Category Archives: Feminism

A world without hate-speech is anything but boring

I was recently g-chatting with someone who was annoyed that their printer wasn’t working. Then they called their printer a “faggot.” Long story short, I won’t be speaking to this person again.

It’s not like I have a “one strike, you’re out” policy on offensive words. Actually, I’m a bit more forgiving than I should be, probably because I have personally found it hard to stop saying a few choice words that I know are wrong. But the point is that I know they are wrong, and I am trying to stop using them. When this person used the real F word and I called him on it, he had no such awareness that it was wrong.  Instead, he threw the classic argument at me: “Being PC (politically correct) is boring/dull/stifling/etc.” Well, I’m sorry to say it but that argument is bullshit.

I pity all the people out there that think that a world where people cannot say hateful words would be “boring” or “stifling.”  Talk about a lack of imagination.  If you cannot even imagine finding other words to use to describe a broken printer or more creative ways to tease your friends, then I feel fucking sorry for you.  How limited your mind must be.

The ridiculous part of this is that there is a large community of people who have colorful, vibrant, and terribly inappropriate conversations on a regular basis using delicious words that are snarky, mean, and biting – but totally PC. (Hello the feminist blogging community!) Enter one of my personal favorites: “douchebag.”

Why is it awesome to call someone a douchebag? Because douching is stupid and unhealthy for women, not to mention gross, and that’s something everyone basically agrees on. Everyone is, and should be, offended by the idea of douching. And that’s why it feels so good to call someone a douchebag. You get to express your feelings in a colorful, pointed way that is not reinforcing the legacy of hate, violence or oppression of a disadvantaged group.

But even the worst of words – “faggot,” “nigger,” “kyke,” etc. – have their place in our culture. No one is advocating (or at least no one SHOULD be advocating) that they disappear entirely.  These words have power, and they need to remain as a testament to the past so that we do not forget the danger of allowing hate to flourish.  Sometimes these words can even be reclaimed and become empowering, like “queer.” It’s truly unfortunate that certain groups really miss the forest for the trees about this – like the people removing “nigger” from Huckleberry Finn. How can we expect to learn the lessons of our own history if we sanitize it, or erase it completely?  As the saying goes, “those who do not know history are destined to repeat it.”  I understand and agree with the argument against that type of censorship, but that’s hardly the same thing as throwing around the word “faggot” for no particular reason.

The underlying truth behind the “PC is boring” myth is that people who cannot envision a world without hate-speech are one of two things.   They either do not have any experience of hate and oppression and therefore do not understand how it is perpetuated by language, or they’re just plain racist/sexist/classist/homophobic/etc. I’m not sure what there is to do about the latter group, but I’m pretty sure the actions of the former make it easier for them to be hateful without owning up to it or even being cognizant of their own prejudice.  A culture in which it’s acceptable to use hateful words allows bigots to slip under the radar and there is no accountability for the perpetuation of hate.

The majority of people, I would like to think, are not actually hateful. They just don’t get it. I wonder how many of them have been privileged never to experience hate-based violence or oppression.  Or how many have experienced it but are somehow unable to recognize the role that language plays.  I am certainly privileged in a number of ways, but I am not that distanced from the reality of hate. Every time I hear someone use the word “faggot” I think about Matthew Shepard.  I think about his brutal and cruel murder.  And I think about my own family.  I think about ovens and ditches full of bodies. I think about the family members that I never got to meet because they were tortured to death.  I am acutely aware of the power of hate-speech. I cannot speak for everyone.  We each react differently to certain words, but I’d venture a guess that most of us have some reaction to at least one of those words. It’s pretty rare to go through life not knowing anyone who has experienced hate. That is a reality that needs to change, and language is an important part of making that change happen.

But I am not the “PC-Police.”  I am not a “PC Nazi.”  (Nazi, like douche, is another great insult to throw around. Everyone hates Nazis!)  After all, I like South Park! And I swear!  Plenty.  My world is anything but boring or dull. I love to insult people and yell obscenities at inanimate objects. When my printer breaks I bash my fists and curse the damned piece of shit as the ILLEGITIMATE PROGENY OF FAIL that it really is!  But I don’t call it a “faggot.”  Not only would that be insensitive and morally repugnant, it’s completely uncreative and boring – not to mention that it doesn’t make any fucking sense.

If the only colorful words you have to work with are hate-speech, then it’s YOUR world, not the PC world, that’s boring, dull, and absolutely stifling. Get an imagination and get a life — or you can get out of mine.

