I have found my angrier med school feminist alter egos. You CAN be a feminist and in medical school! Well maybe not in medical school while being lectured to for four hours but I can still maintain a blog. There is hope yet in the world.
Their blog is here.
If only I could be so angry! Or actually, if only I could express my anger!
Oh no. No hope in the world. I have too much to study before Friday.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
All the biggies: feminism, motherhood, environment, food
A review of Elisabeth Badinter's Conflict: The Woman and the Mother on the NYTimes caught my eye because it reminded me of a post on the Racialious blog I read a few weeks ago. Both say that certain modern trends imply that women should return to their traditional domestic roles.
Badinter is a French academic. I hadn't heard of her before but it seems she has a significant body of work criticizing (evaluating?) feminism. She previously wrote that feminists are undermining themselves by popularizing the notion of women as victims.
But I want to focus on a point in her latest book, which takes up the issue of motherhood in modern times. She writes that the green and natural movement erodes the gains of feminism. It pressures women abandon modern inventions that have eased childrearing for old, labor-intensive ways.
From the New York Times:
This reminded me of criticism leveled by feminists against advocates of the food reform and sustainable agriculture movement. Michael Pollan, the figurehead of the food reform movement, is criticized for being alienating working women and women of color.
This comes from Racialicious:
Both these critiques really resonate with me, not because I'm denouncing the benefits of reusable diapers or fruit and vegetables, but because they show an ugly reality. People who call themselves feminists or progressives or generally working to help people don't always agree. There are dividing lines.
It made me happy to see vocal feminists of color voiced their criticism of other progressive movements. I think sometimes there's an implicit assumption that feminists are uncritical of activists in other progressive areas. But this isn't entirely true. I care about the environment and about eating better, but not as much as I care about some other feminists issues. That's why I was the co-chair of Women's Council. Though I worked extensively with other progressive and racial ethnic groups on campus, I had one focus where I directed most of my attention.
You could argue that Michael Pollan doesn't want only women to return to the kitchen but both men AND women to cook but the truth is also that women are still the one who do most of the housework. So when you say, "go make (a nutritious) dinner (of locally grown, organic produce that will bring together your whole family)", it's women that are heading back into the kitchen.
In the end, I think both Badinter and Michael Pollan and the food reform movement hit on the same point: women are judge by society, by other women, by themselves on how they raise their children, be it the food they eat or the diapers wear.
Badinter is a French academic. I hadn't heard of her before but it seems she has a significant body of work criticizing (evaluating?) feminism. She previously wrote that feminists are undermining themselves by popularizing the notion of women as victims.
But I want to focus on a point in her latest book, which takes up the issue of motherhood in modern times. She writes that the green and natural movement erodes the gains of feminism. It pressures women abandon modern inventions that have eased childrearing for old, labor-intensive ways.
From the New York Times:
But Ms. Badinter thinks that new social pressures are hard for many women to resist. The “green” mother, she says, is pushed to give birth at home, to refuse an epidural as the reflection of “a degenerated industrial civilization” that would deprive her of “an irreplaceable experience,” to breast-feed for both ethological and environmental reasons (plastic baby bottles) and to use washable rather than disposable diapers — in other words, to discard the inventions “that have liberated women.”
This reminded me of criticism leveled by feminists against advocates of the food reform and sustainable agriculture movement. Michael Pollan, the figurehead of the food reform movement, is criticized for being alienating working women and women of color.
This comes from Racialicious:
First, Pollan and others situate the current state of American consumption in a patriarchal paradigm. These writers speak about a disappearance of food culture that for the most part accompanies male privilege. For example, Pollan, in an article for the New York Times on cooking and entertainment aptly titled “Out of the Kitchens, Onto the Couch,” explores the relationship between second-wave feminism and the gender politics of cooking. He argues that Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique convinced women to regard their housework, specifically cooking, as drudgery. Friedan did not, in fact, construct this sentiment herself; she merely observed the existent trends in white women’s attitudes about food and housewifery. Pollan goes on to describe how Julia Child inspired his mother and other women like her, empowering them to channel their creativity into the kitchen. This is apt praise for the lively and engaging cook, but can Pollan not drive home the point that Americans need to cook more often without guilting American feminists?Feminists and progressive people like to talk about the overlaps among their passions. And I agree too that there are many, not just the issues, but the people in one camp have overlapping interests. There are, I think, obvious intersections among feminism, environmental movement, organized labor, ethnic movements, and other social justice movements. I think my readers are well-informed about these intersections.
Both these critiques really resonate with me, not because I'm denouncing the benefits of reusable diapers or fruit and vegetables, but because they show an ugly reality. People who call themselves feminists or progressives or generally working to help people don't always agree. There are dividing lines.
It made me happy to see vocal feminists of color voiced their criticism of other progressive movements. I think sometimes there's an implicit assumption that feminists are uncritical of activists in other progressive areas. But this isn't entirely true. I care about the environment and about eating better, but not as much as I care about some other feminists issues. That's why I was the co-chair of Women's Council. Though I worked extensively with other progressive and racial ethnic groups on campus, I had one focus where I directed most of my attention.
You could argue that Michael Pollan doesn't want only women to return to the kitchen but both men AND women to cook but the truth is also that women are still the one who do most of the housework. So when you say, "go make (a nutritious) dinner (of locally grown, organic produce that will bring together your whole family)", it's women that are heading back into the kitchen.
In the end, I think both Badinter and Michael Pollan and the food reform movement hit on the same point: women are judge by society, by other women, by themselves on how they raise their children, be it the food they eat or the diapers wear.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Sex and the City as Open Cultural Product
Small detour from talking about Denmark and Europe...
Every review of the second Sex and the City movie has been excoriating. Many of them took issue with the inevitable march toward conventionalism -- finding Mr. Right/Big, getting married, having kids, settling down.
So it was refreshing to hear this video of a Emory University sociologist explaining the impact and contradictions of SATC in a more nuanced way.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vg-D0vVs6bg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vg-D0vVs6bg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I've only seen scattered episodes of SATC so I can't comment on the development of the show's themes and throughout the seasons and the movies from what I've watched but from these reviews, everyone thinks there is a noticeable shift in the characters' preoccupations. What do you think? Have the girls become frumpy old women? Is it inevitable that we all settle down? And will we be happy when or if we do?
Every review of the second Sex and the City movie has been excoriating. Many of them took issue with the inevitable march toward conventionalism -- finding Mr. Right/Big, getting married, having kids, settling down.
So it was refreshing to hear this video of a Emory University sociologist explaining the impact and contradictions of SATC in a more nuanced way.
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vg-D0vVs6bg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vg-D0vVs6bg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
Excerpts from the video:
It's a very ambiguous show. It's got some notions of liberated women but it also has these traditional notions of women focusing on romance and finding the right partner, which is the flip side of being independent and self sufficient.
Because you can interpret it in different ways, it's what we call an open cultural product, meaning that many people can look at it and enjoy it for different reasons. Those are usually the cultural products that are most successful,ones that aren't trying to impose some meaning on the audience but lets the audience take the meaning that they want.
I've only seen scattered episodes of SATC so I can't comment on the development of the show's themes and throughout the seasons and the movies from what I've watched but from these reviews, everyone thinks there is a noticeable shift in the characters' preoccupations. What do you think? Have the girls become frumpy old women? Is it inevitable that we all settle down? And will we be happy when or if we do?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Safe explorations
Yesterday I pulled together several critiques of the Twilight series. Because of the reasons describe there, I don't enjoy the series. However, I think it is important to acknowledge the appeal of the books for young female fans.
It is important not to dismiss the enjoyment that young girls who love the books and who feel swept up by the characters. We already too easily dismiss nascent feelings of love that girls grapple in the process of becoming adults. I think we've all heard older people tell young people that they "don't know what love is". Heather Corinna of Scarleteen writes about this dismissal of a young person's experience of love: "You felt the double-whammy of having what you know to be the truth of your feelings discounted and of being deeply patronized all at once." I feel sometimes the criticism of Twilight becomes criticism of its fans and I don't want this to be so.
