06.30.08
links for 2008-06-30
06.29.08
links for 2008-06-29
-
from Racialicious: I am like this in many ways about sexism.
-
from Racialicious
-
from Jezebel: WOW. This is so depressing.
06.28.08
Entertainment and ‘choice’
A recent thought I had on entertainment and choosing:
We all like (need?) to be entertained: all genders, sexualities, races, etc.
The sad truth is, we have to choose from what is out there. Sometimes people of progressive sensibilities have to “overlook” things in entertainment that are problematic in order to be able to relax and, well, be entertained.
This is why I am really sick of the following defense/excuse for systematic problematic representations and constructions of “otherness” (non-white/male/middle-class/heterosexual) in entertainment or simply of certain titles in entertainment:
“[insert marginalized group here] watch it/play it/buy it/read it therefore:
- there’s no problem with the ideology perpetuated
- it accurately represents what said people want
- said people enjoy it every aspect of the entertainment”
The bottom line is that we can only be entertained from what’s out there, and what we like and want is heavily informed by what already exists. If every movie I saw was problem-free, I would rarely go to the movies. Just because people consume entertainment doesn’t absolve their -Isms.** I often decline from supporting and entertainment that is even a bit sexist/heterosexist/racist, etc., and I am fine with giving it up but many other people don’t make that sacrifice and that is 100% their prerogative. But that cannot be interpreted to mean that all entertainment consumed by marginalized individuals is not in any way offensive or problematic. Not to mention that oftentimes the problematic nature of some entertainment isn’t known until after spending the $$; thus, when commercial success=implied condoning, the damage is often already done, which makes public critique our primary way of making our disgust known.
Example: this, for me, especially applies to hetero women and porn, of women having resources for sexualized men. women want erotic imagery but the vast majority of images and films are targeted for heterosexual men, and often involve ideologies that progressive women find objectionable. More and more there are non-sexist, non-racist material available, but they are often hard-to-find and are almost never “free” (whereas men wanting “traditional” material have very easy and free access to material that is quite suitable for them). Therefore, many women (or prog-men), who want to satisfy their desire for erotic material, “settle” for traditional material and try to “look over” the deficiencies. Or many cope by occupying the male observer’s standpoint, and sexualize the female involved, thus they may be consuming and enjoying mainstream erotic imagery, but are deprived sexualized male bodies. In other words: when it comes to porn, women who want and enjoy porn as a category have to simply choose between the options they are given, which may or may not actually be 100% what they want. It’s just what’s easily (or freely) available.
Back to entertainment “in general”: These assumptions are further problematic:
- Sexism/racism/homophobia/xenophobia/heteronormativity in entertainment is appropriate because it simply reflects the “truth” of what an identity group “wants” (i.e. sexism is ok because these games are “for men.”): -Isms are not just a “personal preference.
- “Got a problem with it? Don’t buy it/play it/watch it!”: see above and also **above.
- These are the kinds of entertainment that sell: ever think to question how much money and other resources goes into developing entertainment that is non sexist/racist/heteronormative etc? Or how such entertainment is marketed?
Entertainment for guys (read: straight guys) is only defined as such because of the sexism/heterosexism involved. There is no reason why women and gay men can’t enjoy certain entertainment, and they shouldn’t have to put up with BS hetero/sexism to do so. Take games for example. Games that would appeal to guys do not need objectification and homophobia. That is not the reason why guys play these games. Instead, they function to outline the proper audience for these games and to reaffirm hetero-masculine identity. And the fact that women play these games serves as “evidence” that women don’t mind or that women enjoy the roles they are given in these games. As I’ve been trying to show in this post, these are misguided conclusions/assumptions. But since women do choose to play these games (since there are little if any sexism-free equivalent alternatives) there is no incentive to make their games differently since it clearly isn’t affecting their bottom line. But women and queer gamers do voice their dissatisfaction. And the solution is not to make some second-class, underdeveloped alternatives that rely on pathetic tropes and stereotypical marketing (see this Broadsheet article that in part prompted me to write this post today). For example: if women only have the choice between lame-assed girl-games and more complex and interesting games with implicit or overt sexism, women choosing the former does not necessarily mean that’s what “women want” (they may in fact be so sick of the sexism in most games) or that their choosing the latter means that the sexism is acceptable to them.
Bottom line: what we “choose” is not always what we want. It’s just what we have to choose from. And what we want for the most part comes from somewhere-it is shaped by what’s available.
On a related note, keep an eye out next week for a guest post on current issues in gaming!
(cross-posted to The Reaction)
06.26.08
links for 2008-06-26
-
from AfterEllen: SMG was asked which roles she’d like to play if she were a man, and for each male role she chose, AfterEllen came up with a better female role. WORD
06.25.08
Carnival of Feminists no. 59
Carnival of Feminists no. 59 is up at Philobiblon.