Why I love Veronica Mars

This weekend I rewatched the first season of Veronica Mars, one of my all time favorite tv shows.  Veronica Mars, which aired in 2004, is about a teenage girl trying to solve the mystery of her best friend’s murder.  Veronica assists her father as a private investigator and puts her sleuthing skills to work to help classmates at school while she continues her murder investigation in secret. Veronica Mars is completely badass and as good of a feminist role model as you are going to find on television. I made the video below as a tribute to Veronica Mars.  It’s a compilation of scenes from the first season that illustrate why I think she’s so kick-ass.

Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency made a great video explaining why she loves this show. She makes a lot of great points, and while I’m not going to repeat them all here, I would like to expand them a little bit.  I’m also not going to discuss the show as a whole and just focus on Veronica and why I think she’s a great role model for teenage girls.

1.  Veronica Mars is smart.  She’s in the top of her class and manages to keep her grades up despite her time-consuming detective work.  She’s not afraid of technology, using advanced cameras and spy gadgets and the like. She uses her wit to solve problems, resolve disputes, and find the truth.  She’s also not afraid to ask for help when she needs it.

2.  She apologizes when she makes mistakes.  Veronica Mars is not perfect. Sometimes she goes too far and she invades a friend’s privacy or betrays someone’s trust.  She always apologizes sincerely – a vital social skill that is often overlooked.

3. She doesn’t compromise on her ideals.  The series begins after Veronica is cast out of the popular crowd because she and her father refuse to accept that the man who confessed to the murder was really the killer.  After a year of bullying at school, she is given the chance to admit she was wrong and sorry and rejoin her old group.  She decides not to, saying that she didn’t feel “the least bit wrong, or sorry.”

Occasionally her grasp of right and wrong can seem a little too black and white.  For example, when her father tries to explain that her mother’s reasons for leaving are complicated, Veronica says, “No. The hero is the one who stays, the villain is the one who leaves.” This kind of “all or nothing” morality  is problematic but feels realistic because it helps remind us that, despite her maturity, she is still a teenager.  Still, it’s heartening to watch her resist peer pressure and stick to her guns despite whatever effect it may have on her social life – something that is rare among teenagers on TV or in real life.

4.  She sticks up for the little guy.  Along the same lines as #3, Veronica stands up for people she sees getting bullied.  I cannot stress enough how incredible this is.  It takes a lot of guts to stick your neck out for someone else, and it’s something that does not happen enough – especially in high school.

Veronica’s story in the first season is very much a coming of age story.  The murder of her best friend and rejection by her peers is a huge turning point in Veronica’s life as she loses her innocence and struggles to rebuild her identity as a strong and independent young woman. Her story is complex, yet relatable and instructive. It has so much more to offer than the simplistic morality lessons on other teen dramas like Secret Life of the American Teenager or Glee.

I sincerely recommend that you watch the first season of Veronica Mars, and share it with your kids if you have any.  (The second and third season are terrible, but the first season can stand on it’s own.)  We need more shows on television with female characters like Veronica.  And, it would be great if Kristen Bell could find some equally awesome movie roles.  It hurts to see our beloved, sharp-witted Veronica fall into the “pretty blonde” rom-com void a la Katherine Heigl.

So, here’s to you, Veronica. Let’s hope we see some more like this on tv soon.

Crying is not sexy. In related news, bad health journalism makes me cry.

A new study out of Israel suggests that women’s tears serve a “chemosignaling function” that result in reduced sexual arousal and testosterone levels in males.

Here is the abstract of the study:

Emotional tearing is a poorly understood behavior that is considered uniquely human. In mice, tears serve as a chemosignal. We therefore hypothesized that human tears may similarly serve a chemosignaling function. We found that merely sniffing negative-emotion–related odorless tears obtained from women donors, induced reductions in sexual appeal attributed by men to pictures of women’s faces. Moreover, after sniffing such tears, men experienced reduced self-rated sexual arousal, reduced physiological measures of arousal, and reduced levels of testosterone. Finally, functional magnetic resonance imaging revealed that sniffing women’s tears selectively reduced activity in brain-substrates of sexual arousal in men.

Here is the headline on MSNBC.com:

Stop the waterworks, ladies. Crying chicks aren’t sexy.

I’m sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little.

The basic finding in the study – that emotional human tears are a turn off – should not actually be that shocking. (Perhaps a better headline should have been: Science supports common sense.) What is shocking is the ridiculously sexist and sensationalist coverage of the study by MSNBC and a number of other news sources.  The Ms. blog has a great roundup of this coverage, and while I don’t want to repeat all their points here, I am going to take a few choice sentences and read between the lines.

