Before I delve into the boundaries between the two, I will first briefly define them:
Liberation theology centralizes around oppressed people freeing themselves. Scripture passages that highlight liberation of the poor and marginalized bolster this movement, namely the story of Jesus Christ as told in the gospels. Oscar Romero, James H. Cone, and Diana L. Hayes are among the most prominent names in liberation theology. South American and Black religious communities are the strongest proponents of liberation theology, interweaving womanism (black women prioritizing the equality of black women among both race and gender lines) and mujeristas (Latinas working to liberate both the poor and oppressed in their culture, as well as their culture overall against colonial influences).
Prosperity theology prioritizes the embracing of God-given gifts, namely material gifts. The idea is that God has given the faithful these gifts, and it would be ungrateful to give away those gifts - charity, according to prosperity theology, is against God's will. There are communities, though, who do emphasize giving in order to receive, but the giving is almost exclusively to leaders who are already wealthy. Joel Osteen is the most famous proponent, and he is in good company with Southern charismatic churches and other televangelists. Almost all of these are white, with almost no references to any of the gospels.
I am by no means the first person to connect the Trump administration and its supporters to prosperity theology (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). "Make America Great Again" has never included greatness for anyone who benefits from liberation theology - the declaration of making Mexico pay for a wall dividing the nation from the United States makes this clear, among many other points.
Although I may prioritize the liberation of oppressed people, especially in the face of the oncoming administration, it is not about me. After all, it is because of my platform as an able-bodied white person that I can put forward liberation theology with reasonable expectation of being received by other able-boded white people. It is up to me to use the benefits I systemically receive from prosperity theologians, now that they are coming into their greatest political power yet, to work towards this liberation while also understanding that it is from these systems, including my role in them, that oppressed people must be liberated. It is up to me to keep in mind these intersections while also understanding that I, no matter how hard I work, am not separate from the ivory tower that is prosperity theology.
Diana L. Hayes described it better than I could. In her connection between womanism and liberation theology, she said that it would be logically inconsistent for her to work with feminists (see: white) because it is from us (see: white) that she must be liberated.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Monday, January 16, 2017
Friday, December 27, 2013
More Thoughts on Catholicism's Matriarchy
This podcast is a fascinating presentation on "Mary as Icon and the Feminine Genius." Although I don't necessarily agree with all of it, it's vital for conversation on the Feminine in Catholicism to continue. I've been working on this idea for a long time that the Catholic community is more matriarchal than most people anticipate: all the Marian shrines in yards, decals on cars, prayer cards, bedside statues, pendants, flowers, candles and rosaries evidence a feminine prominence. Future archaeologists will likely look back on Catholics and determine their practice as matriarchal, based solely on these common items.
Mary, in this podcast, is referred to as both the Tabernacle (Even the picture of the Tabernacle in the image above, which is referenced in the podcast, is vaginal) and as the Mother of the New Covenant. It's very important to put words to these concepts, which are often vaguely accepted in the background without much thought. Not only do these ideas about Mary reinforce Catholicism's connections with Pagan folklore and spirituality, but also empower women in the Church more than the patriarchal hierarchy has for centuries. As women are the most active laypeople, at least in America, a communal understanding of being more than fundraisers, Sunday School teachers and secretaries (read: assistants) could be a valuable foothold in the Catholic community.
Also, I just had no idea how profound Eastern Orthodox iconography is. Here I just thought it was a way of saying "look at all our money!"
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Feminine Feminism
Some prominent foci of the current "4th Wave feminism*" are street harassment, intersectionality (though not often effective), and reclaiming femininity. Crafts & domestic projects have become incredibly popular as both personal and feminist statements recently, primarily among privileged (read: predominantly white) feminists. This isn't that different from the DIY movement of the early 90's, save that we have the internet now and crafts today are typically much more feminine than then. I suggest that Pinterest is the primary subcultural point.
A few months ago, an argument passed around tumblr debating that the popularity of Pinterest among women evidenced a move back toward domestic femininity...but that it isn't a bad or regressive thing. Femininity has long been a widespread cultural scapegoat: a woman must be feminine in order to have value, though femininity is weak + devalued in patriarchy. Reclaiming crafts, domesticity, and general prettiness is a way young, privileged women are putting power into femininity. In the 1950's, femininity was often displayed in order to attract & keep a mate (see: The Feminine Mystique, The Erotic Silence of the American Housewife, Pink Think, etc.); that's unheard of now: today's feminine feminists do it for ourselves.
I'm waiting for more people to say that the empowering of domesticity is connected to the current feminist focus of street harassment. Catcalls & stalking often push women back into our homes just for the safety, and more dialogue among women is engendered therein. Domestic crafts are a way of reclaiming the very femininity street harassers prey upon, while also connecting to other women. Pinterest (and tumblr, etsy) has become the women's bookstore of the 2010's.
Of course there are problems within this feminist movement, largely relating to race (as always). Crafts require time and money and a safe place, and the websites of exchange display mostly white able-bodied people, white aesthetics, English at around a 6th grade reading level. WOC designers & businesses are often celebrated by tumblrs that focus on race, rarely by tumblrs that focus on gender/sex (and are therefore white tumblrs). Transphobia isn't unusual either, "I didn't mean it that way, therefore it's not transphobic." I'd like to say that intersectionality is improving now, but I am able-bodied & white and it's not my place to make such judgements.
Beginning about 7 years ago, much mainstream media noted that domestic femininity was becoming more common among [white, privileged, cisgender] women. Many such journalists speculated that feminism was ending, women were going home in order to become housewives, etc. They were partly correct, but they couldn't see femininity as something powerful willingly chosen by strong individuals.
* I'm beginning to realize that the use of Waves as categorizing islands of angry women, as opposed to a point of generational reference in a larger context, is a divisive tool used primarily by mainstream media.
A few months ago, an argument passed around tumblr debating that the popularity of Pinterest among women evidenced a move back toward domestic femininity...but that it isn't a bad or regressive thing. Femininity has long been a widespread cultural scapegoat: a woman must be feminine in order to have value, though femininity is weak + devalued in patriarchy. Reclaiming crafts, domesticity, and general prettiness is a way young, privileged women are putting power into femininity. In the 1950's, femininity was often displayed in order to attract & keep a mate (see: The Feminine Mystique, The Erotic Silence of the American Housewife, Pink Think, etc.); that's unheard of now: today's feminine feminists do it for ourselves.
I'm waiting for more people to say that the empowering of domesticity is connected to the current feminist focus of street harassment. Catcalls & stalking often push women back into our homes just for the safety, and more dialogue among women is engendered therein. Domestic crafts are a way of reclaiming the very femininity street harassers prey upon, while also connecting to other women. Pinterest (and tumblr, etsy) has become the women's bookstore of the 2010's.
Of course there are problems within this feminist movement, largely relating to race (as always). Crafts require time and money and a safe place, and the websites of exchange display mostly white able-bodied people, white aesthetics, English at around a 6th grade reading level. WOC designers & businesses are often celebrated by tumblrs that focus on race, rarely by tumblrs that focus on gender/sex (and are therefore white tumblrs). Transphobia isn't unusual either, "I didn't mean it that way, therefore it's not transphobic." I'd like to say that intersectionality is improving now, but I am able-bodied & white and it's not my place to make such judgements.
Beginning about 7 years ago, much mainstream media noted that domestic femininity was becoming more common among [white, privileged, cisgender] women. Many such journalists speculated that feminism was ending, women were going home in order to become housewives, etc. They were partly correct, but they couldn't see femininity as something powerful willingly chosen by strong individuals.
