adebimpe guest stars as the groom), it's no small wonder that Anne Hathaway was nominated for an Oscar and the film came out to critical acclaim this past summer.
But those are just some films I've enjoyed? What would you recommend I watch this summer?
(PS: Isn't it funny how all the film posters/DVD covers seem to favor the same basic layout--i.e. the face of the leading lady offset to the right and surrounded by text and critics' praise? Interesting...)
Monday, May 18, 2009
Rock, Race, Hip-hop, and Why I Like Music
There's an interesting post up on Feministe titled "Asher Roth, Hip Hop, and Rockism, Or Why Doesn’t My Kid Like Hip Hop?".
I'm not going to talk about Asher Roth anymore; he's just an idiot. I do want to talk about the other half of the article. So why doesn't her kid like Hip-Hop? And more importantly, what's all this about Rockism?
Rockism, of course, is simply one of the youngest names in the grand old tradition of Art snobism. I personally used to be a classicist - if it wasn't written either: A. before 1930 and/or B. In a conservatory, I didn't want to hear it. Vocalists who needed microphones to sing weren't real singers, and I found the electric guitar to be thoroughly disgusting. And the Great (and not incidentally always white and male) Masters had the last word on everything.
By this standard, Rockism looks downright tame!
I got better. Do note, though: I didn't stop being a classicist because I suddenly realized that my prior ideas were racist, sexist and wrong. I stopped because I actually listened to all that other music, and liked it. I'll come back to this.
But Rockism. The Times article liked in the Feministe post makes some good points, but it honestly doesn't go far enough. It's not that rock music is 'white' and hip-hop is 'black'. It's that Hip-Hop is 'new', and rock music is 'old'. Let me explain:
Around 110 years ago, all the kids were listening to a new kind of music called Ragtime. They played it in the bars and clubs, they danced to it, it was exciting and rebellious and their parents were scandalized. Critics mostly ignored it, preferring to focus on 'real music' like Opera. Note that the greatest rag composer was a Black man named Scott Joplin.
Now, mentally switch (Modern) Hip-Hop with Ragtime, Rock with Opera, and Eminem with Joplin. Not an exact analogy, but fairly close.
Fast forward to today. What has happened to Ragtime? Simply put, it has become classical music, right along with Mozart, Wagner and the rest. White Art snob culture has co-opted it, and it has become part of the 'Canon', if you will. It's just the same with Jazz. And it's happening to Rock now, too - enough now that Rock is seen as 'white', despite its history! (Bo Diddley, anyone?) The patriarchy likes very much to utilize the 'if you can't beat them, join them' strategy, and so always takes credit for the accomplishments of the less privileged. And why stop now? Perhaps Asher Roth is simply the beginning of the end for Hip-Hop. Black culture will move on to the next new genre, and the cycle will continue.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps we can stop making it about which sort of music is 'better', and actually get around to listening to it.
You see, here's my criteria for whether music is 'good': I listen to it. If I get a shiver down my spine, it's good music. If my body is enveloped by an orgasmic feeling of delight, it's great music. It's a visceral, almost purely physical reaction, and as far as I can tell, it's quite genre agnostic.
Which brings me to Lauren's son. None of the nine-year-olds I know have even heard of Kurt Cobain or Elton John, let alone want to listen to them; this makes me think he really likes it! (Then again, he could be rebelling against his parent's music choices!) Perhaps it is racial - but perhaps he just hasn't hear the right Hip-Hop yet. Or, perhaps he would like some of the Black rock stars (is Hendrix close enough to Cobain?) With any luck, he'll be able to really appreciate music.
Some people want to rebel. Some people want to be snobs. Some people (Rockists) want to be snobs about rebelling! But really, music should be about feelings, and about meaning, and about choices, and about people.
(Curious counter-argument to everything I just said: is my insistence on criticizing music separately from its surrounding culture an artifact of my Art snobbishness?)
I'm not going to talk about Asher Roth anymore; he's just an idiot. I do want to talk about the other half of the article. So why doesn't her kid like Hip-Hop? And more importantly, what's all this about Rockism?
Rockism, of course, is simply one of the youngest names in the grand old tradition of Art snobism. I personally used to be a classicist - if it wasn't written either: A. before 1930 and/or B. In a conservatory, I didn't want to hear it. Vocalists who needed microphones to sing weren't real singers, and I found the electric guitar to be thoroughly disgusting. And the Great (and not incidentally always white and male) Masters had the last word on everything.
By this standard, Rockism looks downright tame!
I got better. Do note, though: I didn't stop being a classicist because I suddenly realized that my prior ideas were racist, sexist and wrong. I stopped because I actually listened to all that other music, and liked it. I'll come back to this.
But Rockism. The Times article liked in the Feministe post makes some good points, but it honestly doesn't go far enough. It's not that rock music is 'white' and hip-hop is 'black'. It's that Hip-Hop is 'new', and rock music is 'old'. Let me explain:
Around 110 years ago, all the kids were listening to a new kind of music called Ragtime. They played it in the bars and clubs, they danced to it, it was exciting and rebellious and their parents were scandalized. Critics mostly ignored it, preferring to focus on 'real music' like Opera. Note that the greatest rag composer was a Black man named Scott Joplin.