Here’s the ending of the MSNBC article:

Other researchers also have detected proteins associated with emotions: They’ve found dopamine and serotonin in tears, as well as prolactin, the desire-squelching hormone that spikes right after a man ejaculates and sends him running to watch SportsCenter rather than sticking around to cuddle.

Bottom line, ladies? If you’re looking for arousal, don’t turn on the waterworks.

Assumptions made/stereotypes reinforced: Men watch sports; men don’t like to cuddle after sex; everyone is heterosexual; women cry all the time for no reason.

Here is one from “Women’s tears kill men’s sex drive” in the Times of India:

They say tears are woman’s best arsenal–and they probably are–for they are powerful enough to dampen a man’s sexual arousal, according to a new study.

Assumptions made/stereotypes reinforced: There is a “war” between the sexes; women are constantly fighting men’s sexual advances; women do not want sex; man’s sexual arousal is a powerful force.

Here’s one from “The crying game: a woman’s tears aren’t sexy” in Ars Technica:

Finally, scientists have confirmed what men have known for ages: crying women are a turnoff….

While this study should make guys feel better about being turned off when their lady cries, the women out there should remember that you—and your tears—are actually the ones in charge here.

Assumptions made/stereotypes reinforced: Again, there is a “war” between the sexes; the status quo for women is that they should be a turn-on for men; the status quo for men is that they should be turned-on by women; women can only gain control via manipulating men with their emotions.

When I first got wind of this, the big question on my mind was this: why were they only studying the effect of women’s tears on men? What about woman to woman, man to woman, or man to man crying? This is the sort of thing a health reporter should do: ask questions. Be critical. The only one who asked that question – or any question, for that matter – was the New York Times:

The researchers are currently studying men’s emotional tears, so the scientific implications of, say, the weeping of the new House speaker, John A. Boehner, remain an open question. But Dr. Sobel said he believed that men’s tears would also turn out to transmit chemical signals, perhaps serving to reduce aggression in other men.

Dr. Sobel said the researchers started with women because when they advertised for “volunteers who can cry with ease,” they could not find men who were “good criers,” readily able to fill collection vials. Fortunately, he said, “we have a male crier now.”

But not even the New York Times could resist the tantalizing allure of a witty, sexist headline:

In Women’s Tears, a Chemical That Says, ‘Not Tonight, Dear’

The more I study health communication, the more I realize just how pathetic, lazy, sensationalist, and socially abhorrent most health reporting really is.  I’d cry about it, but that wouldn’t be sexy.

Genital Herpes (part 3): More than 51 million Americans are cheaters and whores, apparently

Genital herpes occupies a uniquely stigmatized and shameful space in American culture.  STIs are always stigmatized due to the cultural and religious moralization of sexuality in America. They are often assumed to be the “consequence” of promiscuity. This stigma is so, unmistakably pervasive throughout American culture that I hardly need to give examples, but I will.

The entry on genital herpes in the Encyclopedia Dramatica, a satiric version of Wikipedia, reads: “ In fact, you get genital herpes because you are a whore.” Right wing blogger Melissa Clouthier writes: “Twice as many young adults ages 20 – 29 have herpes than did 20 years ago. This is a recurring tragedy for the sufferer and his partner–a consistent, unrelenting reminder of promiscuity that cannot be undone.”  These examples demonstrate the two different types of slut shaming going on: the former is simple, ignorant shaming for the purpose of “making a funny,” while the latter has a religious/political agenda behind it suggesting that herpes is the consequence of deviant sexual behavior.  (See how the Right capitalizes on ignorance and reinforces ignorance all at the same time?)

The connection between genital herpes and promiscuity is consistently made in film and TV as well. In Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the rock star Aldous Snow reveals to his girlfriend that he has genital herpes: “ Well, look, you know, I’ve not told you I’ve got genital herpes because it’s not inflamed at the moment.”  Here, genital herpes is used as a device to emphasize Snow’ s promiscuous, “ rock n’ roll” lifestyle. Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report poked fun at the association between herpes and promiscuity with a story about oysters infected with a strain of herpes. Colbert called them “ oyster sluts,” asking, “ Come on oysters, have you never heard of protection?”