* I'm beginning to realize that the use of Waves as categorizing islands of angry women, as opposed to a point of generational reference in a larger context, is a divisive tool used primarily by mainstream media.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
gurl.com
In the late 90's, gurl.com was an internet haven. Modeled after riot grrrl zines with strong emphasis on DIY and self-love, it was a gritty alternative to other teen girl sites. Celebrities were rarely mentioned and diets were considered personal decisions based on medical advice. Political awareness was prioritized over designer labels, but nothing was more important than supporting one another through self-care and exploration. The discussion forums were remarkable with intelligent conversation.
Miserable in my unstable environment and barely grasping feminism, I adored gurl.com. At 13 I'd been put on Prozac against my will and it only made things spiral even further; my research and discussion on gurl.com convinced me to fake-swallow the pill - the advisers and peers on there listened to me more than my mother and her shrink!! On top of all that, talking to others in my position made me realize I wasn't so alone: other girls had depression, preferred music from the 60's, weren't allowed outside of their houses, had crushes on girls, admired goth kids just for dressing goth, experimented with religion, etc. Although a few years went by before I got into riot grrrl music and feminist comics and zines, gurl.com at least provided me with the awareness that such things existed.
There were fantastic by-girls-for-girls comics. They illustrated what other teen girl media either ignored or poorly parodied: school cliques, the destructive and addictive inner voice of self-doubt, being torn between passion over something nerdy and wanting popularity, eating disorders and anti-depressants. One comic that I remember very vividly was about an outcast girl who glamorized her depression, convincing herself that she was really an outcast because of her cynicism rather than because of her shyness and extremely neglectful parents. Until seeing that, I'd had no idea that's what I'd been doing.
gurl.com also released this book, which I adored but wasn't allowed to buy. At least this is still available for teen girls today.
The site has changed a LOT. About 12 years ago, it began to actively compete with other teen girl sites with the strategy of emulating them. Having switched from desperate preteen to counseling young adult, I was very disappointed in the shift. User contribution had less influence and, besides, I was socializing more in real life finally. Today, gurl.com is closer to its original mission with realistic dating advice, comics, sex-positive and factual sex ed, and self-love. However, celebrity gossip and trendy fashion still hold sway. Nevertheless, gurl.com was very helpful for awkward girls in the late 90's and early 00's and I hope it can still do the same today.
Miserable in my unstable environment and barely grasping feminism, I adored gurl.com. At 13 I'd been put on Prozac against my will and it only made things spiral even further; my research and discussion on gurl.com convinced me to fake-swallow the pill - the advisers and peers on there listened to me more than my mother and her shrink!! On top of all that, talking to others in my position made me realize I wasn't so alone: other girls had depression, preferred music from the 60's, weren't allowed outside of their houses, had crushes on girls, admired goth kids just for dressing goth, experimented with religion, etc. Although a few years went by before I got into riot grrrl music and feminist comics and zines, gurl.com at least provided me with the awareness that such things existed.
There were fantastic by-girls-for-girls comics. They illustrated what other teen girl media either ignored or poorly parodied: school cliques, the destructive and addictive inner voice of self-doubt, being torn between passion over something nerdy and wanting popularity, eating disorders and anti-depressants. One comic that I remember very vividly was about an outcast girl who glamorized her depression, convincing herself that she was really an outcast because of her cynicism rather than because of her shyness and extremely neglectful parents. Until seeing that, I'd had no idea that's what I'd been doing.
gurl.com also released this book, which I adored but wasn't allowed to buy. At least this is still available for teen girls today.
The site has changed a LOT. About 12 years ago, it began to actively compete with other teen girl sites with the strategy of emulating them. Having switched from desperate preteen to counseling young adult, I was very disappointed in the shift. User contribution had less influence and, besides, I was socializing more in real life finally. Today, gurl.com is closer to its original mission with realistic dating advice, comics, sex-positive and factual sex ed, and self-love. However, celebrity gossip and trendy fashion still hold sway. Nevertheless, gurl.com was very helpful for awkward girls in the late 90's and early 00's and I hope it can still do the same today.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Sexual Objectification EDITED
I admit that I was frustrated and flustered when I wrote the original
Sexual Objectification blog entry, therefore it isn't well written.
Here is the edited version, beginning with some definitions:
sexualization: prioritising the sex, sexuality and sexiness of a person.
sexual objectification: treating a person as a sexual object.
feminism: the belief that people of all genders and sexes should have equal opportunity and choice.
the women's movement: the history of feminism, particularly in America in the 1960's/'70's
http://www.livescience.com/21609-self-sexualization-young-girls.html
A friend posted this on her facebook. She and her peers are religious, involved mothers and they all commented about how relieved they are that being religious, involved mothers combats early sexual objectification.
I pointed out that I was under the impression as a child that I would marry by 16. My mother and the mothers who volunteered at my Catholic school (which, I discovered much later on, was an extremist parish) all emphasized that little girls should prepare for marriage constantly until they're at the altar - sexual objectification was encouraged, though in manners less obvious than skimpy clothing. Religious, involved mothers can do more damage than good - another lady commented about how her mother actually pushed her in the opposite direction and hated sexuality.
Nobody in this discussion on the article replied to my point, but eventually one of them commented "It's as though the women's movement created more objectification than less of it."
Because of the correlation between the women's movement and shifts in advertising, this can appear as a causation. In the years leading up to the women's movement, sexual objectification in advertising was minimal - women still appeared in advertising as service objects, only fully clothed. The levels of sexual objectification, particularly of women, in mainstream advertising are at a disturbing high today in American culture.
However, women were more sexually objectified, to the point of being considered property of father/husband before the women's movement. Higher education was discouraged for a woman because it made her a less serene servant - and nobody saw the problem in proclaiming this conundrum bluntly. Women themselves chose to abandon education in order to objectify themselves.
So I replied to this lady " the women's movement made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife...so no." What more obvious example is there that the women's movement gave women human status?
She replied "that's a law, this article is about culture."
.....WHAT?!?!?!? Don't most laws come about through cultural shifts?!?!? The women's movement is incomplete, it isn't finished. It gave women choices, that's what feminism is. However, because woman-as-sex-objects are still very highly valued in our culture - as evidenced by advertising - many women make the ill-informed choice to objectify themselves. I argue that a choice made without awareness of other options isn't an autonomous decision at all, which is the difference between sexualization and sexual objectification. If you want me to elaborate on how I know these women's decision-making, please ask.
Feminism is still working to elevate women's minds to equal societal value. I hate to say it, but the women who choose to be sex objects, as opposed to sexual human beings, are perhaps the biggest obstacle to feminism.
And yes, I'm aware that my privileges are showing...I'm working on it.
sexualization: prioritising the sex, sexuality and sexiness of a person.
sexual objectification: treating a person as a sexual object.
feminism: the belief that people of all genders and sexes should have equal opportunity and choice.
the women's movement: the history of feminism, particularly in America in the 1960's/'70's
http://www.livescience.com/21609-self-sexualization-young-girls.html
A friend posted this on her facebook. She and her peers are religious, involved mothers and they all commented about how relieved they are that being religious, involved mothers combats early sexual objectification.
I pointed out that I was under the impression as a child that I would marry by 16. My mother and the mothers who volunteered at my Catholic school (which, I discovered much later on, was an extremist parish) all emphasized that little girls should prepare for marriage constantly until they're at the altar - sexual objectification was encouraged, though in manners less obvious than skimpy clothing. Religious, involved mothers can do more damage than good - another lady commented about how her mother actually pushed her in the opposite direction and hated sexuality.