Now, mentally switch (Modern) Hip-Hop with Ragtime, Rock with Opera, and Eminem with Joplin. Not an exact analogy, but fairly close.
Fast forward to today. What has happened to Ragtime? Simply put, it has become classical music, right along with Mozart, Wagner and the rest. White Art snob culture has co-opted it, and it has become part of the 'Canon', if you will. It's just the same with Jazz. And it's happening to Rock now, too - enough now that Rock is seen as 'white', despite its history! (Bo Diddley, anyone?) The patriarchy likes very much to utilize the 'if you can't beat them, join them' strategy, and so always takes credit for the accomplishments of the less privileged. And why stop now? Perhaps Asher Roth is simply the beginning of the end for Hip-Hop. Black culture will move on to the next new genre, and the cycle will continue.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps we can stop making it about which sort of music is 'better', and actually get around to listening to it.
You see, here's my criteria for whether music is 'good': I listen to it. If I get a shiver down my spine, it's good music. If my body is enveloped by an orgasmic feeling of delight, it's great music. It's a visceral, almost purely physical reaction, and as far as I can tell, it's quite genre agnostic.
Which brings me to Lauren's son. None of the nine-year-olds I know have even heard of Kurt Cobain or Elton John, let alone want to listen to them; this makes me think he really likes it! (Then again, he could be rebelling against his parent's music choices!) Perhaps it is racial - but perhaps he just hasn't hear the right Hip-Hop yet. Or, perhaps he would like some of the Black rock stars (is Hendrix close enough to Cobain?) With any luck, he'll be able to really appreciate music.
Some people want to rebel. Some people want to be snobs. Some people (Rockists) want to be snobs about rebelling! But really, music should be about feelings, and about meaning, and about choices, and about people.
(Curious counter-argument to everything I just said: is my insistence on criticizing music separately from its surrounding culture an artifact of my Art snobbishness?)
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Feminist Flashback #37
Some of you have probably heard of Artemisia Gentileschi; her work and life are usually taught in intro art history classes and, sometimes, intro women's studies classes. The Italian daughter of the well-known-in-his-day painter Orazio Gentileschi, Artemisia was born in 1593 (d. 1652/53) and worked as an artist during the Baroque period, when very few women were painters. Her work is especially notable because she painted historical and allegorical subjects, instead of just painting the still-life and portrait work traditionally deemed appropriate for the 'fairer sex.'
She began painting as a teenager (she painted Susanna and the Elders, which I've posted below, when she was 17). Her life-story is pretty rocky: she was raped by her tutor, the painter Agostino Tassi, and subjected to an extensive and very public trial (during which she was tortured while being questioned in order to "verify" her accusations). A compelling (if questionably accurate) film was made about Artemisia's life in 1997; it's called, simply, Artemisia.
For more information, check out Mary D. Garrad's book Artemisia Gentileschi
.
I absolutely adore Artemisia Gentileschi's work--always have; her use of chiaroscuro (contrasting light and dark) is nothing short of brilliant and her paintings radiate a confident and beautiful style that's really quite unique.
Some of my favorites below the cut:
Susanna and the Elders, 1610
She began painting as a teenager (she painted Susanna and the Elders, which I've posted below, when she was 17). Her life-story is pretty rocky: she was raped by her tutor, the painter Agostino Tassi, and subjected to an extensive and very public trial (during which she was tortured while being questioned in order to "verify" her accusations). A compelling (if questionably accurate) film was made about Artemisia's life in 1997; it's called, simply, Artemisia.
For more information, check out Mary D. Garrad's book Artemisia Gentileschi
.I absolutely adore Artemisia Gentileschi's work--always have; her use of chiaroscuro (contrasting light and dark) is nothing short of brilliant and her paintings radiate a confident and beautiful style that's really quite unique.
Some of my favorites below the cut:
Susanna and the Elders, 1610
Judith Slaying Holofernes, c. 1612-13
Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes, c. 1625
Self Portrait as the Allegory of Painting, c. 1630
Saturday, May 16, 2009
One Awesome Filly
Even though I love horses and ride as often as possible, I don't really follow horse-racing. Still, I couldn't help but feel elated when I heard today that Rachel Alexandra won the Preakness Stakes; she was the first filly to race the Preakness since 1999 and the first filly to win since 1924!
You go girl!
You go girl!
Friday, May 15, 2009
It's time for Obama to step up to the plate
I'm absolutely disgusted to hear about the firing of Lt. Dan Choi. In March, the West Point graduate and Iraq War veteran appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show and openly admitted that he's gay. As a result, on April 23rd he received a letter from the Army discharging him from service due to a violation of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Thus far, Obama has refused requests to intervene on Choi's behalf. This clip from Jon Stewart's Daily Show shows the ridiculous nature of this policy.
The U.S. government is willing to make all kinds of compromises in the interest of national security: torture, warrantless wire tapping, the surveillance of individuals' use of public libraries, etc. All of these other things are permissible because they, supposedly, stand to help improve national security. However, the government is not willing to "compromise" the nation by allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military. What makes this decision even more egregious is the fact that Choi is a much-sought-after Arabic translator. Choi's is only the latest in a lone line of such firings. Let's hope he will be the last member of the military to receive such a letter under the Obama administration.