Perhaps the best recent pop culture example of the link between genital herpes and promiscuity in the American imagination is MTV’ s The Jersey Shore. After the first episode aired, one blogger called it “ The Real World with herpes,” implying that the show was comparable to The Real World, another MTV reality show first broadcast in 1992, but with more promiscuity . In 2010, a Jersey Shore producer made headlines when she said “We hand [Valtrex] out like M& Ms. ‘Hey kids, it’s time for Valtrex!’ It’s like a herpes nest. They’re all in there mixing it up.” The cast of the Jersey Shore denied this allegation in an attempt to avoid the stigma of genital herpes. In later episodes, however, cast members make herpes jokes themselves, categorizing certain women as promiscuous or “ tainted” in a humorous way. In doing so, they become both victims and propagators of this stigma, thus strengthening the association between genital herpes and promiscuity.

About 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 people in the U.S. have genital herpes.  If the US population is 310,519,000 (all stats taken from Wikipedia), then that means there are over 51 million Americans with genital herpes right now.  That’s more people than there are Latino Americans (46.9 million) or African Americans (37.6 million).   What’s the likelihood that all of those people are “sluts,” or “deserved” to get herpes?

Genital herpes is often framed as physical evidence of infidelity. This Saturday Night Live parody (I couldn’t get the embed code to work, sorry!) of a Valtrex commercial plays with this stigma. In the sketch a husband (Alec Baldwin) and wife (Amy Poehler) are sitting together on a couch and it is obvious that the husband has been unfaithful. When the wife says that she finds it odd that a married couple with no history of STIs could have genital herpes, the husband replies: “But then I explained it, and that was the end of it, and there was no need to talk about it anymore.”  See how people with genital herpes are further stigmatized, not only as cheaters but as liars? The majority of Valtrex parodies play with the stigma of people with genital herpes as cheaters and liars in a similar way – perhaps suggesting that people believe using Valtrex is dishonest because it makes herpes easier to hide.

Lying about having genital herpes is also discussed in the context of celebrity divorces. For example, David Gest made headlines when he accused Liza Minnelli of giving him herpes inthe midst of their divorce. In an attempt to overturn a prenuptial agreement, DavidHasselhoff’ s ex-wife accused him of infecting her with genital herpes. In some cases, lying about genital herpes becomes a legal or criminal issue. In 2005, a woman sued NFL quarterback Michael Vick for negligence and battery for infecting her with herpes.

Celebrities often use their fame to help raise awareness for diseasesor health-related causes. (Think: Michael J. Fox for Parkinson’s Disease.)  When it comes to genital herpes, however, no celebrity would risk the stigma of association or exposure. As a result, the only time we hear about a celebrity having genital herpes is in the context of a scandalous rumor, bitter divorce, or lawsuit.  No one in their right mind would dare be open about having genital herpes, right?

Then, wait.  It’s not safe to be open about having genital herpes yet, you’re a liar and a cheater if you aren’t?  Seems like you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t here.  It’s almost as if we want people with herpes to wear a scarlet “H” on their clothes so we know when to run away screaming. This seems a little much for a disease that is, in actuality, relatively mild condition with hardly any health complications that can be managed quite well with medication.

And speaking of running away screaming, my next post will discuss the different metaphors we use to talk about herpes and the people who have it.  *Read Part 4 here.* If you need to catch up, check out part 1 and part 2 of the series.

A Closer Look at TLC’s Sister Wives

I returned home from my cousin’s wedding Sunday night, happy and exhausted with barely enough energy to flop onto the couch and turn on the TV. That is how I found myself watching the two new episodes of TLC’s Sister Wives, a reality TV show about a modern polygamous family. I think the expected feminist response to a show about polygamy is a negative one, summed in this post on Jezebel: “Sister Wives Talk Like Soul-Sucking Stepford Zombies.” It’s easy to condemn the show, and “the lifestyle” (as they call it) but after watching the first few episodes, I found myself pondering polygamy and its presence in our history as Jews. After all, my biblical namesake was a sister wife.

When it comes to bible study, I am only familiar with the basics. But even I know that polygamy features prominently in the stories of our patriarchs and matriarchs. The story I know best is that of Jacob, who married both Leah and Rachel. (This story is expanded in the midrash told by Anita Diamant’s The Red Tent) Rachel, the woman Jacob married for love, gave birth to Joseph and eventually died in childbirth with her second child, Benjamin. Thanks to polygamy, Jacob was able to father the 12 sons (and one daughter) who would go on to father the 12 Tribes of Israel with his wife Leah and their hand servants, Bilhah and Zilpah. It’s hard to ignore the centrality of polygamy, or “plural marriage” in our own cultural heritage.