Nobody in this discussion on the article replied to my point, but eventually one of them commented "It's as though the women's movement created more objectification than less of it."
Because of the correlation between the women's movement and shifts in advertising, this can appear as a causation. In the years leading up to the women's movement, sexual objectification in advertising was minimal - women still appeared in advertising as service objects, only fully clothed. The levels of sexual objectification, particularly of women, in mainstream advertising are at a disturbing high today in American culture.
However, women were more sexually objectified, to the point of being considered property of father/husband before the women's movement. Higher education was discouraged for a woman because it made her a less serene servant - and nobody saw the problem in proclaiming this conundrum bluntly. Women themselves chose to abandon education in order to objectify themselves.
So I replied to this lady " the women's movement made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife...so no." What more obvious example is there that the women's movement gave women human status?
She replied "that's a law, this article is about culture."
.....WHAT?!?!?!? Don't most laws come about through cultural shifts?!?!? The women's movement is incomplete, it isn't finished. It gave women choices, that's what feminism is. However, because woman-as-sex-objects are still very highly valued in our culture - as evidenced by advertising - many women make the ill-informed choice to objectify themselves. I argue that a choice made without awareness of other options isn't an autonomous decision at all, which is the difference between sexualization and sexual objectification. If you want me to elaborate on how I know these women's decision-making, please ask.
Feminism is still working to elevate women's minds to equal societal value. I hate to say it, but the women who choose to be sex objects, as opposed to sexual human beings, are perhaps the biggest obstacle to feminism.
And yes, I'm aware that my privileges are showing...I'm working on it.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Sexual Objectification
http://www.livescience.com/21609-self-sexualization-young-girls.html
A friend posted this on her facebook. She and her peers are religious, involved mothers and they all commented about how relieved they are that being religious, involved mothers combats early sexualization.
I pointed out that I was under the impression as a child that I would marry by 16. My mother and the mothers who volunteered at my Catholic school (which, I discovered much later on, was an extremist parish) all emphasized that little girls should prepare for marriage constantly until they're at the altar - sexualization was encouraged, though in manners less obvious than skimpy clothing. Religious, involved mothers can do more damage than good - another lady commented about how her mother actually pushed her in the opposite direction and hated sexuality.
Nobody in this discussion on the article replied to my point, but eventually one of them commented "It's as though the women's movement created more objectification than less of it."
At first glance, that line of thinking isn't illogical. Magazines, commercials, billboards, etc. show highly sexualized women, which didn't exist before the women's movement. Women in advertising back then were still objectified and portrayed as stupid, only they were fully clothed.
However, women in general were more objectified, to the point of being considered property of father/husband. Higher education was discouraged for women because it made her a less serene servant - and nobody saw the problem in proclaiming this conundrum bluntly. Women themselves chose to abandon education in order to objectify themselves.
So I replied to this lady " the women's movement made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife...so no." What more obvious example is there that the women's movement gave women human status?
She replied "that's a law, this article is about culture."
......WHAT?!?!?!? Don't laws come about through cultural shifts??!?
The women's movement is incomplete, it isn't finished. It gave women choices, that's what feminism is. Because women are still valued most highly as sex objects, many women still CHOOSE to fulfill that. Feminism is still working to elevate women's minds to equal societal value. I hate to say it, but the women who choose to be sex objects are perhaps the biggest obstacle to feminism.
A friend posted this on her facebook. She and her peers are religious, involved mothers and they all commented about how relieved they are that being religious, involved mothers combats early sexualization.
I pointed out that I was under the impression as a child that I would marry by 16. My mother and the mothers who volunteered at my Catholic school (which, I discovered much later on, was an extremist parish) all emphasized that little girls should prepare for marriage constantly until they're at the altar - sexualization was encouraged, though in manners less obvious than skimpy clothing. Religious, involved mothers can do more damage than good - another lady commented about how her mother actually pushed her in the opposite direction and hated sexuality.
Nobody in this discussion on the article replied to my point, but eventually one of them commented "It's as though the women's movement created more objectification than less of it."
At first glance, that line of thinking isn't illogical. Magazines, commercials, billboards, etc. show highly sexualized women, which didn't exist before the women's movement. Women in advertising back then were still objectified and portrayed as stupid, only they were fully clothed.
However, women in general were more objectified, to the point of being considered property of father/husband. Higher education was discouraged for women because it made her a less serene servant - and nobody saw the problem in proclaiming this conundrum bluntly. Women themselves chose to abandon education in order to objectify themselves.
So I replied to this lady " the women's movement made it illegal for a husband to rape his wife...so no." What more obvious example is there that the women's movement gave women human status?
She replied "that's a law, this article is about culture."
......WHAT?!?!?!? Don't laws come about through cultural shifts??!?
The women's movement is incomplete, it isn't finished. It gave women choices, that's what feminism is. Because women are still valued most highly as sex objects, many women still CHOOSE to fulfill that. Feminism is still working to elevate women's minds to equal societal value. I hate to say it, but the women who choose to be sex objects are perhaps the biggest obstacle to feminism.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Women's Politics...again...???
I recently watched the Penn & Teller's Bullshit episodes about abstinence, teen sex and family values. They pointed out something poignant about the conservatives involved in these topics: they're not accustomed to having people disagree with them. There are, in fact, subgroups in this country that are so cloistered that any foreign lifestyle is completely unknown. The higher-ups who oppose abortion, for example, may very well be unfamiliar with anyone who's open about a beneficial abortion (or who's life was made unbearable by not being able to get one).
And then this happened: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/07/wisconsin-s-repeal-of-equal-pay-rights-adds-to-battles-for-women.html
Scott Walker signed bills that:
- Block insurance companies from covering abortion
- Remove contraception from the sex education curriculum
- Overrule the objections of the Wisconsin Medical Association to interfere with doctors on counseling women on abortion
- Eliminate the states key protection for women trying to get equal pay for equal work.
These are symptoms of a large national shift which had most visibly arisen when the House nearly removed government funding from Planned Parenthood (which gave me a free pap smear and IUD thankyouverymuch).
Don't get me wrong, Scott Walker is a fucking idiot. No argument there. But I wonder if other politicians have really just been sheltered from people who benefit from Planned Parenthood, from comprehensive sex ed, from access to legal and healthy abortions (and who talk openly about it), etc. Where are the loud feminists? Who's upfront and vocal about what our lives need when a "traditional marriage" isn't an option or even wanted? Ask a few people who don't relate to feminism to name five things Hillary Clinton supports, if they know who Jessica Valenti is, why so many Women of Color refused the SlutWalk, etc.
And then this happened: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/07/wisconsin-s-repeal-of-equal-pay-rights-adds-to-battles-for-women.html
Scott Walker signed bills that:
- Block insurance companies from covering abortion
- Remove contraception from the sex education curriculum
- Overrule the objections of the Wisconsin Medical Association to interfere with doctors on counseling women on abortion
- Eliminate the states key protection for women trying to get equal pay for equal work.
These are symptoms of a large national shift which had most visibly arisen when the House nearly removed government funding from Planned Parenthood (which gave me a free pap smear and IUD thankyouverymuch).
Don't get me wrong, Scott Walker is a fucking idiot. No argument there. But I wonder if other politicians have really just been sheltered from people who benefit from Planned Parenthood, from comprehensive sex ed, from access to legal and healthy abortions (and who talk openly about it), etc. Where are the loud feminists? Who's upfront and vocal about what our lives need when a "traditional marriage" isn't an option or even wanted? Ask a few people who don't relate to feminism to name five things Hillary Clinton supports, if they know who Jessica Valenti is, why so many Women of Color refused the SlutWalk, etc.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
The Vagina Monologues
The V Day Campaign, the season in which The Vagina Monologues performs, is upon us again. Formed 14 years ago and still going strong, The Vagina Monologues (the play, the book, the movement) balances validating activism, unity, good humor, and welcoming. Through story-telling, awareness is awakened: the personal is still political.