And I am honored to have one of my posts in the carnival!
06.21.08
links for 2008-06-21
06.20.08
links for 2008-06-20
-
from Broadsheet – Salon.com
-
from Ms Maughty: excellent critique of NYT article.
-
from Feministe
06.17.08
The recession hits Beverly Hills: brilliant Daily Show clip
Just…brilliant.
Click here to view video. (apologies for technical difficulties).
links for 2008-06-17
-
from feministe: word
-
from The F word: excellent!
-
from NYT: excellent rev.”A hooker disarms her clients with the flattering pretense that she is in it for the sex and not just the money…Mostly the show indulges the common male fantasy that whores truly enjoy prostitution.”
Random Act of Feminism for June: the poverty of language
Ok, so this is a belated Random Act…but “better late than never”!
I have really been on a language trip lately (well, I almost always am!) so this Random Act has to do with language too. As I have said before, language is important. It shapes the terms we think in. It produces and reproduces ideologies. And the poverty of our everyday language can often reinforce damaging ideas around gender and sexuality.
This month I focus on the way we talk about people vis a vis their appearance. I know this is a very small thing, but it irks me to no end and I think it says a lot about the connection between physical appearance and individual value. I continually hear people refer to those whom they find unattractive as “gross,” “nasty,” “disgusting” and the like. People are not gross. You may find them unattractive, but people are people. They are not gross or disgusting (although they may do disgusting things). This is not only a poverty of language at work but also the insidious looks=value rearing its ugly head. Say what you mean. “I don’t find her attractive” and move on.
And while we’re on the topic, perhaps try to focus commenting on entertainers based on their entertainment value and not on their appearance, since they do not exist to comply with your version of desirability, but instead act, sing, etc. So let’s try to spend some more time talking about their skills and less time discussing their face and body? This especially regards female celebrities, since they seem to be overwhelmingly discussed in terms of their appearance. Unattractive but talented actors are rarely called “gross” by hetero men (or even het women), from my own observation.
Let’s stop conflating individual value with appearance, and entertainment ability with appearance. Let’s say what we mean. Let’s value actors and actresses as such based on their acting. Let’s discuss physical appearance not in terms of the value of a person. Let’s separate acting (or singing) ability from physical beauty.
(can I just add here my frustration that less-than-special actresses persist in getting roles and media exposure, and get a critical pass from us average people whereas not-so-great actors don’t. I hear it in everyday talk-”I like her”, when she’s nothing special but is cute, where the actor that’s nothing special doesn’t get the same comment-he usually doesn’t get any comment.)
06.16.08
Iron Man review
I just saw Iron Man today and I wanted to write a mini-review while it was still fresh. Semi-spoilers below.
The Tony Stark character is reprehensible. My stomach was on fire after the 1st 15 minutes; I asked my partner “I sure hope his superhero actions redeem him.” By that, I meant does he see the jerk of a human being that he was? The answer is yes and no.
The beginning sets up the kind of person that Stark is. He a sexist womanizer. He sees every woman as a sexual conquest. He doesn’t know their names and doesn’t care. He treats professional women as nothing serious–only as sex objects.
His views on military weapons comes out when an attractive female reporter questions him about his company’s support of the war industry. His responses were unapologetically pro-weapons and throughout he propositions her to have sex. She continues to stand her ground, ignoring his sexism and asking the tough questions. She’s well spoken and savvy. We find out she’s Brown educated. Then we find her going to bed with him.
The movie is about his change of heart regarding the effect that weapons have on international relations. His creation–Iron Man–is to rectify his participation in the war machine. Which was great: I love the weapons critique aspect of the story. (See this review for good commentary on the “good vs. bad” weapons users and the “us vs. them” dichotomy that I felt in the film but didn’t know quite what I made of it.) I think the movie as a whole is pretty good, with some predictability and far-fetched aspects (i.e. why would the Afghan militia men put Stark, a weapons designer, in a room with tons of weaponry supplies unattended?)
But he never rectifies his sexist approach to women. Read the rest of this entry »
Other people’s posts
I read 2 really great posts today that stood out to me. I think that they also relate to each other, although I’m not entirely sure why.
Hoyden About Town (and Feminism 101) on problematizing “choice.” This is something that I wish everyone would understand, and not only as it relates to feminism. Time and again, people tell me that I can’t criticize representations of women in film, or that participating in “posing culture” is practically “do or die” for female celebrities, or about critiquing the sexism of/discrimination in the porn industry, etc etc because well, women “choose” to do these things. You’ve heard it: “well don’t be an actress then if the roles for women suck ass,” and the like. Or, “she’s choosing to pose naked, so why critique the industry? Women should just stop doing it if the industry is so male-biased”…etc, etc. This is something that I will definitely blog about in the future, but this post is a great start.