This is not to say that I condone polygamy, especially in its biblical form. The Torah is also full of incest (Leah and Rachel were Jacob’s first cousins), slavery, and other things we now understand to be wrong. Judaism’s strength is that it grows and adapts with the times, although we too have fundamentalist communities that oppress women through rigid adherence to traditional gender divisions and roles.

The fundamentalist fringe of Mormonism that is spotlighted on TLC’s Sister Wives is of a similar vein. And by embracing polygamy in a form that mirrors the biblical tradition, in which one man marries and fathers children by multiple wives, the “Polyg lifestyle” is wrought with anti-feminist land mines. Jezebel writes:

It’s too bad the Today show host didn’t ask Kody or his wives to discuss their beliefs. Because if you’re not familiar with what Kody vaguely calls “his faith” — that is, religious fundamentalism — then you might think, wow, these people are so edgy! So open-minded! It’s just a big happy family! You might not realize how the extreme, patriarchal belief system belittles and oppresses women.

But after watching Sister Wives, it’s hard to hate or even snark at these people. From what we see, anyway, these people – the four wives, one husband, and 15 children – are genuine and intelligent people. For religious fundamentalists, they seem pretty normal; they live modern lives, integrate into the secular world, and are happy to give their children the freedom to make their own choices about faith and marriage when they grow up. Despite Jezebel’s categorization as “Stepford Wives,” the women are open about their feelings, their insecurities, and their personal struggles with polygamy. They readily admit jealousy and doubt, but also discuss the support, love and fulfillment that they gain from the arrangement. If anything, they are complex characters who made a choice, and like the rest of us, understand that bettering ourselves and working on our relationships is a lifelong process.

Watching Sister Wives, I started to realize that the benefits of polygamy that the show highlights are real, but they are not exclusive to polygamous lifestyles. The benefits are the same ones you would find from any type of communal living where multiple adults contribute incomes to a larger family unit and multiple adults parent the community’s children as a group. (Think: hippie commune, Walden Two.) I would also argue that there is nothing inherently anti-feminist about rejecting monogamy. The idea that men are allowed to have multiple partners but women are not is sexist. You can also argue that the institution of marriage, which traditionally made women the property of their husbands, is sexist. But polyamory, often dubbed “ethical nonmonogamy,” is a great example of a very feminist-friendly model in which men and women can both have meaningful and/or sexual relationships with multiple partners. The poly community is, in fact, a place where you are likely to find some of the most progressive, liberal, and feminist people out there.

I think it’s important to take the time to think about Sister Wives before we condemn it outright. While polygamy in this form is illegal, and Kody Brown is now being investigated by the police, it is possible to gain some insights from this peek into “the lifestyle.” For one, it made me think about the benefits of communal living among extended families or friends. By examining certain similarities to the modern polyamorous community, I was reminded that some alternatives to monogamy can be feminist and progressive. I came to realize that my problem with Sister Wives is not a problem with the family itself (they are actually quite likeable people), nor is it a problem with alternate polyamorous lifestyles. What I do have a problem with is religious fundamentalism and its adherence to biblical notions of marriage and paternalism. And that applies to Jewish fundamentalists as well.

[This was originally posted at Jewesses with Attitude.]

Interview with a Misogynist

Remember when I wrote an angry rant about how some men think it’s appropriate to use online dating sites as platforms to debate feminism? Well, it happened again.

I recently saw a blog post where someone had taken screen shots of a very racist exchange on OkCupid, and I decided to respond and do the same. Below is the entire exchange, from start to finish.

It seems like this guy messaged me because he wanted to debate abortion rights, but it quickly shifted into a conversation about feminism, the difference between “good women” and “cunts,” and under what circumstances women “owe” men sex.

At first you can see that my responses are snarky. As this conversation progressed, however, I realized that this was an interesting opportunity to interview someone who was very obviously a misogynist. At certain points I was worried that he might catch on to what I was doing and get frustrated that I wasn’t fighting back, but luckily he didn’t seem to. At a certain point, I had had enough and ended the conversation with a “Smile! You’re on candid feminist camera!”

It was interesting to see how he was sensitive to accusations of being “pro-rape” and also (sortof) went back on his original statements when I pushed him to consider them more closely.

I’m curious to see what you think of this exchange.

Fair warning: Bad grammar, foul language and very foul ideas ahead.

A final note: I suppose I could have taken the time to Photoshop his OkC username out and blur his picture …. but there are 21 screenshots and that would be a lot of work. Also, he called me a cunt, so I didn’t.

Here I asked him to differentiate between women and “cunts.”