Personally, if I were 12 when the Twilight books became popular, I think I would have liked them too, if not fanatically, at least partly. I don't like the books, but I still feel very close to the feelings Bella has, to the feelings the fans of Twilight have about the characters. I know the giddy feeling of having crush, even if its directed toward a fictional character or an actor playing the fictional character. These feelings that 12 year-olds have aren't the same love that a 21 year-old or a 41 or 71 year old woman would feel. But when you are (and when I was) 12 that is as close to romantic love as we have known. I've felt those feelings before, so I very much empathize with fans at the same time that I'm critical of the gender and race in the Twilight-verse. I see the appeal of Twilight, but I can't get past its treatment of a lot of other things.
(On a similar note, I see the appeal of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita as a masterpiece of modern literature, but I just can't get past the icky-ness of pedophilia and into the novel.)
The reason I empathize with Twilight fans, the reason I would have liked Twilight as a girl, is correctly identified by Neesha Meminger as the need for girls to safely explore their burgeoning sexuality. She writes:
Safety and security become difficult in adulthood have but we still desire and deserve it. When we're little, it was easy to be safe and to be protected. And as we grow up, the world opens up its possibilities but also its risks. I want to explore new places, new people, and new feelings but I still want to be held and to be cuddled. And it'sokay normal to want that.
Meminger writes:
Now about the older fans of Twilight, the young adult women, the moms of tweens:
The desire for safety never goes away. Relationships are tricky at any age. Sometimes it's nice to take refuge somewhere where the rules are clear and there's a happy ending waiting. I sometimes think it's rather nice to be in middle school where everyone seemed to know the rules of "going out". It meant telling someone you liked them, "going out", and dancing with each other at Fun Night.
And nor should it. Girls and women at any age confront challenges to their safe space. For college-aged women, it can be the sexual coercion at parties from strangers, acquaintances, and friends. Or it can be just figuring out what you want, which is still really confusing!
The popularity of Twilight doesn't spell the doom feminism, even though the critiques may seem like that. The girls on Team Edward or Team Jacob can grow up to be on Team Feminism. When I was little, I did all the girly things. I pretended to be a princess, dressed my dolls, watched Disney movies and was swept away by the prince charmings. Twilight won't become the model relationship for most its readers just as I don't believe in Disney movies anymore. As we grow up, we'll inevitably be exposed to different relationships, different kinds of love. Twilight will not be the only model on which to base our relationships.
My hope for the Twilight books, and by extension for crushes, infatuations, relationships that never get off the ground, and boyfriends is that they allow girls to explore their budding sexuality, to grapple with some really confusing feelings in a safe and healthy way.
---
A note from me:
I've been blogging prolifically of late, a new post almost every day for the past two weeks. I put much time and thought into blogging, mostly for my own pleasure, but it would be nice to hear an echo coming back. So... I'm encouraging lurkers to de-lurk. If my writings generate some discussion in you, I'd appreciate it if you leave a comment. I'd like to hear your take too. You don't need a Blogger account and you can also make it anonymous.
Thanks.
It is important not to dismiss the enjoyment that young girls who love the books and who feel swept up by the characters. We already too easily dismiss nascent feelings of love that girls grapple in the process of becoming adults. I think we've all heard older people tell young people that they "don't know what love is". Heather Corinna of Scarleteen writes about this dismissal of a young person's experience of love: "You felt the double-whammy of having what you know to be the truth of your feelings discounted and of being deeply patronized all at once." I feel sometimes the criticism of Twilight becomes criticism of its fans and I don't want this to be so.
Personally, if I were 12 when the Twilight books became popular, I think I would have liked them too, if not fanatically, at least partly. I don't like the books, but I still feel very close to the feelings Bella has, to the feelings the fans of Twilight have about the characters. I know the giddy feeling of having crush, even if its directed toward a fictional character or an actor playing the fictional character. These feelings that 12 year-olds have aren't the same love that a 21 year-old or a 41 or 71 year old woman would feel. But when you are (and when I was) 12 that is as close to romantic love as we have known. I've felt those feelings before, so I very much empathize with fans at the same time that I'm critical of the gender and race in the Twilight-verse. I see the appeal of Twilight, but I can't get past its treatment of a lot of other things.
(On a similar note, I see the appeal of Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita as a masterpiece of modern literature, but I just can't get past the icky-ness of pedophilia and into the novel.)
The reason I empathize with Twilight fans, the reason I would have liked Twilight as a girl, is correctly identified by Neesha Meminger as the need for girls to safely explore their burgeoning sexuality. She writes:
Stephanie Meyer has capitalized on the one niche that Disney and women’s romance novels left open: the hunger for teen girls (and their mothers) for a safe place to explore the wonder and excitement of their own sexuality.The key here is safety. There is good reason to take refuge in Twilight. The sexual exploitation of women and images of women is pervasive. We see them everyday: scantily-clad women on TV, women peddling cosmetics, weight-loss treatments, and ways to keep our men satisfied in bed.
Safety and security become difficult in adulthood have but we still desire and deserve it. When we're little, it was easy to be safe and to be protected. And as we grow up, the world opens up its possibilities but also its risks. I want to explore new places, new people, and new feelings but I still want to be held and to be cuddled. And it's
Meminger writes:
The final scene, with Edward lifting Bella onto his feet and dancing under the lights of the gazebo at her prom, is the ultimate little-girl-in-daddy’s-arms fantasy — safe, protected, cherished…still innocent.Yes. Enter Edward. While Edward carries a persistent undercurrent of danger, the readers also know that he won't bite (or have sex with) Bella. There's a paradoxically safe and controlled sense of danger, like the weightlessness of being in roller coaster all the while the bar is firmly across your lap. Bella's virginity and "innocence" is not actually in danger, but the reader is allowed the temporary vertigo of intense infatuation. Twilight provides its readers with a safe universe in which to swoon over a really good-looking boy. The character of Bella is criticized for being ... really bland but her lack of distinguishing traits facilitates connection with the reader because the reader easily inserting herself into the story as Bella. A blank canvas of a character isn't a writing classes teach to build character, but it makes a lot of girls feel like they are Bella.
Now about the older fans of Twilight, the young adult women, the moms of tweens:
The desire for safety never goes away. Relationships are tricky at any age. Sometimes it's nice to take refuge somewhere where the rules are clear and there's a happy ending waiting. I sometimes think it's rather nice to be in middle school where everyone seemed to know the rules of "going out". It meant telling someone you liked them, "going out", and dancing with each other at Fun Night.
And nor should it. Girls and women at any age confront challenges to their safe space. For college-aged women, it can be the sexual coercion at parties from strangers, acquaintances, and friends. Or it can be just figuring out what you want, which is still really confusing!
The popularity of Twilight doesn't spell the doom feminism, even though the critiques may seem like that. The girls on Team Edward or Team Jacob can grow up to be on Team Feminism. When I was little, I did all the girly things. I pretended to be a princess, dressed my dolls, watched Disney movies and was swept away by the prince charmings. Twilight won't become the model relationship for most its readers just as I don't believe in Disney movies anymore. As we grow up, we'll inevitably be exposed to different relationships, different kinds of love. Twilight will not be the only model on which to base our relationships.
My hope for the Twilight books, and by extension for crushes, infatuations, relationships that never get off the ground, and boyfriends is that they allow girls to explore their budding sexuality, to grapple with some really confusing feelings in a safe and healthy way.
---
A note from me:
I've been blogging prolifically of late, a new post almost every day for the past two weeks. I put much time and thought into blogging, mostly for my own pleasure, but it would be nice to hear an echo coming back. So... I'm encouraging lurkers to de-lurk. If my writings generate some discussion in you, I'd appreciate it if you leave a comment. I'd like to hear your take too. You don't need a Blogger account and you can also make it anonymous.