I first read The Vagina Monologues in spring '04, right around the time I graduated high school. Until reading it, I thought that I was malformed and diseased - too mortified and ashamed to talk to anyone about it. The controversy around The Vagina Monologues, years after it began, had sparked my interest in my budding feminism. Oddly enough, I was working as a receptionist in a Catholic parish office when I first read it! (I also read Harry Potter & The Order Of The Phoenix at that job!) Before reading Eve Ensler's magnum opus (opa?), I was honestly not aware that anything between my knees and my neck existed. My physical self-awareness was sparked by The Vagina Monologues, and by no means am I alone in that.
From there came The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, CUNT by Inga Muscio, The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, flannel menstrual pads, menstrual sponges, menstrual cups, vibrators, sex positivity, trans advocacy, and everything I have going on today.
Spring '09 was the first time I actually saw The Vagina Monologues play, which I co-assistant managed at my internship at The Milwaukee Gay Arts Center. My all-women college, Alverno, also hosted a student-run performance as well - it was ridiculously difficult to get a performance approved there!! You'd think that an all-women college would have been among the first places to advocate anything that supports women's awareness, but they were so afraid of being pegged as a "lesbian school".
Before seeing the play, The Vagina Monologues really felt like a private, personal, secret thing of my own. It was MY experience, shared with others who didn't seem real. Sitting in FOUR sold-out shows, though, opened up the doors to this community. Matrons, young girls, transwomen, lesbians, sex workers, rape survivors, virgins, allies - all these people seeking validation and finding community. It was a powerful thing, which made The Vagina Monologues more real as a social force powered by shared experience.
I first read The Vagina Monologues in spring '04, right around the time I graduated high school. Until reading it, I thought that I was malformed and diseased - too mortified and ashamed to talk to anyone about it. The controversy around The Vagina Monologues, years after it began, had sparked my interest in my budding feminism. Oddly enough, I was working as a receptionist in a Catholic parish office when I first read it! (I also read Harry Potter & The Order Of The Phoenix at that job!) Before reading Eve Ensler's magnum opus (opa?), I was honestly not aware that anything between my knees and my neck existed. My physical self-awareness was sparked by The Vagina Monologues, and by no means am I alone in that.
From there came The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, CUNT by Inga Muscio, The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, flannel menstrual pads, menstrual sponges, menstrual cups, vibrators, sex positivity, trans advocacy, and everything I have going on today.
Spring '09 was the first time I actually saw The Vagina Monologues play, which I co-assistant managed at my internship at The Milwaukee Gay Arts Center. My all-women college, Alverno, also hosted a student-run performance as well - it was ridiculously difficult to get a performance approved there!! You'd think that an all-women college would have been among the first places to advocate anything that supports women's awareness, but they were so afraid of being pegged as a "lesbian school".
Before seeing the play, The Vagina Monologues really felt like a private, personal, secret thing of my own. It was MY experience, shared with others who didn't seem real. Sitting in FOUR sold-out shows, though, opened up the doors to this community. Matrons, young girls, transwomen, lesbians, sex workers, rape survivors, virgins, allies - all these people seeking validation and finding community. It was a powerful thing, which made The Vagina Monologues more real as a social force powered by shared experience.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Socialized Men and Woman, Service Professions
Among the major differences between socialized men and women, at least in America, is between our options. For men, many career options are presented, including service professions (more specifically, the military and clergy). They have an array of informed choices at their disposal*. For women, though, the only career option is service. A woman must make her own alternative options, fighting her way down that path the whole way.
* though certain career/life professions, such as homemaker and nurse, are considered emasculating for a man. After all, why would a man knowingly choose a woman's role when it's clearly subservient?
* though certain career/life professions, such as homemaker and nurse, are considered emasculating for a man. After all, why would a man knowingly choose a woman's role when it's clearly subservient?
Full, Free Documentary: Miss Representation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SGlSkdKzolo
The thing is, and I thought this when I interned at Project Girl, it isn't entirely "the media's" fault that depression and eating disorders are so prevalent - a strong support system in an individual's life can help overcome that influence. But altering mainstream standards is easier than providing personal support to millions of people.
The thing is, and I thought this when I interned at Project Girl, it isn't entirely "the media's" fault that depression and eating disorders are so prevalent - a strong support system in an individual's life can help overcome that influence. But altering mainstream standards is easier than providing personal support to millions of people.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Women Dumbing Down
I've been out of school for two and a half years now and my post-Alverno College, post-women's college, outlook keeps shifting. I see women behaving in the same ways, but with drastically different outcomes between the feminine cloister and the outside world.
At Alverno, there were plenty of students who dumbed themselves down. Normally, they feared insulting someone who might not be as intelligent, which is a twisted kind of empathy that I have yet to see in men. Yes, there have been plenty of women who have complained "so-and-so thinks she's so smart, blah blah blah she's so stuck up." That's even been said of me, when I thought that I was just doing a favor by providing information.
More understandably, these students just didn't want an extra workload!!
In the normal world, there are women who dumb themselves down because they think that they won't be liked otherwise. In private, they might be extraordinarily intelligent; publicly, they feign stupidity. A friend of mine does this and I found out, through one-on-one conversation, that she's very interested in feminist theory (ironic, huh?). Whenever we meet up in a group, I jump in before she has a chance to say something stupid, "hey tell me about the book you're reading!" With others, attempts to get to know them are blockaded by "teehee, look at this cute pic in my phone!"
I'll admit that I sometimes dilute my intelligence, though not to such a degree. Rather than blathering "theory theory theory blah blah blah," I'll see how the conversation goes while asking questions; then I'll point out "what you're saying is similar to blah blah blah theory." I do this because pouring out all I know isn't a conversation, it's a monologue and nobody will learn anything from that. It's more effective and more enjoyable to back off for a little while.
At Alverno, there were plenty of students who dumbed themselves down. Normally, they feared insulting someone who might not be as intelligent, which is a twisted kind of empathy that I have yet to see in men. Yes, there have been plenty of women who have complained "so-and-so thinks she's so smart, blah blah blah she's so stuck up." That's even been said of me, when I thought that I was just doing a favor by providing information.
More understandably, these students just didn't want an extra workload!!
In the normal world, there are women who dumb themselves down because they think that they won't be liked otherwise. In private, they might be extraordinarily intelligent; publicly, they feign stupidity. A friend of mine does this and I found out, through one-on-one conversation, that she's very interested in feminist theory (ironic, huh?). Whenever we meet up in a group, I jump in before she has a chance to say something stupid, "hey tell me about the book you're reading!" With others, attempts to get to know them are blockaded by "teehee, look at this cute pic in my phone!"
I'll admit that I sometimes dilute my intelligence, though not to such a degree. Rather than blathering "theory theory theory blah blah blah," I'll see how the conversation goes while asking questions; then I'll point out "what you're saying is similar to blah blah blah theory." I do this because pouring out all I know isn't a conversation, it's a monologue and nobody will learn anything from that. It's more effective and more enjoyable to back off for a little while.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Is it Misogyny?
Sometimes, I encounter an arrogant asshole and I can't tell whether he's treating me like shit because he just doesn't like me* or because he perceives me as a woman. And when he tells me "you don't even have to say anything for me to know that you're wrong," it doesn't really matter why he's being a jerk anymore.