The Courage Campaign has started a petition asking President Obama to stand behind the promise he made while on the campaign trail: to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Please sign the petition urging the President to follow through on that promise. This policy of federally endorsed homophobia must end both for the sake of equality AND national security.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Dan Choi Is Gay | ||||
| ||||
The U.S. government is willing to make all kinds of compromises in the interest of national security: torture, warrantless wire tapping, the surveillance of individuals' use of public libraries, etc. All of these other things are permissible because they, supposedly, stand to help improve national security. However, the government is not willing to "compromise" the nation by allowing openly gay individuals to serve in the military. What makes this decision even more egregious is the fact that Choi is a much-sought-after Arabic translator. Choi's is only the latest in a lone line of such firings. Let's hope he will be the last member of the military to receive such a letter under the Obama administration.
The Courage Campaign has started a petition asking President Obama to stand behind the promise he made while on the campaign trail: to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Please sign the petition urging the President to follow through on that promise. This policy of federally endorsed homophobia must end both for the sake of equality AND national security.
Torture: Just for the Fun of it
Part of me is unclear on what we're actually talking about in the "torture debate." But I'm becoming convinced that we actually DO know—and the position taken by many Americans is chilling.
As if we didn't know this, the latest declassified information reveals that torture orders came directly from the office of former Vice President Dick Cheney. These orders came despite the fact that Cheney and the rest of the sadistic Bush administration had been warned such tactics were ineffective. These orders came despite the fact that not one Neocon believed there was truly a link between Sadaam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. (Well, maybe W. thought so, bless his heart.) These orders came precisely because Cheney knew that he needed an excuse for an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. So that waterboarding thing, eh? That's known for getting people to say anything. Let's try that, say, 183 times this month and see what happens.
But nothing happened—no information that was helpful came out of those simulated drownings. Not one shred of useable intelligence was produced after six of these sessions a day for what must have been a very long month—in United States custody. We knew this would happen. We knew this because Cheney's torture script was based on the military training program Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which was designed to help downed American pilots resist torture. SERE came out interrogation methods used by the Chinese during the Korean War to elicit false confessions from American prisoners for propaganda purposes. For essentially the same sinister purposes, the Bush administration ordered the SERE program reverse-engineered by psychologists working within a joint Army and CIA command and renamed "enhanced interrogation methods."
Military and law enforcement professionals repeatedly warned against the application of SERE tactics, but Senate reports confirm that their use was urged by top Bush administration figures desperate to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. The Senate report notes that SERE-based interrogation techniques were presented to Guantanamo personnel in September of 2002, despite the objections of instructors from Fort Bragg. In an interview with the Army’s Inspector General, Army psychiatrist Major Charles Burney said "interrogation tactics that rely on physical pressures or torture…do not tend to get you accurate information or reliable information." According to Burney, instructors repeatedly stressed that harsh interrogations don’t work and that the information gleaned "is strongly likely to be false."
So what in the hell could have led Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, to praise the henchmen who used these techniques? Manically relieved that Democrat Nancy Pelosi has been charged with knowing that torture was being used on detainees as early as 2003, Bond nearly tripped over a flag in his rush to condemn the Hose Speaker. In response to Pelosi's bold-faced claim that the CIA lied to Congress, Bond said: "It’s outrageous that a member of Congress would call our terror-fighters liars. Instead of prosecuting or persecuting, our country should be supporting our intelligence professionals who work to keep us safe.”
I don't doubt that Pelosi is lying. I don't doubt that important documents remain classified today because they reveal the extent of many Democrats' knowledge and endorsement of torture. This is the sort of deplorable response that a child would know better than to try and pull. You don't cover up injustice. And when the rest of the world is watching, you really can't.
Just what is at stake here? Well, not valuable intelligence that will keep Americans safe. We know that sort of thing isn't a byproduct of torture. What we are seeing is a segment of the US population articulate a preference for violence and state-sponsored persecution. Forty two percent of Americans think that there are cases in which the U.S. should consider using torture against terrorism suspects. Almost half of my neighbors have the will to use pain, fear, and overpowering brutality to get what they want. Oh, wait—given what we know about the SERE program's ineffectiveness, those who still support decisions to use torture prefer to inflict pain and suffering EVEN IF it fails to get them a damned thing. They'd do it just for fun.
We will regret it if we don't deal with the perpetrators of US-backed torture techniques. No domestic issue is worth turning our backs on gross injustices committed by Americans. Hoarding "political capital" cannot dissuade the Obama administration from seeking the swiftest, harshest punishment for those who want to bully the rest of the world. If we don't police our own, it will be done in ways even less to our liking.
As if we didn't know this, the latest declassified information reveals that torture orders came directly from the office of former Vice President Dick Cheney. These orders came despite the fact that Cheney and the rest of the sadistic Bush administration had been warned such tactics were ineffective. These orders came despite the fact that not one Neocon believed there was truly a link between Sadaam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. (Well, maybe W. thought so, bless his heart.) These orders came precisely because Cheney knew that he needed an excuse for an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. So that waterboarding thing, eh? That's known for getting people to say anything. Let's try that, say, 183 times this month and see what happens.