Thanks.
Monday, November 30, 2009
More about Sparkly Vampires and Chaste Kisses
It's no secret that I am critical of the rabid infection cultural phenomenon that is the Twilight series, as I have written about them here and here. Others too have written -- more eloquently and more in-depth than I -- about its problematic treatments of gender and race. The relationship between Bella and Edward has raised the ire of many readers, both female and male. I thought I'd highlight some of the discussions of the Twilight series that I've read.
An assemblage of writings in the blogosphere (and in print too!) raises many of these issues:
Their relationship is unhealthy. Edward is abusive and controlling, in the name of protection. Edward restricts Bella's access to her friends. Edward locks her in the house so she can't leave. Edward dismantles her truck. Oh also, if they had sex, Edward could kill her. Literally. I'm not looking to get injured or killed during sex, thankyouverymuch. Oh, see the signs of an abusive relationship.
When they finally consummate their marriage -- "consummate" sounds so antiquated--- Edward is gives Bella bruises, which she hides from him.
Bella's most prominent trait is low self-esteem.
Ms. Magazine "Taking a Bite Out of Twilight":
The obsession with Bella's virginity. Bitch Magazine calls this "abstinence porn". It really is porn, since Bella and Edward's relationship is completely unrealistic, just like porn is.
Interestingly enough, the movie Twilight was altered to be more feminist friendly, according to Carmen Siering, which only seems to prove that many people find their relationship uncomfortable.
About Jacob, the Quileute werewolf: Many readers were pleased with the inclusion of Jacob as a major character in the series, but still found his characterization problematic. According to Latoya Peterson at Racialicious, Jacob means "people of color are exoticized and sexualized – and often dangerous" and Bella's use of racial slurs, calling Jacob a mongrel.
I am particularly fond of this description of New Moon, the new Twilight movie.
This guy has a sense of humor as he review Twilight.
"Younger people seem to love this book, think it's brilliant and everyone else says that it's shit."
I think actually I'm going to split this Twilight entry into two parts. I'll end it here for now. Next I want to acknowledge Twilight's appeal.
An assemblage of writings in the blogosphere (and in print too!) raises many of these issues:
Their relationship is unhealthy. Edward is abusive and controlling, in the name of protection. Edward restricts Bella's access to her friends. Edward locks her in the house so she can't leave. Edward dismantles her truck. Oh also, if they had sex, Edward could kill her. Literally. I'm not looking to get injured or killed during sex, thankyouverymuch. Oh, see the signs of an abusive relationship.
When they finally consummate their marriage -- "consummate" sounds so antiquated--- Edward is gives Bella bruises, which she hides from him.
Edward, lost in his own lust, “makes love” so violently to Bella that she wakes up the next morning covered in bruises, the headboard in ruins from Edward’s romp. And guess what? Bella likes it. In fact, she loves it. She even tries to hide her bruises so Edward won’t feel bad. If the abstinence message in the previous books was ever supposed to be empowering, this scene, presented early in Breaking Dawn, undoes everything. (Bitch Magazine)
Bella's most prominent trait is low self-esteem.
Ms. Magazine "Taking a Bite Out of Twilight":
But few young readers ask, “Why not Team Bella?” perhaps because the answer is quite clear: There can be no Team Bella. Even though Bella is ostensibly a hero, in truth she is merely an object in the Twilight world."
The obsession with Bella's virginity. Bitch Magazine calls this "abstinence porn". It really is porn, since Bella and Edward's relationship is completely unrealistic, just like porn is.
The Twilight series has created a surprising new sub-genre of teen romance: It’s abstinence porn, sensational, erotic, and titillating. And in light of all the recent real-world attention on abstinence-only education, it’s surprising how successful this new genre is. Twilight actually convinces us that self-denial is hot.
Interestingly enough, the movie Twilight was altered to be more feminist friendly, according to Carmen Siering, which only seems to prove that many people find their relationship uncomfortable.
Director Catherine Hardwicke’s film version of Twilight remains true to the novel, but there are subtle changes that make it much more feminist-friendly. Kristin Stewart’s Bella is more outspoken and forthright, and Robert Pattinson’s Edward is much less condescending and overbearing. Their relationship seems to be built on equality and friendship, and includes scenes of mutual sexual frustration and restraint.Now Bella and Edward have finally had sex, of course Bella gets pregnant. Anna N. of Jezebel critiques the depiction teen motherhood and the antiabortion overtones surrounding Bella's pregnancy.
This creepy antiabortion allegory quickly gets literal, as the half-vampire fetus (actually an interesting metaphor for any pregnancy) starts killing Bella from the inside out. Even as it breaks her ribs and sucked the life from her, she proclaims, "I won't kill him." But does she have to face the consequences of this choice? No, because vampire magic suddenly allows mother and father to hear the fetus's thoughts, and to discover that it already loves them!
Because she is now a vampire, Bella is even hotter than she was before pregnancy, and after a short recovery period she's able to have all-night sex sessions with her husband while the extended family takes care of the perfectly behaved, telepathic baby. In the Breaking Dawn universe, teen motherhood just makes your life rad.This is the first time I've heard that you can have all-night sex as parents of a newborn. Yay. And it's alright morally because they're married. Maybe I should pop out a few kids.
About Jacob, the Quileute werewolf: Many readers were pleased with the inclusion of Jacob as a major character in the series, but still found his characterization problematic. According to Latoya Peterson at Racialicious, Jacob means "people of color are exoticized and sexualized – and often dangerous" and Bella's use of racial slurs, calling Jacob a mongrel.
I am particularly fond of this description of New Moon, the new Twilight movie.
Have you ever heard something along the lines of “dating someone who is [insert ethnic/racial group] ok, but you’d better not marry one!” or “Native Americans are so in touch with nature!”? Have you ever seen a film or tv show that relegated the person of color as the trusty sidekick, loyal friend, or temporary romantic plaything, only then to have the white hero enter in medias res and get all the praise and attention? Have you ever seen a piece from an ad campaign or historical policy discussions in which non-white people are portrayed as animalistic, in both their behavior, thought processes, and athletic ability? Have you, as a person of color, or if you are not, any of your POC friends, ever complained of feeling that their societal value was reduced to their physical appearance or a specific body part? If you answered “yes” to any of the above, you have already seen New Moon.
This guy has a sense of humor as he review Twilight.
"Younger people seem to love this book, think it's brilliant and everyone else says that it's shit."
I think actually I'm going to split this Twilight entry into two parts. I'll end it here for now. Next I want to acknowledge Twilight's appeal.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Choice Words: Twilight vs. Buffy
I think this post, which first appeared on July 29th, is particularly relevant because New Moon has just been released.
July 29th, 2009 by Chen
I haven’t been living under a rock, so I know that the Twilight book/movie/pop culture phenomenon is hugely popular. Almost as big as Twilight’s fandom is the amount of discussion about Bella and Edward’s relationship. Everyone’s got an opinion. I guess I’m not that qualified to review Twilight since I have not read the books or seen the movie, but I have been reading the blogosphere debates (flame wars?) about vampire guy/human girl relationships. I defer to this YouTube video and its accompanying explanation by its creator. I think it best shows that not all vampire/human relationships and male/female romances have to play out Stephanie Meyer’s way. And it’s funny.
Jonathan McIntosh of Rebellious Pixel, created this video and explains the reason for making it:
There are readers and moviegoers who simultaneously object to Bella and Edward’s antifeminist relationship and enjoy the series. I may be even be such a fan, if I ever watch more than the movie trailer or the Amazon.com book review. But I don’t think I will pick up the books because if I’m in the mood for the vampire genre, Buffy is the more palatable choice.