I was recently told that I must be a good person because his friend is dating me.
excuse me?
Gee, thanks for acknowledging me...oh no wait, you didn't. This could be any person hand-in-hand with the prick's friend. The space I fill is not who I am.
* arrogant assholes tend to dislike me since I ask them penetrating questions about their blatant insecurity, but so innocently that they can't legitimately get mad
I was recently told that I must be a good person because his friend is dating me.
excuse me?
Gee, thanks for acknowledging me...oh no wait, you didn't. This could be any person hand-in-hand with the prick's friend. The space I fill is not who I am.
* arrogant assholes tend to dislike me since I ask them penetrating questions about their blatant insecurity, but so innocently that they can't legitimately get mad
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Women Protagonists
I prefer women protagonists in novels. However androgynous I identify, the way I'm usually perceived in the world, is as a woman. Protagonists who are treated as women in their worlds are more appealing, interesting, validating and relate-able to me.
Not all women protagonists in general. Although they are among my favorite authors, Lois L'Amour, Isaac Asimov and John Green (he may be removed from this list come January!) have rather one-dimensional, sometimes sloppy women characters. Asimov's Susan Calvin, to use the most famous example, is a feminist's heroine for being a strong-willed, intelligent woman of science; he managed to touch a few chords with her, but it isn't her cold demeanor that makes her so distant from the reader.
Clearly, making a general character, however strong, female isn't enough. However powerful or weak, pleasant or hostile, the way a woman character moves in her world can make the novel invaluable.
- "She's Come Undone" by Wally Lamb
- anything ever written by Toni Morrison
- "Their Eyes Were Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston
- "The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak
- "The Color Purple" by Alice Walker
- anything ever written by Virginia Woolf
- "The Bell Jar" by Sylvia Plath
- "Fear of Flying" by Erica Jong
- "A Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood
- "Clan of the Cave Bear" by Jean Auel
- "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" by Milan Kundera
- "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins
- "Valley of the Dolls" by Jacqueline Susann
Not all women protagonists in general. Although they are among my favorite authors, Lois L'Amour, Isaac Asimov and John Green (he may be removed from this list come January!) have rather one-dimensional, sometimes sloppy women characters. Asimov's Susan Calvin, to use the most famous example, is a feminist's heroine for being a strong-willed, intelligent woman of science; he managed to touch a few chords with her, but it isn't her cold demeanor that makes her so distant from the reader.
Clearly, making a general character, however strong, female isn't enough. However powerful or weak, pleasant or hostile, the way a woman character moves in her world can make the novel invaluable.
- "She's Come Undone" by Wally Lamb
- anything ever written by Toni Morrison
- "Their Eyes Were Watching God" by Zora Neale Hurston
- "The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak
- "The Color Purple" by Alice Walker
- anything ever written by Virginia Woolf
- "The Bell Jar" by Sylvia Plath
- "Fear of Flying" by Erica Jong
- "A Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood
- "Clan of the Cave Bear" by Jean Auel
- "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" by Milan Kundera
- "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins
- "Valley of the Dolls" by Jacqueline Susann
Monday, August 29, 2011
"Look Both Ways" by Jennifer Baumgardner
You may recognize Jennifer Baumgardner, the co-author of "Manifesta." "Manifesta" was great, a basic and in-depth feminist, well, manifesta for young women of the early 00's. I highly recommend it as a primer.
And then "Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics" by Jennifer Baumgardner caught my eye at the library. http://www.amazon.com/Look-Both-Ways-Bisexual-Politics/dp/0374531080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314628877&sr=8-1
I've noticed that the vast majority of nonfiction I read can be divided into two categories: purely objective information and subjective semi-autobiography. Sadly, these two writing styles can be divided between the sexes. Women authors almost always include personal anecdotes and opinions in their nonfiction, while men are more likely to just write the evidence and analysis. "Look Both Ways" really takes the cake - Baumgardner appears to have interviewed only women akin to her class, background, profession, gender expression and urban location. Their stories intermingle with her own - this is not hard journalism, this is a blog. Which is fine! But don't write a 227 page blog of one's opinions and pass it off as "women's studies"!
And then there are all the issues in the book itself. At first, I schlepped through this book to find a few gems of actual information; about halfway through, it became a page-turning hurricane of shock. Many of the "drawbacks" of bisexuality she describes can be remedied by having a spine. A brain wouldn't hurt either.
On page 32, Baumgardner explains her relationship with a man, Steven, and cheating on him with a woman, Amy. She states in very clear terms that her relationship with Steven was just what she always wanted because of her relationship with Amy. By stretching her relationship wants and needs across two people, she was better able to appreciate them both. So what does she do? Dumps Steven! And here I'm stomping on the book, screaming "try polyamory, stupid! POLYAMORY!" Alas, the option of non-monogamy isn't mentioned at all in the entire book.
Page 141: "Women are entering into relationships with men with gay expectations, but they don't know how to actualize those expectations or, sometimes, even acknowledge them. It's part of the paradox of feminism, of feminism's unfinished revolution: women expect equality from their relationships, but not from men." If a woman is in a relationship with a man and she doesn't communicate her expectations she bears the responsibility of her disappointment. And expecting equality in relationships but not from men? Is Baumgardner writing about thinking adults here? She seems to have a pretty low opinion on men in general, but this makes women look contradictory and weak as well.
Page 143, Baumgardner writes about the appeal of a bisexual/lesbian girlfriend to men. The first reason for this, apparently, queer (a term mentioned once in the book) women lack the neediness of straight women. The author herself proved that false: she was very needy in her relationships. The second reason is that a man, who's CLEARLY commitment-phobic, knows that he won't have to commit to a queer woman. This is just insulting to everyone. And the final reason is that queer women tend to be more independent - actually, I really have no argument here. You've read my blog, this isn't news.
Those are all the specific snippets I have lined up. Overall, "Look Both Ways" is insulting. It insults men by calling them inherently misogynistic, emotionally dense, commitment-phobic and insecure. It insults women by calling them needily dependent, always looking for "The One", childlike, and stupid enough to date one of those Neanderthal men while expecting something more syrupy. To be sure, PLENTY of people who fulfill these stereotypes exist - these Breeders (not a sexuality-specific term) are the bane of my existence. Beaumgardner's worldview is so small that these may very well be the only gender roles she knows. How a 40something, bisexual, feminist journalist in NYC could emulate Carrie Bradshaw so well is beyond me.
And it's additionally insulting to pick up a book bearing the subtitle "Bisexual Politics" and to discover "My Repeated Bisexual Mistakes." The one real drawback to bisexuality mentioned in this book is that one's sexuality is perceived as reliant on one's partner. "Oh you're straight now" when dating a man, "oh you're a lesbian now" when dating a woman. So many people don't see bisexuality as a real sexual orientation because their own minds change it based on changing partners. Baumgardner explains this problem...and then implies that the bisexual person feels some kind of guilt?!?!? Guilt for other people's inability to conceptualize fluidity?!? Guilt for not living up to some bisexual role, which apparently doesn't exist because Baumgardner isn't aware of polyamory?!?
And then "Look Both Ways: Bisexual Politics" by Jennifer Baumgardner caught my eye at the library. http://www.amazon.com/Look-Both-Ways-Bisexual-Politics/dp/0374531080/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1314628877&sr=8-1
I've noticed that the vast majority of nonfiction I read can be divided into two categories: purely objective information and subjective semi-autobiography. Sadly, these two writing styles can be divided between the sexes. Women authors almost always include personal anecdotes and opinions in their nonfiction, while men are more likely to just write the evidence and analysis. "Look Both Ways" really takes the cake - Baumgardner appears to have interviewed only women akin to her class, background, profession, gender expression and urban location. Their stories intermingle with her own - this is not hard journalism, this is a blog. Which is fine! But don't write a 227 page blog of one's opinions and pass it off as "women's studies"!
