07.31.08

Review of a Mama Mia! review: In which being sexual and sexy are conflated

Posted in Sexuality Blogs and Resources, feminism, film, sexual politics, sexy at 12:00 pm by lindabeth

GRRRRRR

This is a pet peeve of mine: where a woman’s sexuality and her sex appeal are conflated. Sure, sex appeal or a woman performing what we think of as “sexy” could be part of a woman’s sexuality or her being a sexual person, but all too often they are horribly conflated, hence misrepresenting women-as-sexual-beings. In the end, my ire is with the idea that sexual display, performance, or one’s being sexually pleasing to another is what defines or indicates that a woman is being a sexual agent. It’s the classic “women are defined as sexually liberated in that they can prance around naked.”

So this is what make my stomach turn. Jessica at Jezebel reviews Mama Mia! and says the following:

Well, I saw Mamma Mia! on Friday night, and though it’s admirable that the trio of 50 to 60-something women (Meryl Streep, Christine Baranski and Julie Walters) are shown as sexual, something irked me about the portrayal of their sexuality — the movie made them into caricatures [...] it bugged me that Streep, Baranski and Walters were all given choreography that involved grabbing their breasts and crotches repeatedly. It seemed to be mocking their lustiness rather than celebrating it.

Did you catch that sleight of hand? The women are shown as sexual (they has sex and experienced pleasure and from it), but the “problematic” portrayal of their sexuality is in the caricatured performance of it. Why is mocking the male-centric manner of “performing” sexiness a refusal of their sexuality? In order for that to be true, being “sexual” would have to be necessarily equivalent to representing one’s sexuality in a way that identifies with hetero male pleasure.

Isn’t this was feminism criticizes-that being validated by that male-centric sex culture does not define a woman’s sexual agency and is not what give a woman license to be sexual

(disclaimer: I didn’t see the movie, so my critique is on their commentary, not on the film)

07.30.08

One-one-one post with Feminist Critics’ ballgame on “privilege”

Posted in one-on-one discussions at 12:01 pm by lindabeth

Somehow I managed to stumble on the Feminist Critics blog several months back.  I drop by occasionally to read what they write and, of course, I always feel compelled to respond (to which dozens of critical responses back ensues).  Some of the readers and writers are straight up MRAs.  Some seem more genuine.  I actually agree with many of their concerns, but I largely disagree with how they analyze them or what they attribute them too, their expectation that existing feminist literature should have addressed every gender issue and since it hasn’t it is faulty, and also the overall conceptual framework of most of their arguments.  Some of the FC’s want to engage with feminists to try to have some common ground, or to discuss perspectives on gender issues.  Some of them just want to blame feminists for not researching issues they could very well do feminist research and activism on themselves.  The potential for dialog and some relevant concerns is why I keep punishing myself and going back.   The  frequent hostility and blame-game is why I often take extended breaks form the conversation.

One of the writers, ballgame, approached me about doing a one-on-one conversation between himself and I and then posting it on our respective blogs, as a way to actually have a conversation without the interruption of hostile comments, and to allow us to have a very focused conversation.  He has seemed to be a genuine critical thinker, who calls himself a feminist, but has some concerns.

What follows is the results of our first one-on-one: Read the rest of this entry »

This image is so blog-worthy

Posted in cosmetic surgery at 12:00 pm by lindabeth

Clearly I like playing on pop culture themes: see, for example, this tee in my shop that plays on an offensive Abercromie tee, or the title of my blog that plays on the well-known Pussycat Dolls song.

(totally irrelevant aside: I recently found out that Christina Applegate co-founded the PSD.  I was so disappointed!)

So imagine my pleasure when I saw this image via feministing:

In case you couldn’t tell, it’s a play on that awful Kelis song.

SWEET!

07.29.08

Some thoughts and findings from investigating my obsession with ‘privacy’

Posted in privacy, representation at 2:00 pm by lindabeth

I’m trying to get a better handle on what laws are in existence regarding photographic representations and personal privacy, and I have been blogging about regularly. I’m just doing some web searching now, but I found some items of interest.