But nothing happened—no information that was helpful came out of those simulated drownings. Not one shred of useable intelligence was produced after six of these sessions a day for what must have been a very long month—in United States custody. We knew this would happen. We knew this because Cheney's torture script was based on the military training program Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), which was designed to help downed American pilots resist torture. SERE came out interrogation methods used by the Chinese during the Korean War to elicit false confessions from American prisoners for propaganda purposes. For essentially the same sinister purposes, the Bush administration ordered the SERE program reverse-engineered by psychologists working within a joint Army and CIA command and renamed "enhanced interrogation methods."
Military and law enforcement professionals repeatedly warned against the application of SERE tactics, but Senate reports confirm that their use was urged by top Bush administration figures desperate to link Al Qaeda and Iraq. The Senate report notes that SERE-based interrogation techniques were presented to Guantanamo personnel in September of 2002, despite the objections of instructors from Fort Bragg. In an interview with the Army’s Inspector General, Army psychiatrist Major Charles Burney said "interrogation tactics that rely on physical pressures or torture…do not tend to get you accurate information or reliable information." According to Burney, instructors repeatedly stressed that harsh interrogations don’t work and that the information gleaned "is strongly likely to be false."
So what in the hell could have led Senator Kit Bond of Missouri, vice chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, to praise the henchmen who used these techniques? Manically relieved that Democrat Nancy Pelosi has been charged with knowing that torture was being used on detainees as early as 2003, Bond nearly tripped over a flag in his rush to condemn the Hose Speaker. In response to Pelosi's bold-faced claim that the CIA lied to Congress, Bond said: "It’s outrageous that a member of Congress would call our terror-fighters liars. Instead of prosecuting or persecuting, our country should be supporting our intelligence professionals who work to keep us safe.”
I don't doubt that Pelosi is lying. I don't doubt that important documents remain classified today because they reveal the extent of many Democrats' knowledge and endorsement of torture. This is the sort of deplorable response that a child would know better than to try and pull. You don't cover up injustice. And when the rest of the world is watching, you really can't.
Just what is at stake here? Well, not valuable intelligence that will keep Americans safe. We know that sort of thing isn't a byproduct of torture. What we are seeing is a segment of the US population articulate a preference for violence and state-sponsored persecution. Forty two percent of Americans think that there are cases in which the U.S. should consider using torture against terrorism suspects. Almost half of my neighbors have the will to use pain, fear, and overpowering brutality to get what they want. Oh, wait—given what we know about the SERE program's ineffectiveness, those who still support decisions to use torture prefer to inflict pain and suffering EVEN IF it fails to get them a damned thing. They'd do it just for fun.
We will regret it if we don't deal with the perpetrators of US-backed torture techniques. No domestic issue is worth turning our backs on gross injustices committed by Americans. Hoarding "political capital" cannot dissuade the Obama administration from seeking the swiftest, harshest punishment for those who want to bully the rest of the world. If we don't police our own, it will be done in ways even less to our liking.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Women's Lib Fun
Two fun little women's lib-y things for you today.
First, on this past weekend's Mother's Day performance of A Prairie Home Companion, Garrison Keillor sang a cute little song about motherhood and equal pay for equal work. I've embedded audio for the whole first segment of the show below, but the song starts around 6:20.
Secondly, this past Sunday's episode of The Simpsons, "Four Great Women and a Manicure," is totally worth a watch (and features Jodie Foster providing Maggie's voice during her Fountainhead pastiche). The best line? Lisa: "So Snow White slept and waited for her prince to come, but he never did...because a woman shouldn't have to depend on a man. Snow White was brought back to life...by a lady doctor" Cracks me up!
First, on this past weekend's Mother's Day performance of A Prairie Home Companion, Garrison Keillor sang a cute little song about motherhood and equal pay for equal work. I've embedded audio for the whole first segment of the show below, but the song starts around 6:20.
Secondly, this past Sunday's episode of The Simpsons, "Four Great Women and a Manicure," is totally worth a watch (and features Jodie Foster providing Maggie's voice during her Fountainhead pastiche). The best line? Lisa: "So Snow White slept and waited for her prince to come, but he never did...because a woman shouldn't have to depend on a man. Snow White was brought back to life...by a lady doctor" Cracks me up!
Monday, May 11, 2009
Lady Gaga and the Pop Industry
I don't like pop music. Or pop stars. Or pop rhythms. Or pop fans. Or pop the drink, for that matter.
Pop music is over-produced. The melodies are cheesy, written solely to be catchy. The lyrics are shallow. The singing sounds completely impersonal; the sheer amount of processing applied to the sound guarantees it. And don't even get me started on the presentation of women in pop music. The majority of pop stars are women, to be sure, but like the rest of the music, they are merely a product, something to be listened to, looked at, and thrown away in the next craze. If you will, the voice in the song doesn't sound like the woman in the video. She's a sex object, and the voice is the sound engineer's voice. And the sugary sweetness of it only makes it more horribly ironic.
And yet I often find myself listening to, and enjoying - well, let's just say (for the sake of my ego) individual pop singers. Madonna, Cher, P!nk, and others. I guess I'm just a big faker!
Really, though, there is a distinction to be made. Which brings me to Lady Gaga.