And then there are all the issues in the book itself. At first, I schlepped through this book to find a few gems of actual information; about halfway through, it became a page-turning hurricane of shock. Many of the "drawbacks" of bisexuality she describes can be remedied by having a spine. A brain wouldn't hurt either.
On page 32, Baumgardner explains her relationship with a man, Steven, and cheating on him with a woman, Amy. She states in very clear terms that her relationship with Steven was just what she always wanted because of her relationship with Amy. By stretching her relationship wants and needs across two people, she was better able to appreciate them both. So what does she do? Dumps Steven! And here I'm stomping on the book, screaming "try polyamory, stupid! POLYAMORY!" Alas, the option of non-monogamy isn't mentioned at all in the entire book.
Page 141: "Women are entering into relationships with men with gay expectations, but they don't know how to actualize those expectations or, sometimes, even acknowledge them. It's part of the paradox of feminism, of feminism's unfinished revolution: women expect equality from their relationships, but not from men." If a woman is in a relationship with a man and she doesn't communicate her expectations she bears the responsibility of her disappointment. And expecting equality in relationships but not from men? Is Baumgardner writing about thinking adults here? She seems to have a pretty low opinion on men in general, but this makes women look contradictory and weak as well.
Page 143, Baumgardner writes about the appeal of a bisexual/lesbian girlfriend to men. The first reason for this, apparently, queer (a term mentioned once in the book) women lack the neediness of straight women. The author herself proved that false: she was very needy in her relationships. The second reason is that a man, who's CLEARLY commitment-phobic, knows that he won't have to commit to a queer woman. This is just insulting to everyone. And the final reason is that queer women tend to be more independent - actually, I really have no argument here. You've read my blog, this isn't news.
Those are all the specific snippets I have lined up. Overall, "Look Both Ways" is insulting. It insults men by calling them inherently misogynistic, emotionally dense, commitment-phobic and insecure. It insults women by calling them needily dependent, always looking for "The One", childlike, and stupid enough to date one of those Neanderthal men while expecting something more syrupy. To be sure, PLENTY of people who fulfill these stereotypes exist - these Breeders (not a sexuality-specific term) are the bane of my existence. Beaumgardner's worldview is so small that these may very well be the only gender roles she knows. How a 40something, bisexual, feminist journalist in NYC could emulate Carrie Bradshaw so well is beyond me.
And it's additionally insulting to pick up a book bearing the subtitle "Bisexual Politics" and to discover "My Repeated Bisexual Mistakes." The one real drawback to bisexuality mentioned in this book is that one's sexuality is perceived as reliant on one's partner. "Oh you're straight now" when dating a man, "oh you're a lesbian now" when dating a woman. So many people don't see bisexuality as a real sexual orientation because their own minds change it based on changing partners. Baumgardner explains this problem...and then implies that the bisexual person feels some kind of guilt?!?!? Guilt for other people's inability to conceptualize fluidity?!? Guilt for not living up to some bisexual role, which apparently doesn't exist because Baumgardner isn't aware of polyamory?!?
Saturday, July 30, 2011
PMS Rant
Recently, I encountered two women in a professional relationship. One was a client of the other for legal purposes. The client, who was in this situation because of a car crash, didn't know what an axle was - she was at least my age and knew English, she just didn't understand how her own car worked and couldn't name various parts of it.
The other lady and I had a conversation aside from her client. We were discussing a medical professional and I mentioned how, since I've taken many anatomy-based figure drawing classes, it's refreshing to hear a doctor who speaks in terms I know. She said there are plenty of people who know what a trapezius is, I shouldn't make such a big deal of sharing that knowledge with the doctor. I replied "there are some people who don't know what an axle is."
She chuckled "many girls don't know about cars."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!
What really pisses me off is that she's right.
So many people, specifically men who're just minding their own business, will meet woman after woman after woman who knows nothing and needs her hand held...and then they expect the same of me. I can't blame them!
This isn't a problem of the sexes or the genders or the sexualities, it's what comes of heterosexism. Shulamith Firestone theorized that a man, with his male privilege, will pick a woman to elevate to his status. While there are probably very few men who have that specific thought process, her theory is evident in our culture. And Olive Schreiner noted "The less a woman has in her head the lighter she is for carrying.” Many straight women who rely on being elevated through a diamond ring will lighten the weights of their minds. This is how it works, up until a queer freak comes along and gunks up the clockwork.
GGGGGYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PMS!!!!!
The other lady and I had a conversation aside from her client. We were discussing a medical professional and I mentioned how, since I've taken many anatomy-based figure drawing classes, it's refreshing to hear a doctor who speaks in terms I know. She said there are plenty of people who know what a trapezius is, I shouldn't make such a big deal of sharing that knowledge with the doctor. I replied "there are some people who don't know what an axle is."
She chuckled "many girls don't know about cars."
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!
What really pisses me off is that she's right.
So many people, specifically men who're just minding their own business, will meet woman after woman after woman who knows nothing and needs her hand held...and then they expect the same of me. I can't blame them!
This isn't a problem of the sexes or the genders or the sexualities, it's what comes of heterosexism. Shulamith Firestone theorized that a man, with his male privilege, will pick a woman to elevate to his status. While there are probably very few men who have that specific thought process, her theory is evident in our culture. And Olive Schreiner noted "The less a woman has in her head the lighter she is for carrying.” Many straight women who rely on being elevated through a diamond ring will lighten the weights of their minds. This is how it works, up until a queer freak comes along and gunks up the clockwork.
GGGGGYYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PMS!!!!!
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Ugly Girl vs. Pretty Girl
Working at O'Hare, two kinds of straight (usually white) men really stand out. The airport construction worker and the elitist businessman, and they stand out because they're similar in how they hit on me. Because they assume that I have a vagina*, apparently that means I'm there for their advances. I tend to ignore them, especially since they hit on all "women" equally and a flight attendant will probably kick them out - you go, girls!
But then these guys will call me pretty. I don't want to be pretty, I want to be smart. Firstly, I don't see how Michael Cera can be pretty to these skeezy guys. Secondly, my appearance is not an invitation. I know that some of these guys, usually the construction workers, probably think that calling me a "pretty girl" is the utmost compliment and they probably mean well. How are they supposed to know that I would be irritated while their wives/daughters/etc. appreciate it?
Throughout school, especially when I broke my nose at 9, I was The Ugly Girl. Of course, now I know that it was because I was malnourished, abused and generally disconnected from my own body. At the time, it was incredibly painful. Up until 8th grade, I saved up all my money for plastic surgery, I mildly dieted and stuffed my bra. Then I embraced my Ugly self and actively decided to walk my own path as an Ugly person. I honestly thought "if Ringo Starr could be a BEATLE with his giant nose, I can be a normal person with mine."
In high school, though, my acceptance of my Ugliness didn't make rejection any easier. Now I know that a couple people did have crushes on me, but I was still holding out on my Prince Charming who would perceive some personal beauty beyond my malnourished, abused body (as though such personal beauty couldn't exist without that validation). And I wasn't willing to act dumb or to give flattery where it wasn't due, so my refusal to compromise with stupidity made me even more alone romantically. And then some guys bet each other to ask me out.