For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise.

[...]

Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, “I grant this to the public domain.” Those exact words or words very much like them. Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer’s opinion we should all pray it isn’t true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions “for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet” and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.

Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn’t, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.

This bit of info applies to the violations involving the circulation of images lifted from personal webpages as I wrote about here.

  • If we thought of representing the body as a thing of art, then one’s representation would be copyrighted. What would that mean philosophically if we viewed one’s representation that way? In an authored work, there is the author’s original work, possibly based on the use of facts. Facts are not themselves copyrighted. What counts as “the facts” of the body? I don’t think one’s representation is.
  • There is a “fair use” exception to copyright, that is done case-by case and could be used to exempt artists, journalists, etc. if we did begin to think about the body as copyrighted.
  • In reading about copyright, I was reminded that “public domain” is the other of “copyright”. Makes my t-shirt that much awesomer!
  • Photographing someone publicly is not a legal right if you profit from it.

    The right of publicity gives an individual a legal claim against one who uses the individual’s name, face, image, or voice for commercial benefit without obtaining permission.

    Just think of all the photos lifted of women or taken publicly of women that get posted on blogs with ad revenue…and they’re all illegal.

  • Also, does anyone know any attorneys who specialize in defamation law? Or the public realm? I’m dying to get some activism started on this. Leave a comment or email me.

Transgressing sex and gender

Posted in body politics, gender, heteronormative, identity, phallocentrism, queer, sexual politics at 2:00 pm by lindabeth

This is an provocative post at Jezebel about Buck Angel, a popular adult film actor who is a transman who hasn’t had, and doesn’t want, genital surgery. Author Megan argues that he is a feminist hero, and I find her discussion compelling.

But this comment was the best:

I want to understand. Really, I do. Brain is just not computing “man who doesn’t want a penis”.

The idea of a person who feels they’re a man but does not feel that a male identity depends on having a penis is extremely transgressive and threatening. Our society conceives of sexuality and attraction/desire in terms of genitals. Thus desiring men=desiring penises. In terms the cultural construction of male sexual activity, penises are absolutely crucial. Many feel that technically, no “sex” takes place without penile penetration

I’ve never really outlined this on my blog, but my personal ideas about sexuality and desire are along the lines of sexuality as fluid (not a permanent identity), that there are “a thousand tiny sexes” (not just binary male/female and gay/straight/bi), that sex acts are not definitive of sexuality, and that homophobia is a big part of heteronormative masculinity…and more.

Sure, I think sexual parts are important. To a degree. But I have also had discussion with people who say they are more attracted to x people (personalities) but to y bodies. Yet in mainstream notions about sexuality (same-sex or hetero), these ought to align. But why should they? And why can’t personality or physical attraction play different roles or emphases in our intimate relationships? I would argue that they already do…but not across gender lines.

For all we talk about transgression, seeing the response to Buck Angel made me realize that perhaps only transgression within certain boundaries can really be tolerated, by hetero and LGBT communities alike. If that’s the case, how transgressive are those actions really?

So I’m really intrigued about the impossibility of comprehending why a (“real”) man wouldn’t want a penis…in our culture, what does that make him? And what does this anxiety say about our own phobias about sexuality?

07.28.08

NYT: women bloggers are sooo fashionable!

Posted in New York Times, activism, double standards, gender, news at 2:00 pm by lindabeth

Yea for The New York Times reporting on BlogHer’s annual conference.

Boo for printing it in the Fashion and Style section, as woman-related stories routinely are.

It’s pretty pathetic that I should be so thrilled that the recent news about gender-parity in math scores was actually reported by the Times in the U.S./Education section. Yes, it’s awfully nice that the Times was actually able to put a story about females in its proper place in their paper. But actually doing their job doesn’t get them any cookies.

So, dear readers, I write letters:

Dear New York Times Editors:

Overall, I appreciate the quality of your paper and it is one of my primary sources for obtaining news. However, your history of inappropriately filing news items that involve women is obscene and, quite frankly, is unacceptable, especially for a new source of your report.