Lady Gaga is the latest, and potentially weirdest, in the grand tradition of what I'm going to call 'crazy pop stars'. It started (I think) with Madonna, and includes P!nk and some others I can't think of at the moment.
Yes, they're highly produced. Yes, they're highly sexual. Yes, their songs are silly and simplistic (Just Dance? That's a great idea!). It's still music for mass consumption.
But they're, well, strange. Madonna might be sexual, but she's so in-your-face it actually makes you think critically about it, hence the Sex book. P!nk's a baby butch who isn't one, and occasionally lapses into amazing cleverness (in the case of So What) And strange means different, means you pay attention, means they aren't just sex objects anymore. It means they're in control.
VS.
 |  |
?
Or rather, vs. their producers...
But can you tell from the pictures?
Or rather, vs. their producers...
But can you tell from the pictures?
Gaga might just be the weirdest of the bunch to date. Hypnotic robotic dancing, infinite costume changes (up to and including plastic bubbles), incredibly jerky camera movements in her videos, endless songs about being rich and famous (entire first album), and the occasional obscene lyric (usually, one should note, about her doing something to someone else).
It also doesn't hurt that she's her own songwriter. But judge for yourself:
Aguilera - Genie In A Bottle
Gaga - Poker Face
(Embedding was disabled, sorry! Also, I'm not trying to single out Aguilera - she's just a typical example)
So what's the difference? Is there a difference? I think it's this: With Lady Gaga and other 'crazy pop stars', there's less focus on the woman herself, and more a focus on what she's doing. And that makes all the difference.
But perhaps I'm just being arbitrary: what do you think?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Feminist Flashback #36
In honor of Mother's Day (Happy Mother's Day to you all!), for this week's feminist flashback I'm showcasing my own mother, Rita Dove, former Poet Laureate and Pulitzer Prize winner. To say I'm proud of her and awed by her would be an understatement, and I couldn't wish for more phenomenal parents than Rita and my father. That said, with her permission, I'm posting one of her poems from her 1995 book Mother Love, which loosely revolves around the Persephone and Demeter story from Greek mythology. This is not, by any means, her most recent book of poetry, but considering it's Mother's Day, it seemed vastly appropriate (her newest book, Sonata Mulattica came out last month--more on that in a later post).
In any case, to my beautiful, kind, brilliant mother on Mother's Day, I love you.
To all the other mothers in the world, Happy Mother's Day!
Exit
by Rita Dove
Just when hope withers, a reprieve is granted.
The door opens onto a street like in the movies,
clean of people, of cats; except it is your street
you are leaving. Reprieve has been granted,
"provisionally"--a fretful word.
The windows you have closed behind
you are turning pink, doing what they do
every dawn. Here it's gray; the door
to the taxicab waits. This suitcase,
the saddest object in the world.
Well, the world's open. And now through
the windshield the sky begins to blush,
as you did when you mother told you
what it took to be a woman in this life.
In any case, to my beautiful, kind, brilliant mother on Mother's Day, I love you.
To all the other mothers in the world, Happy Mother's Day!
Exit
by Rita Dove
Just when hope withers, a reprieve is granted.
The door opens onto a street like in the movies,
clean of people, of cats; except it is your street
you are leaving. Reprieve has been granted,
"provisionally"--a fretful word.
The windows you have closed behind
you are turning pink, doing what they do
every dawn. Here it's gray; the door
to the taxicab waits. This suitcase,
the saddest object in the world.
Well, the world's open. And now through
the windshield the sky begins to blush,
as you did when you mother told you
what it took to be a woman in this life.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Two quick hip hip hoorays and an apology
First, a mini hooray for Washington DC, where gay marriages performed elsewhere will now be recognized. It's not quite the same as legalizing gay marriage, but it's a great step in the right direction:
Have a lovely Friday!
The D.C. Council overwhelmingly approved a bill yesterday to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, in a vote that followed a sharp exchange between an openly gay member and a civil rights champion and set off shouts of reproach from local ministers.Secondly, a huge Hip Hip Hooray to Maine for legalizing same-sex marriage this week:
[...]
Yesterday's action could be a precursor to a debate later this year over whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the city. "There is no turning back," said Catania, who plans to introduce a broader gay marriage bill in a few months.
Gov. John Baldacci of Maine signed a same-sex marriage bill on Wednesday minutes after the Legislature sent it to his desk, saying he had reversed his position because gay couples were entitled to the state Constitution’s equal rights protections.Thirdly, my apologies: there will be no Feminist Friday Interview this month. I've been working on a draft of the final chapter of my dissertation (woo hoo!) all month and just didn't get it together. I promise to resume in June, though...most definitely.
Have a lovely Friday!
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Meditation on a Radio
Yes, I actually listen to the radio. Sometimes I think I'm the only person left within a hundred mile radius who does. (What can I say? I drive an old truck with no CD player, and cassettes are a pain to record.) Still, listening to the [insert humorous noun] box is educational. I do like to think I know a bit about music - that means listening to the songs that most people listen to, not just Sleater-Kinney, Ani, and the Indigo Girls!
As it turns out, of course, I'm hardly the only one listening. When we include internet radio and other 'new' radio-like technologies, just as many people are listening now as ever. Radio is still huge. Music is still amazingly influential. Pop culture is still king. And realizing that makes listening to the radio frightening.