At college**, though, things finally opened up. Firstly, I WAS IN A HEALTHY, NOT ABUSIVE PLACE!!! Secondly, a mind-centric group was available. I was finally able to form myself and to pick my scene. Things turned around!
It's not that I don't want to be perceived as pretty, just not 24/7. Or even 8/5. How about 2/3, two hours a day three days a week? When I CHOOSE to be perceived as pretty. Although I would absolutely never choose to relive those Ugly years the same way, being The Ugly Kid taught me to value smarts over beauty. I'd far rather be called "smart person" than "pretty girl."
* one of the many reasons why I love it so much when people call me "sir" or get confused in public bathrooms
** at an all-women college, a lot of students really enjoyed not being "pretty" (makeup, done-up hair, jewelry, heels, bras, etc.) all the time. However, a lot of women there thought that they MUST do/wear these things when a man, even a gay man, was around. I could never get a reason out of them as to why.
But then these guys will call me pretty. I don't want to be pretty, I want to be smart. Firstly, I don't see how Michael Cera can be pretty to these skeezy guys. Secondly, my appearance is not an invitation. I know that some of these guys, usually the construction workers, probably think that calling me a "pretty girl" is the utmost compliment and they probably mean well. How are they supposed to know that I would be irritated while their wives/daughters/etc. appreciate it?
Throughout school, especially when I broke my nose at 9, I was The Ugly Girl. Of course, now I know that it was because I was malnourished, abused and generally disconnected from my own body. At the time, it was incredibly painful. Up until 8th grade, I saved up all my money for plastic surgery, I mildly dieted and stuffed my bra. Then I embraced my Ugly self and actively decided to walk my own path as an Ugly person. I honestly thought "if Ringo Starr could be a BEATLE with his giant nose, I can be a normal person with mine."
In high school, though, my acceptance of my Ugliness didn't make rejection any easier. Now I know that a couple people did have crushes on me, but I was still holding out on my Prince Charming who would perceive some personal beauty beyond my malnourished, abused body (as though such personal beauty couldn't exist without that validation). And I wasn't willing to act dumb or to give flattery where it wasn't due, so my refusal to compromise with stupidity made me even more alone romantically. And then some guys bet each other to ask me out.
At college**, though, things finally opened up. Firstly, I WAS IN A HEALTHY, NOT ABUSIVE PLACE!!! Secondly, a mind-centric group was available. I was finally able to form myself and to pick my scene. Things turned around!
It's not that I don't want to be perceived as pretty, just not 24/7. Or even 8/5. How about 2/3, two hours a day three days a week? When I CHOOSE to be perceived as pretty. Although I would absolutely never choose to relive those Ugly years the same way, being The Ugly Kid taught me to value smarts over beauty. I'd far rather be called "smart person" than "pretty girl."
* one of the many reasons why I love it so much when people call me "sir" or get confused in public bathrooms
** at an all-women college, a lot of students really enjoyed not being "pretty" (makeup, done-up hair, jewelry, heels, bras, etc.) all the time. However, a lot of women there thought that they MUST do/wear these things when a man, even a gay man, was around. I could never get a reason out of them as to why.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Yes Means YES!!!
I just finished reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & a World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti. Margaret Cho wrote the introduction, a powerful essay on how just passively consenting to sex isn't enough in our sexual lives (READ IT here: http://lachristagreco.com/2010/08/07/on-consent/). It's a fantastic book of articles, noting how rape and sexual assault/coercion and the taboo of women's sexuality are two sides of the same coin. Most of the contributors have experienced sexual trauma and wrote about opening up a more sexual, sensual, respectful culture. Some of them articulated the connection between sexual trauma and sex-positive activism, and for others it was unstated but obvious.
Of course, this has lead me to analyze (overanalyze) my current sexual life in light of my resurfaced sexual trauma. People keep asking me if I'm queer/lesbian/bi because of my childhood sexual assault. NO and that's the wrong question! Am I a proud, queer sexual being because of that trauma? Yes and no. I had been wanting a more sensual life long before those memories were triggered, so my libido is unrelated to the trauma. Now that I'm consciously navigating the role of that assault in my life while I'm slutting it up, the boundary blurs. Awareness of consent heightens my experiences now.
I agree with the authors of Yes Means Yes in that more than just consent is necessasry, though. ENTHUSIASTIC consent, respect, communication, self-awareness, responsibility, play, desire, etc. It's the difference between "ok" and "YES YES YES!!" Knowing the value of these things in my experiences, that my partners value them too, and that I have complete control over my 50% all enhance my ethically slutty life now. That's a great book too!
And what's really mind-boggling is that the sexual assault that happened to me as a child wouldn't have happened (probably) had the perpetrator been sexually aware. She had no idea that what she was doing was sexual because anything other than penile-vaginal sex was entirely unknown. Had she been sexually aware, maybe she would have reconsidered what she did to me. Clearly, this doesn't make it ok.
Of course, this has lead me to analyze (overanalyze) my current sexual life in light of my resurfaced sexual trauma. People keep asking me if I'm queer/lesbian/bi because of my childhood sexual assault. NO and that's the wrong question! Am I a proud, queer sexual being because of that trauma? Yes and no. I had been wanting a more sensual life long before those memories were triggered, so my libido is unrelated to the trauma. Now that I'm consciously navigating the role of that assault in my life while I'm slutting it up, the boundary blurs. Awareness of consent heightens my experiences now.
I agree with the authors of Yes Means Yes in that more than just consent is necessasry, though. ENTHUSIASTIC consent, respect, communication, self-awareness, responsibility, play, desire, etc. It's the difference between "ok" and "YES YES YES!!" Knowing the value of these things in my experiences, that my partners value them too, and that I have complete control over my 50% all enhance my ethically slutty life now. That's a great book too!
And what's really mind-boggling is that the sexual assault that happened to me as a child wouldn't have happened (probably) had the perpetrator been sexually aware. She had no idea that what she was doing was sexual because anything other than penile-vaginal sex was entirely unknown. Had she been sexually aware, maybe she would have reconsidered what she did to me. Clearly, this doesn't make it ok.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Cinderella Ate My Daughter
The next time you spy a Disney Princess product, check to see if the princesses are making eye contact with each other. They're not! Roy Disney was opposed to bringing together princesses from different movies, so this was a creepy compromise.
I'm not arguing that trivial details like this are manipulating the children of America, but it gives you a good idea of how the higher-ups of child-focused companies function (or not). This is just one anecdote of oddity included in Peggy Orenstein's Cinderella Ate My Daughter, through which she navigates her new parenthood.
It's no conspiracy that the boys' and girls' sections of toy stores are so neatly divided, but it's no accident either. Orenstein did an unbelievable amount of research and found that the decision-makers of toy companies honestly believe that they're just giving kids what they want: pink, feminine, consumer/domestic items for girls and violent, mechanical items for boys. They also are after making the biggest sale, but that's to be expected of anyone. And parents are often dismayed at what their children are offered in the gender-segregated aisles, but see no other option. It's partly the companies themselves and it's partly the parents that divide children along masculine and feminine, but Orenstein's research into children - especially little boys who want to wear mommy's makeup and little tomboys - is the most revealing. I'll leave you to actually read the book to find that out.
As in her previous books, Schoolgirls and Flux, Orenstein articulates how gender divisions in our society impact real people in Cinderella Ate My Daughter. She makes connections through hard-hitting research that seem so obvious upon her articulation. I highly recommend reading any and all of her books!