The most recent example is the coverage of the 2008 BlogHer conference, printed July 27, 2008 in the Fashion and Style section. Other articles about bloggers and blogging are printed in more substantial sections like the Technology or U.S. Politics sections. I understand that your placement often relates blogging to another topic (i.e. business, the election) but the “default” category for blogging (or any topic) women is not Fashion and Style. And since the article specifically addressed women blogging as a political act, it does not belong in the Fashion and Style section.

On July 13, 2008, you also ran the joint review of books by feminist author and blogger Jessia Valenti and journalist Kathleen Parker, which adressed contemporary gender-based political issues. It belongs in the Books section, not the Fashion and Style section.

Other female bloggers have written about your story misplacement when it comes to stories about women. May 13, 2008’s story about the lack of gender diversity in the sciences (obviously) belongs in the Science section, not the Fashion and Style section. And the list goes on.

It’s great that you’re writing about gender issues, exciting studies debunking harmful gender myths, feminist writers, and women’s activism. But putting these stories in Fashion and Style, rather than where they’d be put if they were about men, is nothing short of insulting and condescending, as if issues facing and addressed by women are somehow frivolous and irrelevent to society as a whole.

Issues and news related to women do not by default belong in the Fashion and Style section of your paper. Fashion and Style is not inherently a “female” topic and gender analyses are not periperal, light, fluffy, innocent, and inconsequential. Do not insult us and degrade us by treating women who are active in politics, do science, are participating in technology, and the like, as mere “style.”

Sincerely,

LindaBeth

author, don’t ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?

And I encourage you all to do the same. No copyrights on my letter, either: steal away!

executive-editor@nytimes.com

managing-editor@nytimes.com

My blog is “NC-17″…for what?!

Posted in misc at 12:00 pm by lindabeth

After reading this post on The Feminist Underground, I had to see what my blog rated.

So I know this is goofy and automatically generating, but how it works still says a lot.

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

This rating was determined based on the presence of the following words:

sex (8x)rape (4x)breast (3x)bitch (2x)libido (1x)

Seriously?  Not by my occasional use of the word “fuck” or writing about porn?

Geez, at least “lesbian” or “queer” didn’t contribute to it’s rating like it does in real life.

links for 2008-07-28

Posted in recommended reading at 6:31 am by lindabeth

07.27.08

links for 2008-07-27

Posted in recommended reading at 6:31 am by lindabeth

07.26.08

links for 2008-07-26

Posted in recommended reading at 6:31 am by lindabeth

07.25.08

I kissed a girl…but don’t worry, I’m not gay

Posted in heteronormative, lesbian, music, queer, representation, sexual politics at 12:00 pm by lindabeth

Ever since I heard Katy Perry’s song, I’ve been critical and annoyed. I intended to write about it but so many others have already done so, and their views pretty much align with mine, so I thought I’d make a few comments and link to other awesome posts critiquing the song.

I, like many others, see this song as a representation of the casual, non-threatening, “girl-on-girl” performative play that dominates the representations of women’s same-sex attraction or desire. It plays on the exact stereotypes about bi or same-sex female desire that I discussed in my recent post about Tequila’s Shot at Love. The song’s message is that after a little alcohol, I can make out with another female; I may have liked it for a woman’s softness, scent, and feel, but don’t worry, I don’t plan on dating one. Kissing a girl is something “fun” to do, not anything serious that my boyfriend would be worried about–it’s all fun and games and something to do when you’re drunk at the bar.

On many blogs people ask if this is a remake of Jill Sobule’s song from the 90’s, that was very transgressive at the time. It’s not–it’s nowhere near close. Consider:

Sobule:

I kissed a girl, won’t change the world
But I’m so glad I kissed a girl

And we laughed at the world
They can have their diamonds
And we’ll have our pearls
I kissed a girl

For the first time
I kissed a girl
And I may do it again

Perry:

Us girls we are so magical
Soft skin, red lips, so kissable
Hard to resist so touchable
Too good to deny it
Ain’t no big deal, it’s innocent

I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chapstick
I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don’t mind it
It felt so wrong
It felt so right
Don’t mean I’m in love tonight

I’m pretty frustrated that this song is so popular. Its message is not at all daring, and really isn’t at all queer-positive, but instead actually reinforces the status quo vis-a-vis female sexuality (performing as lesbian for male desire, that it’s “hot” for women to casually play around with chicks, but don’t worry, they’ll always come back for a Man), and it is actually a dangerous co-opting and erasure of queer female sexuality.