July 29th, 2009 by Chen
I haven’t been living under a rock, so I know that the Twilight book/movie/pop culture phenomenon is hugely popular. Almost as big as Twilight’s fandom is the amount of discussion about Bella and Edward’s relationship. Everyone’s got an opinion. I guess I’m not that qualified to review Twilight since I have not read the books or seen the movie, but I have been reading the blogosphere debates (flame wars?) about vampire guy/human girl relationships. I defer to this YouTube video and its accompanying explanation by its creator. I think it best shows that not all vampire/human relationships and male/female romances have to play out Stephanie Meyer’s way. And it’s funny.
Jonathan McIntosh of Rebellious Pixel, created this video and explains the reason for making it:
In this re-imagined narrative, Edward Cullen from the Twilight Series meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It’s an example of transformative storytelling serving as a pro-feminist visual critique of Edward’s character and generally creepy behavior. Seen through Buffy’s eyes, some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes embedded in the Twilight saga are exposed – in hilarious ways. Ultimately this remix is about more than a decisive showdown between the slayer and the sparkly vampire. It also doubles as a metaphor for the ongoing battle between two opposing visions of gender roles in the 21st century.Before seeing this video, I have read critiques of Twilight, contrasting it with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, such as this review from Salon.
Comparisons to another famous human girl with a vampire boyfriend are inevitable, but Bella Swan is no Buffy Summers. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was at heart one of those mythic hero’s journeys so beloved by Joseph Campbell-quoting screenwriters, albeit transfigured into something sharp and funny by making the hero a contemporary teenage girl. Buffy wrestled with a series of romantic dilemmas — in particular a penchant for hunky vampires — but her story always belonged to her. Fulfilling her responsibilities as a slayer, loyalty to her friends and family, doing the right thing and cobbling together some semblance of a healthy life were all ultimately as important, if not more important, to her than getting the guy.Jonathan McIntosh writes a longer expose on Twilight/Buffy called What Would Buffy Do?
There are readers and moviegoers who simultaneously object to Bella and Edward’s antifeminist relationship and enjoy the series. I may be even be such a fan, if I ever watch more than the movie trailer or the Amazon.com book review. But I don’t think I will pick up the books because if I’m in the mood for the vampire genre, Buffy is the more palatable choice.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Mysteries of Pre-Teen Life Revisited
Teen Magazine really had the pulse on the mysteries of pre-teen life: boyfriends, makeup, and periods. Basically these aspirations translated to crushes, lip gloss and bright nail polish, and period mishaps.
I had a jolly good time flipping through the July 2000 issue of Teen Magazine with a couple of Women's Council members. I don't think I have read an early teenage girls' magazine since that time and I had forgotten about the content of those magazines. I can look back and reminisce and laugh about that time.
I saw a Bonne Bell Lip Gloss ad in the July 2000 issue for lip gloss with a top that flipped open when you pushed a sliding button. I remember that model lip gloss. They don't even make it anymore; I checked the Bonne Bell website. We were all "addicted" to lip glosses, especially Bonne Bell's LipSmackers, in its simple cylindrical tube. They used to be as cheap as $0.99 each, but they're probably close to $2 now. That seemed like make-up to me.
One mainstay of pre-teen magazines were the Embarrassing Moments combining bodily functions, friends and family, and very bad timing. The submissions rated most embarrassing reliably combined periods, boyfriend, and extremely bad timing. A sure winner would be: I got my period when I was having dinner with my boyfriend's parents for the first time. I was wearing a white skirt and I stained their dining room chair!
Cooties did not follow me from fifth grade to sixth grade. I left them scattered like wood chips around the elementary school jungle gym. The pre-teen years made me see boys in a different light. Teen Magazine -- very timely -- was on hand to guide me through this feeling that I really wanted to talk to this boy who was in my class. It answered such burning questions as "How do I know if a boy likes me" and provided valuable advice on a very grown-up skill called flirting. Today I read an article in which a genuine teenage boy described the signs that a girl is interested in a guy: she touches you on the arm or the shoulder and smiles and laughs at everything you say.
Somehow in middle school (and to some extent high school), everyone followed the same conventions of what pre-teens thought romance. It's really cheesy to recall now, but at least we all agreed on those conventions. Yes this shows he is interested in you, no, this means you're just friends. "Going out" meant you were entitled to very intimate privileges such as going to the movies together (even though your parents had to drive you there), holding hands, and slow dancing with the same partner during Fun Nights (6-8pm in the gym with the cougar logo on the floor about once a month, I think).
If only it were still that simple. In my early adolescence, I couldn't imagine something like friends with benefits. Well, I still can't really figure that out. Oh, did we just make out? I didn't mean that. Oh, let's have sex. But I don't mean it either.
I had a jolly good time flipping through the July 2000 issue of Teen Magazine with a couple of Women's Council members. I don't think I have read an early teenage girls' magazine since that time and I had forgotten about the content of those magazines. I can look back and reminisce and laugh about that time.
I saw a Bonne Bell Lip Gloss ad in the July 2000 issue for lip gloss with a top that flipped open when you pushed a sliding button. I remember that model lip gloss. They don't even make it anymore; I checked the Bonne Bell website. We were all "addicted" to lip glosses, especially Bonne Bell's LipSmackers, in its simple cylindrical tube. They used to be as cheap as $0.99 each, but they're probably close to $2 now. That seemed like make-up to me.
One mainstay of pre-teen magazines were the Embarrassing Moments combining bodily functions, friends and family, and very bad timing. The submissions rated most embarrassing reliably combined periods, boyfriend, and extremely bad timing. A sure winner would be: I got my period when I was having dinner with my boyfriend's parents for the first time. I was wearing a white skirt and I stained their dining room chair!
Cooties did not follow me from fifth grade to sixth grade. I left them scattered like wood chips around the elementary school jungle gym. The pre-teen years made me see boys in a different light. Teen Magazine -- very timely -- was on hand to guide me through this feeling that I really wanted to talk to this boy who was in my class. It answered such burning questions as "How do I know if a boy likes me" and provided valuable advice on a very grown-up skill called flirting. Today I read an article in which a genuine teenage boy described the signs that a girl is interested in a guy: she touches you on the arm or the shoulder and smiles and laughs at everything you say.
Somehow in middle school (and to some extent high school), everyone followed the same conventions of what pre-teens thought romance. It's really cheesy to recall now, but at least we all agreed on those conventions. Yes this shows he is interested in you, no, this means you're just friends. "Going out" meant you were entitled to very intimate privileges such as going to the movies together (even though your parents had to drive you there), holding hands, and slow dancing with the same partner during Fun Nights (6-8pm in the gym with the cougar logo on the floor about once a month, I think).
If only it were still that simple. In my early adolescence, I couldn't imagine something like friends with benefits. Well, I still can't really figure that out. Oh, did we just make out? I didn't mean that. Oh, let's have sex. But I don't mean it either.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Feminists flirt
From Isabel Allende's TED Talk:
I found this funny:
"For most Western young women of today, being called a feminist is an insult. Feminism has never been sexy, but let me assure you that it never stopped me from flirting, and I have seldom suffered from lack of men."
Sounds like there are plenty of men who find feminism sexy.
I found this funny:
"For most Western young women of today, being called a feminist is an insult. Feminism has never been sexy, but let me assure you that it never stopped me from flirting, and I have seldom suffered from lack of men."
Sounds like there are plenty of men who find feminism sexy.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
I love Nick Kristof
I have a crush on Nick Kristof, the New York Times columnist, because he consistently highlights the importance of women and girls in bettering societies, domestically and abroad. In particular, he always makes a strong case linking the importance of women to the most pressing, most challenging issues of the day. And I’m publicly declaring my love for him today because he and his wife Sheryl WuDunn wrote the cover piece for this past weekend’s New York Times Sunday Magazine, a special edition on women, that perfectly explains his view of the relationship between women’s empowerment and development.