There I was, driving down the road, innocently listening to some random top 40 love song, when suddenly he sings, "I want you/I'm gonna make you miiine." Or something along those lines. Lovely, I think. More possessive gender roles. I change the station. A female singer here. Perhaps we'll stand a better chance for something decent. But no, "I need you to touch me, make me crazy all night long..." She's completely dependent on men for all forms of pleasure, and I don't want to hear about it. Before long, I'm listening to NPR news. The music is just too awful!
Now, I'm probably being a bit hypersensitive. What else should I expect, given the patriarchal culture? Internalized sexism, implicit homophobia, assumed racism, you name it, it's everywhere. But it's becoming subtler. It's tricky, subversive, almost as if it were planned. Now, I know that feminists insist that there's no patriarchal conspiracy to oppress, that it's just a name for the culture state, unconsciously perpetuated for the benefit those with privilege. But the media really couldn't be any more effective at promoting the *archy if it had been planned.
Don Imus says something racist? He gets fired. Enough people complain about an objectifying commercial? It gets pulled. And nearly everyone's mad at Miss California. Yet all the while, people are learning how to really behave from those little cues in music, movies, TV, and the internet - not to mention family and friends.
'Cleaning' the media isn't enough to stop oppression. I'm not sure it even counts as a first step.
It might even be easier if the hate and bigotry were still all out in the open where we could see it. As horrible as that 3OH13 song that Aviva posted about a while back is, I think most people (minus the trolls - including the troll band that made it!) would see it as at least mildly offensive, enough that they would only admit to liking it around the 'appropriate' audience (other sexists). And despite all of the anger and disgust that has been aimed at Asher Roth recently, it's not him, but the white suburban kids who actually like him that worry me. He'll go away soon, after people get good and mad. We'll suppress the overt idiocy. But his audience will have learned their lesson for the day: being a racist jerk is really cool.
I don't really have an overall point to this post other than to say, sure enough, womanists/feminists/anti-ablests/everybody-else-who-cares still have a whole world's worth of work to do. And each day the problem is becoming more and more obfuscated.
Sigh.
As it turns out, of course, I'm hardly the only one listening. When we include internet radio and other 'new' radio-like technologies, just as many people are listening now as ever. Radio is still huge. Music is still amazingly influential. Pop culture is still king. And realizing that makes listening to the radio frightening.
There I was, driving down the road, innocently listening to some random top 40 love song, when suddenly he sings, "I want you/I'm gonna make you miiine." Or something along those lines. Lovely, I think. More possessive gender roles. I change the station. A female singer here. Perhaps we'll stand a better chance for something decent. But no, "I need you to touch me, make me crazy all night long..." She's completely dependent on men for all forms of pleasure, and I don't want to hear about it. Before long, I'm listening to NPR news. The music is just too awful!
Now, I'm probably being a bit hypersensitive. What else should I expect, given the patriarchal culture? Internalized sexism, implicit homophobia, assumed racism, you name it, it's everywhere. But it's becoming subtler. It's tricky, subversive, almost as if it were planned. Now, I know that feminists insist that there's no patriarchal conspiracy to oppress, that it's just a name for the culture state, unconsciously perpetuated for the benefit those with privilege. But the media really couldn't be any more effective at promoting the *archy if it had been planned.
Don Imus says something racist? He gets fired. Enough people complain about an objectifying commercial? It gets pulled. And nearly everyone's mad at Miss California. Yet all the while, people are learning how to really behave from those little cues in music, movies, TV, and the internet - not to mention family and friends.
'Cleaning' the media isn't enough to stop oppression. I'm not sure it even counts as a first step.
It might even be easier if the hate and bigotry were still all out in the open where we could see it. As horrible as that 3OH13 song that Aviva posted about a while back is, I think most people (minus the trolls - including the troll band that made it!) would see it as at least mildly offensive, enough that they would only admit to liking it around the 'appropriate' audience (other sexists). And despite all of the anger and disgust that has been aimed at Asher Roth recently, it's not him, but the white suburban kids who actually like him that worry me. He'll go away soon, after people get good and mad. We'll suppress the overt idiocy. But his audience will have learned their lesson for the day: being a racist jerk is really cool.
I don't really have an overall point to this post other than to say, sure enough, womanists/feminists/anti-ablests/everybody-else-who-cares still have a whole world's worth of work to do. And each day the problem is becoming more and more obfuscated.
Sigh.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The All-American Cowboy versus the "Bionic Booty"
Please take note that the following post contains spoilers for tonight's Dancing with the Stars results show as well as a good ole' fashioned rant. Consider yourself warned.
My parents have been watching DWTS since it first aired, which is pretty miraculous to me since, up until recently, they barely watched any television at all. But I suppose it's because they're big fans of ballroom dancing and have been taking lessons and dancing together for the past twelve years. In fact, they got me into ballroom dancing when I was fourteen; I even briefly contemplated taking it up professionally when I was a teenager, but school commitments and other things came up and it just didn't happen. They also got me watching the show, although it took until this season for me to really become a fan.