I was even more annoyed that this song was played at Saturday’s Gay Pride celebration here in Rochester, NY. One interesting thing: almost all the people I saw singing along were…men.

Other Smart posts about this song:

Fatemeh @ Feministe

landslide1 @ feministing community

Cortney @ Feminism/Popular Culture

Laura @ The F Word

…7/29: I just stumbled on this one I had bookmarked a while ago from show me your wits!

links for 2008-07-25

Posted in recommended reading at 6:31 am by lindabeth

Random Acts of Feminism: belated and borrowed July edition

Posted in Random Acts of Feminism at 3:36 am by lindabeth

I know I never did a Random Act of Feminism for July.  Since it was summer, I thought I could slide by with combining July and August’s Random Act.  That was my plan until I saw this post on Oh, so you’re a FEMINIST? that had some excellent ideas about being an “active” feminist.  So I will borrow her ideas for July’s Random Act of Feminism–take one and try it our!  Feel free to post any “results” here:

  • Call people out for what they say, explain that their words may be hurtful and/or oppressive
  • Write letters
  • Recognize your white/cis/thin/able bodied/hetero/male/etc privilege and explain it to others
  • Support legislation that you believe in
  • Don’t shop at stores with unethical practices (like failing to promote minorities or not allowing workers to unionize… coughwalmartcough…)
  • Stop engaging in “fat talk” or other talk that cuts you (or others) down
  • Take part in everyday life with a critical/feminist lens
  • Educate yourself and others
  • Set an example
  • Don’t laugh at racist/homophobic/sexist/etc jokes
  • Sign petitions for causes you believe in
  • Engage other people in conversations about the importance of the women’s movement
  • Give money to causes you support
  • Start a feminist book club
  • Think before you speak (don’t use oppressive language like “that quiz raped me!” or “that is SO gay” or even “you guys”)
  • Promote and celebrate diversity
  • Support feminist arts
  • Think outside the US to women in other countries
  • Support candidates that promote affordable and accessible birth control

07.24.08

Recent feminist carnivals to check out

Posted in Carnival of Feminists, Carnivals, recommended reading at 10:20 am by lindabeth

The 60th Carnival of Feminists is up at Unmana’s Words.

The 6th Feminist Carnival of Sexual Autonomy and Freedom is up at Kaleidoglide. (blog photo possibly NSFW)

The 51st Carnival Against Sexual Violence is up at abyss2hope.

The 16th Carnival of Radical Feminists is up at Gorgon Poisons.

Quick Hit: Check out Halthor Legacy!

Posted in feminism, film, gender, mass media, recommended reading, representation at 10:15 am by lindabeth

I recently found this blog through another blog, I can’t event remember which, but it’s really great!

Hathor isn’t a review site. Nor is it a fan site. It was started in 2005 by Betacandy to demonstrate that there are people who don’t like how women and gender roles are presented in movies and TV because she was sick of hearing from film execs that the audience only wants white men in lead roles.

Very cool! And check out these posts especially:

Why discriminate if it doesn’t profit?

The question this brings to mind is: why would they discriminate against a group when there’s more profit to be made by doing the right thing? That’s a good question, and one that deserves an answer.

Some answers provided: ego and laziness.

Why film schools teach screenwriters not to pass the Bechdel test

To pass it your movie must have the following:

1) there are at least two named female characters, who

2) talk to each other about

3) something other than a man.

So simple, and yet as you go through all your favorite movies (and most of your favorite TV shows, though there’s a little more variety in TV), you find very few movies pass this test.