From The Women's Crusade:
In many poor countries, the greatest unexploited resource isn’t oil fields or veins of gold; it is the women and girls who aren’t educated and never become a major presence in the formal economy. With education and with help starting businesses, impoverished women can earn money and support their countries as well as their families. They represent perhaps the best hope for fighting global poverty.
“The world is awakening to a powerful truth: Women and girls aren’t the problem; they’re the solution,” writes Kristof and WuDunn. Aid to women is not a pity cause, a pet cause, or a charity case. But I think sometimes these problems are perceived as such. The developed world, as individuals and as nations, give money to social causes as “charity”. “They” are poor and “we” are going out of our way to do a good deed. In contrast, money for, say, investment in developing markets is business and both sides are business partners. There is occasional hubbub — charity concerts and the like — over social programs, but they are generally given lip service. The bulk of global development efforts are devoted to political and economic issues. But Kristof and WuDunn very eloquently show that aid to women benefits everyone. Women will lead their families, their communities, and their countries to prosperity.
Like Kristof, I have always believed that treating women right is a vital part of any country that wants to security, stability, and become a player in the global community. But I don’t think many of those in power in this country and elsewhere share this belief because the more I have learned about world politics, the more I have come to see the gulf separating “hard” issues like security, arms control, trade and “soft” issues like education, nutrition, child and maternal health, and social issues. At times it makes me mildly embarrassed even, to say that I care about women’s issues because I think it pigeon holes me as idealistic and naive. Like I want to “help people” but have no understanding of national governments and global institutions. So I’m all the more glad to see Nick Kristof using his position as a widely-read journalist to explain that women’s rights is a vital part of the solution to global problems.
There is “hard” evidence now that helping women does help the whole society. It often happens that men who control the family finances don’t spend it well. And when you have very little to spend, you must spend wisely.
One reason involves the dirty little secret of global poverty: some of the most wretched suffering is caused not just by low incomes but also by unwise spending by the poor — especially by men.
When women have control of money, they spend less on entertainment — alcohol, tobacco — and more on the family — food, medical care. So giving women greater financial power also helps families prioritize their spending.
The economist Esther Duflo of M.I.T. found that when the men’s crops flourish, the household spends more money on alcohol and tobacco. When the women have a good crop, the households spend more money on food. “When women command greater power, child health and nutrition improves,” Duflo says.
Terrorism is one today’s most pressing issue today and women’s empowerment is a key part of it. Kristof concedes that the precise mechanism of this is unclear, but societies in which women participate are less likely to breed terrorism.
Yet another reason to educate and empower women is that greater female involvement in society and the economy appears to undermine extremism and terrorism. It has long been known that a risk factor for turbulence and violence is the share of a country’s population made up of young people. Now it is emerging that male domination of society is also a risk factor; the reasons aren’t fully understood, but it may be that when women are marginalized the nation takes on the testosterone-laden culture of a military camp or a high-school boys’ locker room.
The piece opens with a Chinese saying that women hold up half the sky. It is a saying that I like very much and am familiar with. For now it seems that women should not peek through the cracks of a world that men have built and run. But a few good people, Nick Kristof included, know that they should be leading the world.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Because we all need to learn about STIs in women
I love medicine and I love the human body (a feeling pursue sapiance captures nicely here) and it pains me a little to hear medicine described as an all-out racist, sexist, and heteronormative medical-pharmaceutical complex because I feel as if all medical professionals are being tarred with the same brush. I know of students and medical professionals who not only know their science, but are also socially conscious. (I like to think of myself among their ranks). I'd much rather highlight the efforts of people trying to do something about the outdated ideas that exists in medicine.
I especially admire a professor for her gender-balanced lecture on sexually transmitted infections. I think it shows that not only can you be a doctor and still have a heart, but small but meaningful change from within is possible.
I had this professor for a human pathophysiology course, the study of human diseases. When we arrived in class for the lecture was on sexually transmitted infections, my professor began by saying that she made changes to the lecture notes left by the last professor who taught this class. The last professor did not discuss STIs in females! No talk of signs and symptoms, manifestations, treatments, modes of transmission of STIs for females. My professor was appalled by this omission and made sure to include these discussions in her lecture.
She explained that perhaps because many STIs have few signs and symptoms in women, the previous professor thought it was acceptable to exclude any discussion of them. The causes of STIs -- the kind of virus or bacteria -- would already be covered in discussions of STIs in males. Of course this excuse didn't make much sense to my professor and me. Even if there are few symptoms in women, it is important for students and sexually active people to know that there are few symptoms in women so that we can be all the more vigilant.
I especially admire a professor for her gender-balanced lecture on sexually transmitted infections. I think it shows that not only can you be a doctor and still have a heart, but small but meaningful change from within is possible. Even though she did not re-educate years of students for whom this important demographic was missing from their human pathophysiology education in STIs, I still think it was good of her to point out this omission. She could have just changed the lecture and given it without any of the students knowing about the previous version. In explaining it to us, she taught us that medicine is still riddled with pockets of misconceptions and outdated information, but that she as the new instructor and we as students, are capable of teaching and learning better medicine.
This brings me to a point about medical education. My professor prefaced her explanation of the STI omission (and indeed apologized for delaying the start of her lecture) by acknowledging that she was an anthropology major as an undergrad. With that perspective, she was able to easily spot the embedded in medicine. It also restored my belief that my non-science education as a Comparative Cultures and Politics major in the college of public affairs will still pop up to shape the way I see medicine. Because sometimes all the talk of non-science majors, well-rounded students sounds like meaningless admissions committee blather.
Let's not forget that women make up an increasing proportion of medical school students, which can only be a good thing. In 2008, 47.9% of medical school students were female. It's not quite equal yet, but in 1988, it was 35.2% and a mere 8.8% in 1968. (Source: AAMC )I think many women, not necessarily anthropology majors, will be watchful for accurate medical information about themselves.
All this, good things for medicine. Keep women and anthro majors coming in medical school.
I especially admire a professor for her gender-balanced lecture on sexually transmitted infections. I think it shows that not only can you be a doctor and still have a heart, but small but meaningful change from within is possible.
I had this professor for a human pathophysiology course, the study of human diseases. When we arrived in class for the lecture was on sexually transmitted infections, my professor began by saying that she made changes to the lecture notes left by the last professor who taught this class. The last professor did not discuss STIs in females! No talk of signs and symptoms, manifestations, treatments, modes of transmission of STIs for females. My professor was appalled by this omission and made sure to include these discussions in her lecture.
She explained that perhaps because many STIs have few signs and symptoms in women, the previous professor thought it was acceptable to exclude any discussion of them. The causes of STIs -- the kind of virus or bacteria -- would already be covered in discussions of STIs in males. Of course this excuse didn't make much sense to my professor and me. Even if there are few symptoms in women, it is important for students and sexually active people to know that there are few symptoms in women so that we can be all the more vigilant.
I especially admire a professor for her gender-balanced lecture on sexually transmitted infections. I think it shows that not only can you be a doctor and still have a heart, but small but meaningful change from within is possible. Even though she did not re-educate years of students for whom this important demographic was missing from their human pathophysiology education in STIs, I still think it was good of her to point out this omission. She could have just changed the lecture and given it without any of the students knowing about the previous version. In explaining it to us, she taught us that medicine is still riddled with pockets of misconceptions and outdated information, but that she as the new instructor and we as students, are capable of teaching and learning better medicine.
This brings me to a point about medical education. My professor prefaced her explanation of the STI omission (and indeed apologized for delaying the start of her lecture) by acknowledging that she was an anthropology major as an undergrad. With that perspective, she was able to easily spot the embedded in medicine. It also restored my belief that my non-science education as a Comparative Cultures and Politics major in the college of public affairs will still pop up to shape the way I see medicine. Because sometimes all the talk of non-science majors, well-rounded students sounds like meaningless admissions committee blather.