At the beginning, my allegiance was split between Gilles Marini and Shawn Johnson--because Gilles was awesome, even early on, and I was such a huge fan of Shawn's plucky determination (and sheer unflappable optimism) during the Beijing Olympics (I also have a begrudging appreciation for Melissa Rycroft's dancing...but don't tell anyone). But rather rapidly, over the last few weeks, Lil' Kim and Derek stole my heart. Sure, I like Lil' Kim's music, but her celebrity has nothing to do with my adoration of her as a dancer.
DWTS brought out a side of Lil' Kim America hadn't really seen before. Instead of the tough-as-nails, "Queen Bee" rapper who gleefully tossed about obscenities and explicit sexual references, she revealed herself to be funny and a little shy and deeply committed, not to mention charmingly insecure despite her hip-hop cred. On the show, more than any of the other celebrities, Lil' Kim to me seemed remarkably human. The vast majority of her dances were excellent because she worked hard and, most importantly, because she's an incredible performer.
And, yes, part of her performance persona is that sexy, hip-thrusting style she's adapted from her hip-hop career, but I think she was never really given a chance to show other facets of her talent. In fact, every time she performed a dance that wasn't "raunchy" or "passionate" enough, she was penalized.
The judges were clearly very taken with Lil' Kim, and as shocked as I was that she was eliminated this week, but even in the final, tearful moments after her elimination, they were lamenting the loss of her "bionic booty."
Apparently, no matter how good she is, a woman of color is still judged on her "passion" and her ass (oh, er, her "assets," as they said tonight--haha). I'd like to see what would happen if Bruno told Melissa Rycroft to work her "bangin' rack"! Can you imagine?
(I could write volumes about the blatant racism of the judges' comments to Lil' Kim--especially when they were being "complimentary"--as opposed to how they address the other dancers, but...that will have to wait until I'm not, you know, trying to finish a dissertation.)
Just to be clear, I'm not angry because my favorite dancer was eliminated. Honestly, if Lil' Kim had gotten to the semi-finals and then had been beaten by someone equally good, like Gilles or Mellisa or even Shawn, I wouldn't have cared...much. But when the person who wins out over Lil' Kim is the one person left on the show who has absolutely no innate talent whatsoever? Well, then my feathers get a little ruffled.
Ty Murray is not a good dancer. He seems like a perfectly nice guy, I have no problems with him personally, and he's improved remarkably over the past few weeks. I'll even give him props for his Argentine Tango last week, which was pretty good...on a relative scale. However, he's stiff and stilted, still hasn't developed a sense a rhythm or movement after months of training and is simply worlds away from any of the other four couples.
I hate to speculate on things like this. What do I know, really? But I find it hard to believe that America didn't vote for Lil' Kim just because her waltz last week wasn't as good as it could have been. If that were the reasoning behind people voting, then Ty wouldn't have made it past the third week. It seems pretty clear to me that Lil' Kim's elimination this week has way more to do with people's privileging of the "All-American," white cowboy--clearly held to a different (lower) standard than any of the female contestants--and preconceived notions about how women of color are supposed to perform for us and how they're supposed to act.
And about yesterday's waltz? While I'm no professional by any means, I think I have a little more ballroom knowledge than the average Joe. Like Carrie Ann said, there were a few missteps, but it was still a beautiful dance (my goodness, ever-the-stickler Len even liked it), with some very graceful, sweet moments. Oh wait, I forgot. Black women aren't supposed to be graceful; we only like them when their booties are "bionic" and their dances are raunchy. Or, as Bruno said, "You tried to be a lady, but you're more comfortable being a tramp!" Um. Wow.
Let's tally things up, shall we? Lil' Kim has been consistently good, has excellent rhythm, and is a phenomenal performer. Ty has been consistently iffy, has no rhythm, and couldn't perform his way out of a corral.
Clearly, I don't get "American viewers" and how they vote. Or, actually, I think do get it. That's what scares me.
My parents have been watching DWTS since it first aired, which is pretty miraculous to me since, up until recently, they barely watched any television at all. But I suppose it's because they're big fans of ballroom dancing and have been taking lessons and dancing together for the past twelve years. In fact, they got me into ballroom dancing when I was fourteen; I even briefly contemplated taking it up professionally when I was a teenager, but school commitments and other things came up and it just didn't happen. They also got me watching the show, although it took until this season for me to really become a fan.
At the beginning, my allegiance was split between Gilles Marini and Shawn Johnson--because Gilles was awesome, even early on, and I was such a huge fan of Shawn's plucky determination (and sheer unflappable optimism) during the Beijing Olympics (I also have a begrudging appreciation for Melissa Rycroft's dancing...but don't tell anyone). But rather rapidly, over the last few weeks, Lil' Kim and Derek stole my heart. Sure, I like Lil' Kim's music, but her celebrity has nothing to do with my adoration of her as a dancer.
DWTS brought out a side of Lil' Kim America hadn't really seen before. Instead of the tough-as-nails, "Queen Bee" rapper who gleefully tossed about obscenities and explicit sexual references, she revealed herself to be funny and a little shy and deeply committed, not to mention charmingly insecure despite her hip-hop cred. On the show, more than any of the other celebrities, Lil' Kim to me seemed remarkably human. The vast majority of her dances were excellent because she worked hard and, most importantly, because she's an incredible performer.