My only complaint, though, is her description of Sesame Street and the Muppets - and I admit that this is only a personal bias. She investigated the very few regular women characters (Ms. Piggy, Janis, Zoe, Abby, ...?) and the Henson company explained that feminine characters just don't market as well as "masculine" ones. Honestly, I always thought that most of the characters were androgynous. Even as a kid, I thought that Big Bird, Elmo, and most of the monsters were genderless (same for the Toaster and Blanket from Disney's The Brave Little Toaster). Then again, that probably explains a lot about my genderqueer identity...
I'm not arguing that trivial details like this are manipulating the children of America, but it gives you a good idea of how the higher-ups of child-focused companies function (or not). This is just one anecdote of oddity included in Peggy Orenstein's Cinderella Ate My Daughter, through which she navigates her new parenthood.
It's no conspiracy that the boys' and girls' sections of toy stores are so neatly divided, but it's no accident either. Orenstein did an unbelievable amount of research and found that the decision-makers of toy companies honestly believe that they're just giving kids what they want: pink, feminine, consumer/domestic items for girls and violent, mechanical items for boys. They also are after making the biggest sale, but that's to be expected of anyone. And parents are often dismayed at what their children are offered in the gender-segregated aisles, but see no other option. It's partly the companies themselves and it's partly the parents that divide children along masculine and feminine, but Orenstein's research into children - especially little boys who want to wear mommy's makeup and little tomboys - is the most revealing. I'll leave you to actually read the book to find that out.
As in her previous books, Schoolgirls and Flux, Orenstein articulates how gender divisions in our society impact real people in Cinderella Ate My Daughter. She makes connections through hard-hitting research that seem so obvious upon her articulation. I highly recommend reading any and all of her books!
My only complaint, though, is her description of Sesame Street and the Muppets - and I admit that this is only a personal bias. She investigated the very few regular women characters (Ms. Piggy, Janis, Zoe, Abby, ...?) and the Henson company explained that feminine characters just don't market as well as "masculine" ones. Honestly, I always thought that most of the characters were androgynous. Even as a kid, I thought that Big Bird, Elmo, and most of the monsters were genderless (same for the Toaster and Blanket from Disney's The Brave Little Toaster). Then again, that probably explains a lot about my genderqueer identity...
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Sex Positive Feminism + Queer Liberty
As stated in my previous blog post, I'm dating a bioguy. Thanks be to the diversity of Chicago, no straight privilege shit or queer-based biphobia has come my way - just many many MANY questions. The number one question, asked by queers and straights alike, has been how this impacts my identity. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm as queer as a purple $3 bill riding a rainbow unicorn.
I'm still on the trajectory that began as I graduated high school and started college. That was when I discovered sex-positive feminism and when I came out of the closet as bi/lesbian/queer. The two lifestyles collaborate, not codependent upon one another, so that one may CHOOSE to base identity upon sex. Active members of the queer community may realize that sleeping with "the same sex" isn't enough the qualify as fabulously queer. What goes on in a consensual bedroom (or bathroom or car or ski chair lift) shouldn't mean anything to the government nor anything to one's movement.
There's this lesbian movie, Go Fish, from the early 90's. It's pretty shitty, but a few scenes stick out in my mind. A dyke playah has sex with a man, then gets captured by the lesbian community and they interrogate her for her reasons and identity. She argued that sex is just sex, that it shouldn't make her less of a lesbian - especially considering all she had done for the community. The lesbians demanded that she identify as bisexual, even if it means she gets less pussy. Another scene shows a lesbian getting married to a man, but fighting to maintain her lesbian history. She nearly suffocates in her self-justification: "I'm a dyke despite my straight privilege" .
Were I not in Chicago in '11, would that be my world? Fellow sex-liberated friends have been through that shit. Is it just a matter of time and place for me as long as I keep dating and fucking people to whom I'm ATTRACTED?
I'm still on the trajectory that began as I graduated high school and started college. That was when I discovered sex-positive feminism and when I came out of the closet as bi/lesbian/queer. The two lifestyles collaborate, not codependent upon one another, so that one may CHOOSE to base identity upon sex. Active members of the queer community may realize that sleeping with "the same sex" isn't enough the qualify as fabulously queer. What goes on in a consensual bedroom (or bathroom or car or ski chair lift) shouldn't mean anything to the government nor anything to one's movement.
There's this lesbian movie, Go Fish, from the early 90's. It's pretty shitty, but a few scenes stick out in my mind. A dyke playah has sex with a man, then gets captured by the lesbian community and they interrogate her for her reasons and identity. She argued that sex is just sex, that it shouldn't make her less of a lesbian - especially considering all she had done for the community. The lesbians demanded that she identify as bisexual, even if it means she gets less pussy. Another scene shows a lesbian getting married to a man, but fighting to maintain her lesbian history. She nearly suffocates in her self-justification: "I'm a dyke despite my straight privilege" .
Were I not in Chicago in '11, would that be my world? Fellow sex-liberated friends have been through that shit. Is it just a matter of time and place for me as long as I keep dating and fucking people to whom I'm ATTRACTED?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
All -isms are Bullying
In the second edition of her book, CUNT, Inga Muscio admits “I am most often aware that I am a woman when I feel threatened...” In the same vein, Simone de Beauvoir quipped that one is not born but, rather, becomes a woman. What unites roughly half the population is not genitals, chromosomes nor hormones and what turns a child into a woman is not menstruation, penetration nor childbirth. No, it's the shared experience of playing second banana, as it were.
Whether you're overlooked because you're a woman or you're picked because you're a pretty woman, the problem remains the same. And this problem has been rampant the world over for millennia; it unites generations of women more strongly than any reproductive function. In this harsh world of competitive and weak human beings, man* needs to make somebody #2 in order to keep himself #1. Who better than not-man? And there are many women who push someone else, a masculine woman or a feminine man or someone else entirely (or even a prettier, more feminine woman!), into #3. This is what puts the “sexism” into “heterosexism”: insecure people pushing down queer people just to ensure that they're the ones rising up. It's bullying, all the -isms are just bullying on a larger scale!
There are women who claim to never have experienced sexism. They're either extremely privileged and cloistered or blind to, well, everything. It begins when parents proclaim upon birth “that's not a penis, bring out the dolls and pink frilly dresses!” for one and “that's a penis, give him a toolbox and blue overalls!” It is a privilege, usually tied to class, to have been brought up and then to continue in adulthood otherwise: not as a #1, a #2 or as any rank at all.
* I don't mean all or even most men, nor even just men in general. Clearly, Phyllis Schlafly has done more to perpetuate heterosexism than RuPaul.
Whether you're overlooked because you're a woman or you're picked because you're a pretty woman, the problem remains the same. And this problem has been rampant the world over for millennia; it unites generations of women more strongly than any reproductive function. In this harsh world of competitive and weak human beings, man* needs to make somebody #2 in order to keep himself #1. Who better than not-man? And there are many women who push someone else, a masculine woman or a feminine man or someone else entirely (or even a prettier, more feminine woman!), into #3. This is what puts the “sexism” into “heterosexism”: insecure people pushing down queer people just to ensure that they're the ones rising up. It's bullying, all the -isms are just bullying on a larger scale!
There are women who claim to never have experienced sexism. They're either extremely privileged and cloistered or blind to, well, everything. It begins when parents proclaim upon birth “that's not a penis, bring out the dolls and pink frilly dresses!” for one and “that's a penis, give him a toolbox and blue overalls!” It is a privilege, usually tied to class, to have been brought up and then to continue in adulthood otherwise: not as a #1, a #2 or as any rank at all.
* I don't mean all or even most men, nor even just men in general. Clearly, Phyllis Schlafly has done more to perpetuate heterosexism than RuPaul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