Let's not forget that women make up an increasing proportion of medical school students, which can only be a good thing. In 2008, 47.9% of medical school students were female. It's not quite equal yet, but in 1988, it was 35.2% and a mere 8.8% in 1968. (Source: AAMC )I think many women, not necessarily anthropology majors, will be watchful for accurate medical information about themselves.
All this, good things for medicine. Keep women and anthro majors coming in medical school.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Last week I while was talking to someone (sorry, forgot who) about Buffy and Twilight, I was reminded that Mr. Wilson, my AC English teacher in high school, was a huge Buffy fan. He would joke that his winter break plan was just to watch Buffy. At the time, this made him seem rather odd and almost creepy since I thought the main demo of Buffy was probably 12-20 year old girls, not mid-30s guys. But now because of Twilight, I have a new appreciation for Buffy.
I haven’t been living under a rock, so I know that the Twilight book/movie/pop culture phenomenon is hugely popular. Almost as big as Twilight’s fandom is the amount of discussion about Bella and Edward’s relationship. Everyone’s got an opinion. I guess I’m not that qualified to review Twilight since I have not read the books or seen the movie, but I have been reading the blogosphere debates (flame wars?) about vampire guy/human girl relationships. I defer to this YouTube video and its accompanying explanation by its creator. I think it best shows that not all vampire/human relationships and male/female romances have to play out Stephanie Meyer’s way. And it’s funny.
Jonathan McIntosh of Rebellious Pixels, created this video and explains the reason for making it:
In this re-imagined narrative, Edward Cullen from the Twilight Series meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It’s an example of transformative storytelling serving as a pro-feminist visual critique of Edward’s character and generally creepy behavior. Seen through Buffy’s eyes, some of the more sexist gender roles and patriarchal Hollywood themes embedded in the Twilight saga are exposed - in hilarious ways. Ultimately this remix is about more than a decisive showdown between the slayer and the sparkly vampire. It also doubles as a metaphor for the ongoing battle between two opposing visions of gender roles in the 21st century.
Before seeing this video, I have read critiques of Twilight, contrasting it with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, such as this review from Salon.
Comparisons to another famous human girl with a vampire boyfriend are inevitable, but Bella Swan is no Buffy Summers. “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” was at heart one of those mythic hero’s journeys so beloved by Joseph Campbell-quoting screenwriters, albeit transfigured into something sharp and funny by making the hero a contemporary teenage girl. Buffy wrestled with a series of romantic dilemmas — in particular a penchant for hunky vampires — but her story always belonged to her. Fulfilling her responsibilities as a slayer, loyalty to her friends and family, doing the right thing and cobbling together some semblance of a healthy life were all ultimately as important, if not more important, to her than getting the guy.
Jonathan McIntosh writes a longer expose on Twilight/Buffy called What Would Buffy Do?
There are readers and moviegoers who simultaneously object to Bella and Edward’s antifeminist relationship and enjoy the series. I may be even be such a fan, if I ever watch more than the movie trailer or the Amazon.com book review. But I don’t think I will pick up the books because if I’m in the mood for the vampire genre, Buffy is the more palatable choice.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Lysistrata 400s BCE to Kenya 2009 CE
*X-posted on Choice Words
I know this is the THIRD blog post on essentially the same story, but I want to bring another angle to it.
When I first read this story, I actually thought about Aristophanes' play Lysistrata. It has made me think about the power of sex and the power of women when they use it.
A couple days ago I posted on my facebook status a link to this BBC article titled "Kenyan women hit men with sex ban". Basically, women's organizations in Kenya are calling on Kenyan women to deny sex to their husbands for seven days in hopes the men will resolve the disagreements between political rivals in the government. I guess this movement is really taking hold in Kenya. An update (Wife of Kenyan PM Backs Sex Ban) says that the wife of Kenya's Prime Minister supports the ban too.
After I posted the Kenya article as my status, I got several "like" comments. But I felt rather uneasy about the story. I thought it was rather sad because it showed that in some ways, women do not have any more power than they did 2400 years ago.
The play Lysistrata was set in the 5th century BCE. Lysistrata is about the role of women in bringing an end to the Peloponnesian War, a long and destructive war between Athens and Sparta and their allies from 431 to 411 BCE. The title character, an Athenian woman named Lysistrata organizes the women of Greece to withhold sex from their husbands until they end the war. The sex-strike works, the war is over, and in the end everyone has sex again.
The women of ancient Athens and contemporary Kenya have little political power. There is a saying that goes something like, "behind every powerful man is a strong woman." I suppose the sex-strike shows the power women have over their men. But I wish that the woman is the powerful one in front.
In response to Kia's question, I don't think sex should be used as political leverage because it can so easily be leveraged against women.
I know this is the THIRD blog post on essentially the same story, but I want to bring another angle to it.
When I first read this story, I actually thought about Aristophanes' play Lysistrata. It has made me think about the power of sex and the power of women when they use it.
A couple days ago I posted on my facebook status a link to this BBC article titled "Kenyan women hit men with sex ban". Basically, women's organizations in Kenya are calling on Kenyan women to deny sex to their husbands for seven days in hopes the men will resolve the disagreements between political rivals in the government. I guess this movement is really taking hold in Kenya. An update (Wife of Kenyan PM Backs Sex Ban) says that the wife of Kenya's Prime Minister supports the ban too.
After I posted the Kenya article as my status, I got several "like" comments. But I felt rather uneasy about the story. I thought it was rather sad because it showed that in some ways, women do not have any more power than they did 2400 years ago.
The play Lysistrata was set in the 5th century BCE. Lysistrata is about the role of women in bringing an end to the Peloponnesian War, a long and destructive war between Athens and Sparta and their allies from 431 to 411 BCE. The title character, an Athenian woman named Lysistrata organizes the women of Greece to withhold sex from their husbands until they end the war. The sex-strike works, the war is over, and in the end everyone has sex again.
The women of ancient Athens and contemporary Kenya have little political power. There is a saying that goes something like, "behind every powerful man is a strong woman." I suppose the sex-strike shows the power women have over their men. But I wish that the woman is the powerful one in front.
In response to Kia's question, I don't think sex should be used as political leverage because it can so easily be leveraged against women.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Doctors as allies and enemies
I have been feeling uneasy about the relationship between doctors and feminists because I am both a (future) doctor and feminist. A while ago I went to a Planned Parenthood conference for college activists in Michigan with fellow members of MSU Students for Choice, and the issue of doctors vs. women or doctors' alliance with women came up. In addition, Women's Council is getting ready to show the documentary "The Business of Being Born". I fully support the screening and have actually planned the logistics of the event. But I felt that now is the time I talk about my views of medicine and women.
I want to be on the side of both doctors and feminists. But I know that some feel the two fields are incompatible, that feminists hate doctors and doctors aren't supportive of women.
First, I want to identify a phenomenon that I have observed: doctors are sometimes praised and at other times villified by feminists.
My experiences with pro-choice activists has been that they are sympathetic and grateful for doctors who perform abortions. For pro-choice activists concerned about abortions as a public health issue, obstetricians who perform abortions are good doctors. When abortions were illegal, they risked their medical practice to perform them. When abortions will legal but faced violent opposition, they risked their lives to perform them. The few were murdered by anti-abortion extremists in their own clinics became martyrs to the cause. The abortion doctor in a several hundred mile radius is applauded and praised. I'm probably not going to be an obstetrician/gynecologist, but if I were, I would feel that my work has a purpose.
But many pro-choice women are also feminists who feel disempowered by a medical profession that is patriarchal, impersonal, selfish and downright inaccurate. The same ob/gyns that women are appreciative are included in their critique of all doctors. I have also noticed a weird confluence that both anti-abortion and ardent feminists call doctors who perform abortions "abortionists". This language intentionally removes the accolade associated with being a "doctor". A doctor is an abortionists for killing babies or for humiliatingly poking around a woman's reproductive organs or cruelly performing an abortion.
Secondly, I have more to say on my thoughts about medicine, but it started to go off topic from feminism and choice, so I'll save that for another day.