And, yes, part of her performance persona is that sexy, hip-thrusting style she's adapted from her hip-hop career, but I think she was never really given a chance to show other facets of her talent. In fact, every time she performed a dance that wasn't "raunchy" or "passionate" enough, she was penalized.
The judges were clearly very taken with Lil' Kim, and as shocked as I was that she was eliminated this week, but even in the final, tearful moments after her elimination, they were lamenting the loss of her "bionic booty."
Apparently, no matter how good she is, a woman of color is still judged on her "passion" and her ass (oh, er, her "assets," as they said tonight--haha). I'd like to see what would happen if Bruno told Melissa Rycroft to work her "bangin' rack"! Can you imagine?
(I could write volumes about the blatant racism of the judges' comments to Lil' Kim--especially when they were being "complimentary"--as opposed to how they address the other dancers, but...that will have to wait until I'm not, you know, trying to finish a dissertation.)
Just to be clear, I'm not angry because my favorite dancer was eliminated. Honestly, if Lil' Kim had gotten to the semi-finals and then had been beaten by someone equally good, like Gilles or Mellisa or even Shawn, I wouldn't have cared...much. But when the person who wins out over Lil' Kim is the one person left on the show who has absolutely no innate talent whatsoever? Well, then my feathers get a little ruffled.
Ty Murray is not a good dancer. He seems like a perfectly nice guy, I have no problems with him personally, and he's improved remarkably over the past few weeks. I'll even give him props for his Argentine Tango last week, which was pretty good...on a relative scale. However, he's stiff and stilted, still hasn't developed a sense a rhythm or movement after months of training and is simply worlds away from any of the other four couples.
I hate to speculate on things like this. What do I know, really? But I find it hard to believe that America didn't vote for Lil' Kim just because her waltz last week wasn't as good as it could have been. If that were the reasoning behind people voting, then Ty wouldn't have made it past the third week. It seems pretty clear to me that Lil' Kim's elimination this week has way more to do with people's privileging of the "All-American," white cowboy--clearly held to a different (lower) standard than any of the female contestants--and preconceived notions about how women of color are supposed to perform for us and how they're supposed to act.
And about yesterday's waltz? While I'm no professional by any means, I think I have a little more ballroom knowledge than the average Joe. Like Carrie Ann said, there were a few missteps, but it was still a beautiful dance (my goodness, ever-the-stickler Len even liked it), with some very graceful, sweet moments. Oh wait, I forgot. Black women aren't supposed to be graceful; we only like them when their booties are "bionic" and their dances are raunchy. Or, as Bruno said, "You tried to be a lady, but you're more comfortable being a tramp!" Um. Wow.
Let's tally things up, shall we? Lil' Kim has been consistently good, has excellent rhythm, and is a phenomenal performer. Ty has been consistently iffy, has no rhythm, and couldn't perform his way out of a corral.
Clearly, I don't get "American viewers" and how they vote. Or, actually, I think do get it. That's what scares me.
Monday, May 4, 2009
R.I.P. Marilyn French
Marilyn French, Novelist and Champion of Feminism, Dies at 79:
Her first and best-known novel, “The Women’s Room,” released in 1977, traces a submissive housewife’s journey of self-discovery following her divorce in the 1950s, describing the lives of Mira Ward and her friends in graduate school at Harvard as they grow into independent women. The book was partly informed by her own experience of leaving an unhappy marriage and helping her daughter deal with the aftermath of being raped. Women all over the world seized on the book, which sold more than 20 million copies and was translated into 20 languages.
Gloria Steinem, a close friend, compared the impact of the book on the discussion surrounding women’s rights to the one that Ralph Ellison’s “Invisible Man” had had on racial equality 25 years earlier.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Feminist Flashback #35
Because I'm a little bit in love with Lil' Kim on Dancing with the Stars, this week's flashback is her--seriously Not. Safe. For. Work.--album Notorious K.I.M.
, which was a serious staple of my college audio library. My father says her music is basically pornography in rap form, but I know he says that with love. In any case, if you haven't heard her music, consider that fair warning: 
How Many Licks? - Lil Kim
And, as a bonus, her most recent (awesome) dance on DWTS (which is, of course, safe for work):
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Congratulations to Carol Ann Duffy....
GB...it's about damn time!
After 341 Years, British Poet Laureate Is a Woman:
After 341 Years, British Poet Laureate Is a Woman:
The writer Carol Ann Duffy was appointed Britain’s poet laureate on Friday, becoming the first woman to take a 341-year-old job that has been held by, among others, Dryden, Tennyson, Wordsworth, Cecil Day-Lewis and Ted Hughes.
Ms. Duffy, 53, is known for using a deceptively simple style to produce accessible, often mischievous poems dealing with the darkest turmoil and the lightest minutiae of everyday life. In her most popular collection, “The World’s Wife” (1999), overlooked women in history and mythology get the chance to tell their side of the story, so that one poem imagines, for instance, the relief that Mrs. Rip Van Winkle must have felt when her husband fell asleep, finally giving her some time for herself.
Announcing the decision, the culture secretary, Andy Burnham, called Ms. Duffy “a towering figure in English literature today and a superb poet” who has “achieved something that only the true greats of literature manage — to be regarded as both popular and profound.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)