A Feminist Countdown to 2011 ~ Day Twenty-Four

See the full calendar here.

A Feminist Countdown to 2011 ~ Day Twenty-One

See the full calendar here.

Of Super Bowl Ads and Women

Ever since Focus on the Family announced their pro-life Super Bowl ad, there's been arguments and discussions all over. Should it be allowed by the network? Are feminists taking the wrong approach to criticizing it? (thanks, Sarah Palin!) And so on. One of the more interesting pieces was in the Washington Post - it basically suggests that feminists be, well, warmer and fuzzier and more appealing.

Echildne wrote a good (if very angry) bit about treating the pro-choice movement as if it was some sort of for-profit corporation, and loosing sight of well, a woman's right to choose.

I'm going to suggest a slightly different take; the problem is all in the framing.


Isn't it ironic that this is all about a Super Bowl ad? Think about it: the Super Bowl is, well, football. The game that consists of large, muscular men crashing into each other. The Super Bowl is perhaps the archetypal symbol of hyper-masculinity. And that's the context in which we're discussing women's rights.

This is a problem.

Now, I don't have and thing against men - or women - playing football. At the end of the day it's just another sport. But the sport has a long history of sheer hatred toward women, from the beer ads all the way down to the attitudes of the players and coaches (remember all those instances of college coaches hiring strippers with public money). That the Super Bowl is far and away the most watched sporting event - no, televised event period - in the United States says something very significant about our culture (for the record - the most watched event worldwide is the World Cup - that's no better. But I digress).

And here we are, arguing about an anti-abortion commercial which will be played during an overwhelmingly masculine, patriarchal event. So I'd like to suggest this: The commercial doesn't matter. While Kissling and Michelman suggestion for a counter-commercial is certainly apt, and would no doubt have a positive effect - so long as women's issues have to hitch a ride on bigger, more expensive, and more (in the public's mind) important, essentially masculine events, there something very, very wrong with the picture.

That's what we need to fix. As long as we look at this as some sort of big commercialized game (Oh dear - support for abortion rights is down slightly, but hey! Support for gay marriage is up! High fives all around!) we're simply doing it wrong. We need to be about cultural change and ideology, not politics, ads, and entertainment money.

(Crossposted @ Constant Thoughts)

Feminism and the culture of marriage

It seems women who are more successful relative to their husbands have happier marriages.

This is according to some new research - the New York Times article is also interesting - which I've been periodically thinking about ever since feministe linked to it a few days ago. My first thought was, naturally, "well, of course that's true. Successful women are more likely to be happy."

Now, this in itself is very important. An enormous number of people are quite terrified at the prospect of women being the primary earners in a household - they insist that chaos and broken families are the inevitable result. These results make them look positively foolish.

It's even more important than that, though. For years, we've been insisting that society would be a better place with more equality and power for women. But not everyone agrees with that. I can't count the number of times that I've tried to explain why feminism is still important (Women can vote and own property now, can't they? What else do we need?) to someone, only to be told in no uncertain terms that it only benefited women, that families (i.e. men) were being made miserable by feminist actions. One answer to this, of course, is that it's hardly fair for men to achieve their happiness at the expense of women, but research like this essentially bypasses the question.

If successful women actually improve families and marriages, that strikes at the central argument of those who insist the opposite. The so-called 'decline of the family' is one of the most pervasive bogey-persons today; it seems to be being systematically dismantled (other recent research about the effectiveness of homosexual parents comes to mind). Feminism is finally changing, not just laws and regulations, but the culture itself. This is a very, very good thing.

Which is not to say we're anywhere near finished - just look at the tagline of the LA Times take on a study about the increase in women who earn more than their husbands (22% to be specific). 'Researchers say marriage may be a path to economic stability for men.' It's still all about teh mens for so many (and the article was apparently written by a woman!).

We just need to go further. Real cultural change is the answer.

On listening to MLK

I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.
-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

I sat down and listened to the "I have a dream" speech today - and realized that I had never actually heard it before! Sure, I've read the speech, and others of his perhaps a dozen times, but I never actually listened to it, all the way through, as spoken by the man himself.

It was surprisingly enlightening.

I spent most Martin Luther King holidays during my teenage year angry, not perhaps at MLK himself, but at the importance that people attached to him. It seemed completely justified at the time - he was a plagiarist, a hypocrite in a variety of other ways, etc. (and I was influenced by my moderately racist local culture). After I became a feminist, I added his occasionally poor attitude toward women to the list.

Eventually, of course, I realized that most of his supposed failings were either fabrications or exaggerations made by a rather nasty group of people (there's a nice write up here, if you're curious). But even more important, I think, was realizing who Martin Luther King Jr. actually was.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a great speaker. He wasn't a philosopher or a scientist who single-handedly discovered some great truth. And while he was an excellent leader, I don't think that's really why he's important. Martin Luther King Jr. real impact was that when he spoke, he wasn't just speaking for himself - he was speaking for an entire community. Even more, perhaps - he spoke for a whole group of people, black, white, women, men, who had one thing in common: they cared about equality.

MLK didn't just speak about race either, as some would have us think, he spoke about war, about poverty, even about technology. His genius was that he said what the people said; in listening, we can hear the people (including, perhaps, ourselves) speak.

And we would do well to listen.

(Crossposted at Constant Thoughts)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Special edition? New York Times?

If you all haven't seen it yet, you should check out the New York Times special edition which came out yesterday. Headlines/articles include:

Iraq War Ends: Troops to Return Immediately

Ex-Secretary Apologizes for WMD Scare

National Health Insurance Act Passed

Big Boxes Appeal Eviction from Low-Income Neighborhoods

Court Indicts Bush on High Treason Charge

Popular Pressure Ushers Recent Progressive Tilt

Nation Sets its Sights on Building a Sane Economy

All Public Universities to be Free


Obviously, it's a fake newspaper, quite elaborate, dated for July 9, 2009 and not sanctioned by the Times itself. Check it out and read some of the articles before someone shuts the website down.

The editorial note reads:

Two years ago, who would have dared to image we’d elect, as President of the United States, an African-American community organizer?

Six months ago, who would have predicted we’d enact universal health care, reform our education system, establish a maximum wage and “true cost” tax, and start taking steps to make our cities more livable — or that we’d so swiftly end the war in Iraq, and try for treason the leaders who took us there?

Yet we’ve done all that. Although we demanded change of Barack Obama, we understood that only we could bring about that change. And that’s why it happened.

Of course even with all these victories, we can’t let up for a second, and we can’t get tired. But if there’s one thing we’ve learned in the past two years, it’s that the most restful, energizing thing we can do is fight for a better world.

What do you all think? An uplifting look at a possible future? A silly prank? Are there any artistic and/or political merits to this sort of utopian look forward? Is it just amusing or also hopeful?

And why, oh why, aren't there headlines like Congress passes an across-the-board equal pay act for female workers or Gay Marriage Legalized Nationwide or, I don't know, Patriarchy Called into Question, Women Take Over Government? Now that's my kind of utopia! ;-)