I want to be on the side of both doctors and feminists. But I know that some feel the two fields are incompatible, that feminists hate doctors and doctors aren't supportive of women.
First, I want to identify a phenomenon that I have observed: doctors are sometimes praised and at other times villified by feminists.
My experiences with pro-choice activists has been that they are sympathetic and grateful for doctors who perform abortions. For pro-choice activists concerned about abortions as a public health issue, obstetricians who perform abortions are good doctors. When abortions were illegal, they risked their medical practice to perform them. When abortions will legal but faced violent opposition, they risked their lives to perform them. The few were murdered by anti-abortion extremists in their own clinics became martyrs to the cause. The abortion doctor in a several hundred mile radius is applauded and praised. I'm probably not going to be an obstetrician/gynecologist, but if I were, I would feel that my work has a purpose.
But many pro-choice women are also feminists who feel disempowered by a medical profession that is patriarchal, impersonal, selfish and downright inaccurate. The same ob/gyns that women are appreciative are included in their critique of all doctors. I have also noticed a weird confluence that both anti-abortion and ardent feminists call doctors who perform abortions "abortionists". This language intentionally removes the accolade associated with being a "doctor". A doctor is an abortionists for killing babies or for humiliatingly poking around a woman's reproductive organs or cruelly performing an abortion.
Secondly, I have more to say on my thoughts about medicine, but it started to go off topic from feminism and choice, so I'll save that for another day.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
I'm not over the hill
Rebecca Walker said during the student colloquium last Friday that she was "maxed out on feminism" when explaining her unusual, and some would say unfeminist views. Her lecture was not a rallying cry to stand up, speak out. It was the opposite. She had no grand schemes to spread her idea of openness but seemed to describe it as something that happens between individuals or entirely from within the individual.
So after that lecture, I got the feeling that she had moved beyond her activist past. She was born to be an activist -- a movement child -- a symbol of the Civil Rights movement, a interracial marriage. And she was an activist at Yale and the founder of an activist foundation. But she is an activist no longer.
Her lecture seemed a bit like an older person tut-tut-ing at young foolish kids. Her point may be right for a 40 year old. But I'm not over the hill. I haven't lived those years.
In 20 years I may very well be married, have children, drive them around in a minivan, and (insert gendered role you love to hate). I might actually enjoy it. But I'm still working my way through those twenty years.
I'm young. I'm idealistic. I think I can put off having children for as long as I want. I will never compromise my feminist views. I strive for social justice. And I am not over the hill of my feminist ideals.
This also might well be true, that in 20 years I may not be an activist. But I will always care.
So after that lecture, I got the feeling that she had moved beyond her activist past. She was born to be an activist -- a movement child -- a symbol of the Civil Rights movement, a interracial marriage. And she was an activist at Yale and the founder of an activist foundation. But she is an activist no longer.
Her lecture seemed a bit like an older person tut-tut-ing at young foolish kids. Her point may be right for a 40 year old. But I'm not over the hill. I haven't lived those years.
In 20 years I may very well be married, have children, drive them around in a minivan, and (insert gendered role you love to hate). I might actually enjoy it. But I'm still working my way through those twenty years.
I'm young. I'm idealistic. I think I can put off having children for as long as I want. I will never compromise my feminist views. I strive for social justice. And I am not over the hill of my feminist ideals.
This also might well be true, that in 20 years I may not be an activist. But I will always care.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Rebecca Walker, what I agree and disagree with.
Over the past couple of days I had several chances to hear Rebecca Walker speak and speak to her. I was grateful for these three opportunities -- her talk on Thursday night, a student discussion, and a luncheon on Friday -- because they gave me a more complete understanding of her ideas about not just the election but also feminism and activism.
To be honest, after the first talk, I wasn't convinced by everything she said. I agreed with some of her critiques but felt there were convincing alternatives or ways to achieve the alternatives she proposed.
AGREE: I agreed with her critique of the election, that identity politics continues to play an undeserved role in influencing voters. She used this presidential election to illustrate that our lens of seeing the world in terms of race, class, and gender is used against us, by ourselves and by others. We remain locked in identity politics. Some people will not vote for Barack Obama because he's black. Some people will not vote for Sarah Palin because she is a woman. Some people will vote for her because she is a woman. Voters are being manipulated by the strategists who understand their weakness. Thus Palin was picked to win the votes of white women. I agree with all this.
CONFUSED: But I was lost on her alternative: to practice "openness", to reject race, class, gender, and history. She encouraged us to be human, to let go of the histories of the bitterness of the oppression suffered by ancestors belonging to our race, class, and gender. I wasn't sure how to achieve openness or how to spread this idea of openness to others once I achieved it myself. Of course Walker would just call this "disbelief" and tell me to "stamp it out", but I wasn't sure how to stamp it out. I needed some steps to take, some plan.
CONFUSION RESOLVED: On Friday, Walker explained that she believed we still should participate in interpersonal dialogue about openness, resolved my confusion about what I thought was the private nature of "openness". The better way to reach other to people is to share our ideas through education and dialogue.
DISAGREE: In addition, it seemed to me that she talked about openness in conjunction with a critique of America's political system. Politics is a not a way to achieve progress because politics is civic warfare. Engaging in warfare for peace is impossible, like planting corn and expecting to harvest wheat. I do agree that American politics has its flaws. But I also believe that a liberal democracy is far from the worst system of government one could have, not only because I study this government and politics so I naturally want to feel that my studies aren't for naught, but also because having lived in not-democratic places, I rather like the rights we have in America.
I don't disagree with all of Walker's criticism, I just don't think we need to be unduly alarmist about it. She said that the presidential candidates should calm the public about the financial crisis. I think we also need to be calm over the state of this country.
Yes, these rights are being eroded, which is why Walker no longer believes America is as safe and free as it used to be. Indeed, the US has dropped to a "moderate" country in the Failed States Index from a "sustainable" one, but we're joined by countries such as the UK, France, Germany, South Korea. There are only 15 sustainable countries, mostly Scandinavian ones, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. (I think Iceland won't be "sustainable" on next year's list.) But try giving this same criticism of the government in say, Burma or China. I guarantee you a much better chance of being hauled away by the government and never seen again.
I'm running the risk of sounding like a deluded lunatic "patriot" (Republican) by lauding some aspects of America but I feel this attitude that America is the Titanic going down seems arrogant in the face of people who do live in failed or nearly failing states. It's like saying, I understand extreme poverty in the global south because I'm below the poverty line, I live in the housing projects, and I drive a crappy old car. You don't. America still has a lot of power and influence in the world, not the most power and influence, but a lot.
To be honest, after the first talk, I wasn't convinced by everything she said. I agreed with some of her critiques but felt there were convincing alternatives or ways to achieve the alternatives she proposed.
AGREE: I agreed with her critique of the election, that identity politics continues to play an undeserved role in influencing voters. She used this presidential election to illustrate that our lens of seeing the world in terms of race, class, and gender is used against us, by ourselves and by others. We remain locked in identity politics. Some people will not vote for Barack Obama because he's black. Some people will not vote for Sarah Palin because she is a woman. Some people will vote for her because she is a woman. Voters are being manipulated by the strategists who understand their weakness. Thus Palin was picked to win the votes of white women. I agree with all this.
CONFUSED: But I was lost on her alternative: to practice "openness", to reject race, class, gender, and history. She encouraged us to be human, to let go of the histories of the bitterness of the oppression suffered by ancestors belonging to our race, class, and gender. I wasn't sure how to achieve openness or how to spread this idea of openness to others once I achieved it myself. Of course Walker would just call this "disbelief" and tell me to "stamp it out", but I wasn't sure how to stamp it out. I needed some steps to take, some plan.
CONFUSION RESOLVED: On Friday, Walker explained that she believed we still should participate in interpersonal dialogue about openness, resolved my confusion about what I thought was the private nature of "openness". The better way to reach other to people is to share our ideas through education and dialogue.