Not-so-ironic tee shirts and other reminders that I live in a bubble

I took a little vacation from blogging this weekend in order to hit the beach and get the most out of my last summer weekend. I headed north to New Hampshire with a couple friends to the infamous Hampton Beach, now recognized as the “Jersey Shore” of New England. I had never been there before, and wasn’t really sure what to expect. I enjoyed the beach and the sun just fine, but the boardwalk was another story.

The boardwalk is lined with beach shops selling “funny” t-shirts. I was so upset by what I saw that I chose to leave instead of sticking around to take photos. I regret that I don’t have any photos of what I saw, but after doing some Google searching, I found some shirts very similar to the ones that got me so upset. (I still haven’t found the truly bad ones… and I’m talking about ones with images, like someone playing beer pong off a woman’s ass…) Anyway, these should give you an idea of what I’m talking about.

HAHAHAHAHHAHA aren’t those FUNNY???

It was another one of those moments when I realized that I have been living in a bubble. When I see graphic tees, I’m usually seeing indie shirts from Threadless.com or cute/clever shirts from Snorgtees.com or ironic tees from thrift shops or Urban Outfitters. I am not usually bombarded by misogynistic t-shirts with slogans like “No means yes” very often. But in certain communities, I’m sure these sorts of shirts are common. What is even more upsetting, though, is that what these shirts represent – blatant, unabashed, unapologetic misogyny - is common too. So common that it’s plastered over the walls at beach shops filled with children.

It’s one thing to work towards fighting sexism in our own communities and to change the behavior of people “like us.” But what on earth do you do to fight the kind of open misogyny in communities that are foreign to you?

The other day on the bus I overheard a guy talking on his cell phone to a woman, presumably his girlfriend or wife. He was loudly yelling at her, calling her a “slut” and a “lazy bitch” and all other sorts of disgusting, sexist insults. I turned around and gave him the stink eye but was too afraid to do anything more than that. The next morning a guy got on the bus and was holding up the line because he forgot his T pass. I didn’t catch the beginning of the exchange, but sure noticed when he started yelling at an older woman seated next to him. “Mind your business, woman! You’re a woman, act like a woman and mind your business!” The man was clearly unstable and I desperately wanted to stand up and shout at him. But I didn’t, and no one did, and he continued to berate the older woman for about 5 excruciating minutes.

I guess the reason I connect these two examples to the t-shirts is that, for me, they both represent situations that reminded me that I live in a sheltered bubble where people are mostly liberal, mostly feminist, and mostly affluent. In my community, sexism is sly or subtle because everyone knows it’s wrong. These incidents reminded me that there are other communities where this is not the case, where sexism is blatant and out there for everyone to see. Those are the communities where feminism needs to reach. But what can I do when I don’t even speak the same (cultural) language? Who wants to listen to an outsider? And on the flip side, how dare an outsider tell someone who lives in a different world how to behave?

These incidents have made me hyper-aware of my own limitations as a white, educated, liberal, female, Jewish, feminist. Where is my place in this fight?

The positive takeaways from Sex and the City 2

Well, I finally saw Sex and the City 2. I know I’m late to the party, but I would like to add my 2 cents to the discussion that happened earlier this year about the film. As plenty of reviewers and bloggers noted, there are a lot of problems with this movie. A lot. A lot a lot. There’s rampant consumerism, cookie-cutter gender and sexuality stereotyping, complete indifference to the reality of women who are not wealthy,  insensitivity and superficial treatment of Islam and gender issues in the Middle East, etc… If this particularly scathing review in The Stranger by Lindy West is any indication, this flick is, for the most part, a “feminist fail.”

But despite all of that, there were certain things about the movie I liked and appreciated. There were some valuable lessons in there that undoubtedly resonated with many women. As Sex and the City has always been a good indicator of where the feminism is at in the minds of the mainstream, I think it’s important to celebrate the good messages as well as critique the bad. And since plenty of others have already critiqued the movie, I would like to focus on the good.

One of those good messages is the same one that is carried throughout the series: friendships. What is actually quite radical about SATC is that it features female friendships as the primary relationships. When most of the “chick flicks” coming out of Hollywood these days portray women as backstabbing and catty a la Mean Girls and Bride Wars, the women of SATC’s friendships are loving, supportive, complex, and long-lasting. It’s actually kindof revolutionary. In SATC 2, this focus on friendship continues. I would even argue that it is stronger in this film than it was in the first SATC movie, in which the women’s stories were told individually and other than the short trip to Mexico, the women didn’t seem to spend all that much time together. In SATC 2, the women’s individual situations were less prominent and the focus was on their shared experiences.