And from the F-Word, about women-hating-women. This part was particularly interesting:
Stepping outside of the designated box of what it means to be female in a patriarchal society has long been threatening, not only for the women who decide they must step out in order to be authentic, but also for the women around them. Competition and jealousy are natural reactions when women are set up to survive in a culture where they are not equal to men. Sometimes the misogynist behaviour between women can be explained (but not excused) as an act of benevolence where women teach each other the rules of survival because they don’t want them to face the consequences of breaking the rules. Mothers teach their daughters how to survive. For example, a mother may encourage her daughter to marry a man who earns a good wage and has a respected job even though he is emotionally unavailable. Or worse, a mother may not encourage her daughter to leave her abusive husband because of her own fears of survival without a man. But before we judge mothers too harshly, we need to ask where would they have been taught to expect anything different? What choices did they have to make for their own survival? After all, this is how misogyny works. By limiting women’s choices and silencing their voices, many women do not know anything different than how to survive in a patriarchal world.
(This really hits home with me especially about sexuality. A lot of why I am so critical about women’s participation in/collusion with sex culture is that the cultural context is still so fucked up. I want women to be able to express their sexuality in a variety of ways; I want quality non-sexist sexual entertainment for men and women and queer folk and heteros; I want men to be more sexually open and to not feel like their masculinity is tied up in sexism and homophobia; I want sexual entertainment that does not rely on power differentials and consolidating privilege…but I don’t want women to do these things because of internalized sexism. I don’t want to embrace sexual power because I accept that it’s the only power women have. I want it to be a real choice.)
Check them out…any thoughts?
links for 2008-06-16
-
from Female Impersonator:
-
from Bitch Magazine: right on! and only 9 (?) disempowering films? Very odd.
-
from Bitch mag: wow…i want to say this is insulting but I really think she just has no clue.
-
from Shapely Prose: hair is a feminist issue…deviate from femininity and society puts you right back in your place
-
from Shapely Prose: great comments too!
-
from The SAFER blog: this is terrible.
-
from Shakesville: an excellent post on why fathers are needed and tradition has nothing to do with it.
06.14.08
links for 2008-06-14
-
from Center for Constitutional Rights
-
from Pam’s House Blend: Holy invasion, Batman!
-
from feministing
-
from Feminist Philosophers: good catch!
-
from Alternet
-
from AdFreak
06.13.08
Owning our bodies’ representation
This post from Ms. Naughty (blog NSFW) got me thinking. She wrote a post about the Topfree Equal Rights Association, and their argument that it should be legal for women to bare their breasts in public since men can: that not being able to amounts to discrimination since it’s the “same” body part. Ms. Naughty quotes this bit from Topfree’s website, which struck me:
“This is a rebellion against a woman’s body being considered everywhere and always a sex object. As women we want the right for ourselves to decide when our breasts are sexual. That isn’t going to be in a swimming facility, and therefore they must not have to be covered. We want permission to bathe topfree, as men do.”
I’m really seduced by the idea of women being able to assert when our bodies are and are not sexual. This is something that has bothered me for some time, and was a large part of what I have written previously: that representations of women’s bodies are usurped and posited as sexual/sex objects despite what the woman herself desires. Women’s bodies seem to be by default sexual. They are subject to sexualization and sexual (or “beauty”) evaluation simply by existing. So I really like the theoretical argument presented here about women being able to own the sexualization of their body.
But while the argument is seductive, I’m not sure that it’s practical. Because the cultural reality is that women don’t own our sexualization. We are constantly evaluated and sexualized. We are catcalled; we are told to put clothes on. Celebrity women are subject to Hot Lists and 25 Unsexiest Women Lists. We do not exist publicly as people, but rather as women. And I don’t think that women baring their breasts publicly will radically change the way that our culture perceives women and their bodies.
I’m actually afraid it might do the opposite. Read the rest of this entry »
06.12.08
What to wear when you’re a feminist ‘fighting injustice’
UPDATE: so I see embedding the video didn’t work…blogger was so much easier for this! Anyway, here’s the direct link. Watch it. It rocks.
This was a great clip from last Thursday’s The Daily Show.
Good points about sexism + humor + feminists as superheroes = awesome!
p.s. I want a pair!
Not my feminism
This Washington Post article is just wrong. It does not represent my feminism.
And clearly it is not a lot of feminists’ feminism: read these great criticisms of it.
Click here to subscribe in a reader