07.23.08

Guest post: A feminist gamer looks at gender issues in the gaming industry

Posted in entertainment, gaming, gender, gender stereotypes, guest posts, objectification at 12:00 pm by lindabeth

I have asked Cassandra from No Little Lolita to do some occasional guest blogging about gender and gaming. It is an area I’m very interested in, but not being a gamer myself, can’t give it the treatment it deserves. So I’ve asked Cassandra to fill in that gap here at Don’t you wish your girlfriend was smart like me? Please engage her ideas in the comments with respect.

-lindabeth

Hi, my name is Cassandra – I post on No Little Lolita, a blog about popular culture, teenage years and feminism, gaming, and the pursuits and hobbies of a young Canadian feminist. I’m guestblogging to talk a little about the huge problems in the gaming industry, and why they affect women – even those who aren’t gamers.

We’ve recently entered a ‘new generation’ of gaming, and it’s only show how persuasive the siren song of gaming is. The Nintendo Wii broke records when it was launched – it was the first console that appealed to people beyond gamers, and the inventive remote with add-ons seemed more welcoming and approachable than the controllers of their competitors – the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360. In contrast, the Xbox 360 and the PS3 seem to be in a market of their own – both of them are powerhouses that appeal to the ‘hardcore’ gamer and boast libraries of games that’ll last you tens upon tens of hours full of deep storylines and complex gameplay.

With this new interactive art form taking center stage, it would be great if we could shed the tired tropes and disgusting stereotypes that show up constantly in movies and on TV. Gaming is a medium that boasts large amounts of interactivity and choice – wouldn’t it be great if the writing was excellent without leaning on racist or sexist stereotypes, the action was tight without being pandering or offensive, and the characters were engrossing and sympathetic and yet realistic and enjoyable to play?

Unfortunately, it seems that most studios either don’t have the capacity or the willpower to create games that fulfill these expectations. Most games have either a shallow story, with the main objective being ‘blow this up’, or rely on stereotypes and tropes when they bother to develop the characters or the storyline at all. Female characters are reduced to simpering, slender sexpots relying on the main character while being just feisty enough to rile him up more often than not – that is, when they even exist. Even when a female is the main character of a game, she is usually designed to be attractive, available and open to possible advances – she’s tough, but not so tough that your average gamer would be threatened! The main character of a game is more often than not white, male, and straight. Often he’s taking down terrorists or criminals or some unsavory group while some female sighs over his hunkiness, and his POC sidekick serves as comic relief. The art form, so far, is heteronormative, overwhelmingly white, and sexist.

The gaming market has produced some feminist-friendly games for sure – the Mario games are a safe bet, the Metal Gear Solid games have a large cast with both genders, and even though the games are set around the American – Russian – Chinese conflict, the third game had a black support member who helped the protagonist on his solo mission talk about his experiences facing racism from the private corporations in America in the 60s; not something you would hear discussed in most media forms of any sort. But for the large part, games are like a gigantic soggy sandwich: you watch the preparation as you starve and drool, you rationalize “It’s still good! It’s still good!” even after the waitress dumps a glass of water over it, but you give up after having a few bites and mourn over what could have been.

There has to be reasons for this: it’s not like a game is somehow functionally incapable of being feminist. Let’s examine some of the prominent reasons as to why we have these complaints: Read the rest of this entry »

All this gas talk reeks of classism

Posted in economics, gas crisis, news, privilege at 10:15 am by lindabeth

You know, I’m really starting to get sick of all the “news” stories about rising gas prices and how that’s affecting family summer vacations. Several times a week I hear, read, or see some sort of report about how people are “coping” with having to cancel vacations and instead are creating their travel experience at home (i.e. having a luau in your backyard because you can’t afford to go to Hawaii). There’s even a cute name for them: Stay-cations.

This is by and large the hot gas-related story of the summer. The gist of the story? Woe is me, gas is so expensive that we can’t afford to take our family vacation, we’re sooo stressed out over it, we’re handling this stressful and tragic situation the best we can by having a pretend glamorous vacation at home.

Ahem, privilege, anyone? Honestly, I really don’t feel all that bad for the families who are so economically privileged that they can actually afford to take off of work (or are privileged enough to have paid vacation time) and can go on a family vacation. Why should I?