DISAGREE: In addition, it seemed to me that she talked about openness in conjunction with a critique of America's political system. Politics is a not a way to achieve progress because politics is civic warfare. Engaging in warfare for peace is impossible, like planting corn and expecting to harvest wheat. I do agree that American politics has its flaws. But I also believe that a liberal democracy is far from the worst system of government one could have, not only because I study this government and politics so I naturally want to feel that my studies aren't for naught, but also because having lived in not-democratic places, I rather like the rights we have in America.
I don't disagree with all of Walker's criticism, I just don't think we need to be unduly alarmist about it. She said that the presidential candidates should calm the public about the financial crisis. I think we also need to be calm over the state of this country.
Yes, these rights are being eroded, which is why Walker no longer believes America is as safe and free as it used to be. Indeed, the US has dropped to a "moderate" country in the Failed States Index from a "sustainable" one, but we're joined by countries such as the UK, France, Germany, South Korea. There are only 15 sustainable countries, mostly Scandinavian ones, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. (I think Iceland won't be "sustainable" on next year's list.) But try giving this same criticism of the government in say, Burma or China. I guarantee you a much better chance of being hauled away by the government and never seen again.
I'm running the risk of sounding like a deluded lunatic "patriot" (Republican) by lauding some aspects of America but I feel this attitude that America is the Titanic going down seems arrogant in the face of people who do live in failed or nearly failing states. It's like saying, I understand extreme poverty in the global south because I'm below the poverty line, I live in the housing projects, and I drive a crappy old car. You don't. America still has a lot of power and influence in the world, not the most power and influence, but a lot.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Jeers: Maxim's Hottest Politicians on The State News
The same day that I was inspired by strong pro-woman women politicians, I get an ugly reminder that women in politics are still judged by the way they look by this Maxim magazine list that The State News covered.
Today I had the great fortune of attending the 4th Annual March for Choice at the State Capitol. The first speaker and one of the most energetic was Senator Gretchen Whitmer and she knew how to work the crowd! She has been a stronger supporter of pro-woman and pro-choice issues. She is a Democrat and represents the 23rd district, which includes most of Ingham county.
Later today, I was looking around The State News' website and found this article about her: "Local Senator Named 8th Hottest Politician by Magazine".
Note that Maxim is trying to give us a lesson in international politics, by making their list international politicians. Thanks for the International Relations lesson.
It's within Maxim's disgustingness to publish such Top 10 lists, but The State News, I'm disappointed in you too for passing it along to MSU.
Today I had the great fortune of attending the 4th Annual March for Choice at the State Capitol. The first speaker and one of the most energetic was Senator Gretchen Whitmer and she knew how to work the crowd! She has been a stronger supporter of pro-woman and pro-choice issues. She is a Democrat and represents the 23rd district, which includes most of Ingham county.
Later today, I was looking around The State News' website and found this article about her: "Local Senator Named 8th Hottest Politician by Magazine".
Move over, MSU Playboy models — State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer, D-Lansing, is in town.
And now she’s been put in Maxim magazine, too. Whitmer was named the eighth hottest politician in the world by Maxim magazine.
“I’m taking it with a grain of salt and a good sense of humor,” Whitmer said. Whitmer is not the only Michigan politician with winning looks.Gov. Jennifer Granholm was named the “Sexiest Governor 2005” by www.billyeakes.com and www.moonshinerepublic.com.
But Whitmer’s Maxim honors have caused her to be “teased mercilessly” — mainly by Sens. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, and Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland — because of a comparison to the woman who comes in at No. 2 on the list.
“They think it’s funny that I’m on a list with (Republican vice presidential candidate and Alaska Gov.) Sarah Palin because they’re both Republicans,” Whitmer said.
The full list is featured online at Maxim.com/Girls.
Published on Tuesday, September 23, 2008
She's put in the difficult position of having to play along with this "compliment". I'm cringing as I read this article and I imagine that that's what Whitmer really means when she says she takes with with a grain of salt and good humor. If she complained about it, she'd be Bitch!Politician. "Teasing" from male Republican senators recalls a frat boy's immaturity toward women.Note that Maxim is trying to give us a lesson in international politics, by making their list international politicians. Thanks for the International Relations lesson.
It's within Maxim's disgustingness to publish such Top 10 lists, but The State News, I'm disappointed in you too for passing it along to MSU.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Top Ten Reasons I Don't Date Republicans
I know I should be talking about progressive issues that were discussed at the Campus Progress Conference but surely one of the highlights was hearing Linda Sanchez speak. She recounted a story in which two men in business suits in the elevator of a House office building politely asked which office she worked in. "Oh, I have my own office here," she replied.
She also left us with these words of wisdom:
Top Ten Reasons I Don't Date Republicans
by Linda Sanchez
10. The only time they believe in fiscal restraint is when the dinner bill comes.
9. His idea of getting to second base is fondling my stock portfolio.
8. He thinks that Emily's List is a call girl service.
7. His idea of oral stimulation is getting me to recite the Contract with America.
6. He thinks that white pantyhose and pearls are sexy--and you should see what he wants me to wear.
5. Because when Republicans say that they want to create opportunities for minorities, that means they want to date me and Loretta [Linda's sister. Also a congresswoman].
4. Despite all the hype, I still can't find his weapon of mass destruction.
3. His pending prison term for political corruption is just another excuse for him to be emotionally unavailable.
2. Republicans are only interested in screwing the poor.
1. Because they make love like they make war: they lie to get in and don't have a plan for what to do once they get there
She also left us with these words of wisdom:
Top Ten Reasons I Don't Date Republicans
by Linda Sanchez
10. The only time they believe in fiscal restraint is when the dinner bill comes.
9. His idea of getting to second base is fondling my stock portfolio.
8. He thinks that Emily's List is a call girl service.
7. His idea of oral stimulation is getting me to recite the Contract with America.
6. He thinks that white pantyhose and pearls are sexy--and you should see what he wants me to wear.
5. Because when Republicans say that they want to create opportunities for minorities, that means they want to date me and Loretta [Linda's sister. Also a congresswoman].
4. Despite all the hype, I still can't find his weapon of mass destruction.
3. His pending prison term for political corruption is just another excuse for him to be emotionally unavailable.
2. Republicans are only interested in screwing the poor.
1. Because they make love like they make war: they lie to get in and don't have a plan for what to do once they get there
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Where I will be this summer
I started this blog in part to keep track of my adventures this summer, so I am now making the official announcement about my plans:
I will be a Policy and Government Affairs intern at AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth & Families, an non-profit in Washington DC. (I'm going to Washington!) AIDS Alliance is an advocacy group particularly for women, children, youth, and families with and affected by HIV.
As a Policy and Government Affairs intern, I will research policy, legislation, write letters to policymakers, and maybe even go to Capitol Hill. I think I'm going to learn a lot about domestic policies about funding, prevention, and education for HIV/AIDS.
I'm leaving Memorial Day weekend and won't be back until the weekend before the fall semester starts, so pretty much the entire summer.
I will be posting my weekly essays here and uploading photos of lovely Washington DC. I hope someone reads this so my efforts are not soley for my own archives.
I will be a Policy and Government Affairs intern at AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth & Families, an non-profit in Washington DC. (I'm going to Washington!) AIDS Alliance is an advocacy group particularly for women, children, youth, and families with and affected by HIV.
As a Policy and Government Affairs intern, I will research policy, legislation, write letters to policymakers, and maybe even go to Capitol Hill. I think I'm going to learn a lot about domestic policies about funding, prevention, and education for HIV/AIDS.
I'm leaving Memorial Day weekend and won't be back until the weekend before the fall semester starts, so pretty much the entire summer.
I will be posting my weekly essays here and uploading photos of lovely Washington DC. I hope someone reads this so my efforts are not soley for my own archives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)