One of those experiences was motherhood, or in Carrie’s case, the decision not to pursue motherhood. Carrie deals with the scrutiny and judgement that many women today face for being childless by choice. Through the film, she and Big wrestle with the social pressure to have kids and the common belief that “just us two” isn’t enough to have a full life.

For Miranda and Charlotte, the choice to become mothers has its own challenges. Miranda, who has her son Brady during the SATC series, was never the “maternal type” and her story deals with those types of stereotypes and assumptions about motherhood. Charlotte, on the other hand, was always portrayed as the stereotypical “maternal type” and her primary objective was to get married and have children. In SATC 2 we see Charlotte – the paragon of the “happy mom” – break down and shut herself in the pantry when she becomes overwhelmed by her children. Though her younger daughter is supposed to be going through her “terrible twos” in this movie, the scene reminds me of postpartum depression and the struggles mothers face trying to meet the needs of crying newborns.

Miranda and Charlotte have a heart to heart about this issue later in the film – a scene which got slammed in the reviews. Both of the women have full time, live-in nannies and as they discuss how hard motherhood has been, they both wonder how much harder it must be for women without help. And then they toast to the women without help. I know the superficial treatment of the subject and the barely-a-nod nod to “regular” (aka not rich) mothers made a lot of people cringe. But at the same time, it’s important to recognize that in the mainstream media and pop culture, the fact that this conversation happened at all is progress. The women of SATC are rich – we already knew that. At least they were aware enough to recognize their own privilege.

And if I may get a little preachy for a moment, it isn’t very feminist to tell one group of women that their struggles aren’t valid because they have money. Rich women’s experiences with postpartum depression and struggles with motherhood are valid, just as middle class women’s experiences and lower income women’s experiences are all valid. The important thing is that SATC 2 has added to the growing pile of evidence that yeah, motherhood is hard. And we need that evidence to fight the still-pervasive image of the 50′s housewife and mother who handles everything with ease and a smile.

Speaking of housewives, perhaps one of the most interesting and most progressive messages in SATC 2 is that relationships don’t have to follow a prescribed set of rules. Not everyone’s relationship has to look the same. This idea was discussed in the first SATC movie in terms of a wedding and what it has to, or doesn’t have to, be or mean. In SATC 2, the discussion is continued in the context of Carrie’s marriage with Big, who suggests that they spend 2 nights a week in different apartments in order to have time for themselves and keep the “sparkle” in their relationship. It pops up at other points throughout the movie as well. For instance, at Stanford and Anthony’s wedding, we learn that Anthony is allowed to cheat in the states in which they aren’t legally married. The idea that couples can “make up their own rules” is incredibly progressive and feminist-friendly. It opens the door for plenty of alternatives to the standard “monogamy + cohabitation + shared bank accounts = marriage” formula. Not to mention that it is the closest a mainstream pop culture institution has ever come to endorsing polyamory or other “alternative lifestyles,” even if only on a theoretical level.

But on a less political and more personal level, the idea that every relationship is different and every couple can “make their own rules” is an important lesson that I’m sure most of us can relate to. Being in a relationship is about give and take, and we have all at one time or another, had relationships that challenged our own ideas of what a relationship “should” look like. The closing monologue of the film was a comforting reminder telling us that it’s really okay if your relationship doesn’t follow the standard formula. It’s okay if you decide not to get married. It’s okay not to have a big wedding. It’s okay if you don’t live together / do live together. It’s okay to not be monogamous. It’s okay not to do everything together. It’s okay to do things your own way. I love this message.

SATC is, and always has been, problematic. While it has been progressive in many ways (Miranda as an ambitious career-woman, Samantha’s sexual liberation and distaste for committed relationships, etc…) it has also perpetuated stereotypical portrayals of gay men and celebrated wealth and consumerism. Even though it did not handle each and every issue from a decidedly feminist perspective, it at least looked at a number of issues facing women today and discussed them with a real-world, mainstream understanding that many many women could relate to. Did we really expect SATC 2 to be a hardcore feminist film?

Telling a modern “feminist” story is not easy. It used to be that all it took to make something feminist was to put a female character with some agency in a setting in which women usually had none. Today it’s more complicated. It’s not enough anymore to be a “strong woman” or to be a “career woman.” Perhaps SATC2 is an addled representation of our own confusion. Is it feminist to have a nanny and still find motherhood challenging? Is it feminist to engage in unabashed consumerism you can afford because of your successful career? Is it feminist to buy into traditional standards of beauty if you choose to do so? These are the questions SATC 2 raises. It forces us to address these issues and re-examine our own understanding of what feminism means.