I’d say I was solid lower-middle to middle class growing up. We went on a vacation every year: a week at my grandparents’ condo in the Southern Tier of New York, less than 3 hours from home. Why? Because it was free. A few summers we didn’t go; those years we visited my aunts, uncles, and cousins in New England. Besides the travel costs of my parents’ station wagon? Also, for the most part, free.

We never went on what you might call a family vacation. And up until now, I didn’t realize that going on some wonderful elaborate trip was some sort of innate American right such that we ought to spend valuable news time lamenting that middle class families this year can’t afford to drive halfway across the country and stay in a resort for a week. Heaven forbid for a summer you actually spend that week doing activities–gasp!–in your own general region. Or that you might now have to vacation–shock!–every other summer. Or, that you–horror!–spend time socializing with friends and neighbors. In an age where we hardly know our neighbors, and where most people are unfamiliar with the gems and resources in their own town, is it really all that huge a loss that the privileged Americans have a Staycation?

Why are middle and upper-middle class families and their precious Disney vacations the face of the rising cost of gasoline and not the working class families who lived month to month as it was before the exponential price increases…who maybe have to skimp on food or medical services, and for whom a Myrtle Beach trip isn’t even on their radar? Instead of moping about being stuck at home, maybe some of these families should spend part of their summer volunteering for charities who help those who will only ever hear about DisneyWorld in the stories told by other more fortunate kids.

07.22.08

I write more imaginary letters

Posted in beauty culture, gender, hot lists, letters, representation, sexy at 12:00 pm by lindabeth

Dear Maxim, Playboy, FHM, Stuff, any other female-objectifying, list-making website or mag, that either masquerades as “entertainment news” or [hetero, natch] “men’s interest”:

This is what a “hot 100″ [sic] list looks like. As a ‘women we love’ list. And ‘in no particular order.’ And in relevant and humanizing apparel.

This is what it looks like to appreciate smart, talented, beautiful, and sexy women for real.

Sincerely,

Women

links for 2008-07-22

Posted in recommended reading at 6:32 am by lindabeth

07.21.08

Quick hit: recommended article on sport, sexuality and gender

Posted in Sexuality Blogs and Resources, body politics, queer, recommended reading, sports at 12:00 pm by lindabeth

Gender and sport is one of my recent key interests lately (I think this happened after the realization that sport is really about the body, and as you know, I’m all about theorizing male and female bodies!)…so check out “Patricia Nell Warren: LGBT Sports Movement Part One of Two,” and article from the Women’s Sport Foundation, via a pretty cool blog I recently found, Rethinking Basketball, providing interesting commentary on the WNBA. Some excerpts:

A lot of the homophobia directed at lesbians comes from an entrenched belief that strenuous sport will “masculinize” women. I will never forget running in the 1969 Boston Marathon, while I was still in the closet, and seeing that some of the spectators were screaming at me, “Dyke! Dyke!” I wondered why those idiots would assume I was a lesbian when they knew nothing about me — after all, I had kept my sexual orientation a deep dark secret. Then I realized that my mere presence out there on the road, in a sport reserved for men, meant that these people saw me as “masculinized”…and “masculine” is a code word for lesbian.

[...] For gay and bi men, homophobia comes from the opposite direction: the illogical and irrational belief that being gay “feminizes” you and makes you unfit for sports, especially for rough physical sports like football and ice hockey. The rhetoric of ridicule that many male coaches and athletes use — for instance, “you throw a ball like a girl” — is aimed at pushing a man to establish his heterosexuality by extreme efforts not to look “feminine.” So, for many men, the sudden discovery that a rugged, masculine teammate of theirs is gay is a horrible shock.

[...] The more I think about sports and study their history, the more I realize that homophobia is as much about gender as it is about sexual orientation. A given sport or sports body can make an attempt to codify a cultural definition of “gender,” all the way from which events are permitted to women to stipulations on what styles of clothing men and women must wear during competition, as they do in figure skating and rodeo.

Read the whole thing here.

Next page