The film may have failed – miserably – on a number of levels, but it still continues the positive traditions of SATC: celebrating friendship and questioning traditional ideas about sex, relationships, and marriage. And that’s something I think is okay to feel good about.

Cami Secret: When classism underlies feminist snark

Just the other day I was getting dressed for work and found myself super annoyed that I would have to wear a camisole under my shirt. Wearing camisoles is fine in the winter, and they let me wear wrap shirts and other interesting necklines to work and not show everyone my boobs. But when it’s super hot and sticky outside? The last thing I want to do is put on an extra layer with an extra set of straps, just so it can ride up and get all up in my business. “Wouldn’t it be great if they invented some sort of panel that you could attach to your bra so you didn’t have to wear a whole extra layer?” I thought.

What do you know – it exists!

Jezebel had this for comment:

Buying work-appropriate tops and making your asshole boss stop looking down your shirt can be such a hassle! Finally, there’s Cami Secret, a cheap piece of cloth that snaps to your bra, giving you “custom cleavage.” Control that flesh, ladies!

Sigh.

Okay – I agree that the ad was totally lame and maybe just a little bit sexist. It’s not a woman’s fault if her male colleagues are pervy. Perviness, like rape, is always the fault of the perv. Also, there is no reason for that dude to be leaning over her desk like that. This parody video for “Boob Apron” pretty much demonstrates the kind pervy attitude (that men are entitled to women’s bodies) we’re talking about here.

Okay, so we’re getting snark from the feminists and parody-snark from the not-so-feminists, but is that much snark really warranted here? Infomercials are easy targets. Is the product necessarily dumb because the ad is? Should I feel dumb for wanting a product like this, especially when lots of work-appropriate attire is designed to be worn with camisoles? (Clever business model, fashion industry.)

While I agree that the patriarchy has historically controlled women through notions of modesty and “appropriate dress” (and still does quite often in many parts of the world – burqas being the extreme example), Cami Secret seems less about controlling women and more about providing a tool that gives control to women. At it’s core, this is a product that gives women more control over their wardrobe.

The Consumerist also has some snark for Cami Secret:

Now you can wear your lowcut top to work without worrying about your boss staring down your shirt, then quickly and easily remove it for after work drinks with the girls. It’s as easy to dispense with as your pride.

It’s interesting to compare the reactions to Cami Secret to those of Spanx, another product that works within the systems that control women’s bodies. Spanx is a man-made fabric that you wear under your clothes that works like a girdle or corset, to both “hold you in” and smooth out your unsightly cellulite. So why do feminist women embrace Spanx (or at least discuss it respectfully) and snark at Cami Secret? Well, I would argue that it started with Oprah endorsing Spanx and the leagues of middle and upper class women who embraced it as a result. Spanx is socially acceptable and sold in trendy, upscale boutiques. Cami Secret is considered  ”trashy” and sold via infomercial.  I hate to say it, but I think that the Cami Secret snark overload has as much to do with classism as it does with sexism.

Do we really need to be ashamed of wearing a “faux” camisole? Is wearing an actual camisole some sort of mark of dignity? I think the fact that The Consumerist mentioned “pride” is evidence of classism and the “real” vs. “faux” value system – the same system that makes it “classier” to get real granite countertops rather than ones made of man-made materials that look virtually the same, last longer, and are easier to maintain. It is also the same system that makes it “classier” to wear real fur rather than faux fur, even though the fake stuff is cheaper and doesn’t involve killing animals. The “Boob Apron” parody guy might have a point about the Cami Secret being manufactured in sweatshops, but is there much evidence that regular camisoles (especially ones that are comparably priced) aren’t?

The Cami Secret provides a relatively inexpensive way make tops more versatile so you can stretch your budget and your wardrobe. Since women are not all the same and have personal preferences regarding cleavage and necklines, it also seems like a great way to customize your clothes to get the look you want.

Is that really something to snark at?

Anti-feminist, anti-sex bloggers do not speak for me or my generation

Well, that pesky feminist-antagonizer is at it again. Susan Walsh, who only recently became “known” to the internet world for her vicious and nonsensical attack on Jaclyn Friedman, is now arguing against sex-positivism with another attack that specifically mentions Jacyln and Amanda Marcotte in the title, which is not surprising since that strategy paid off so well for her last time. Her post really doesn’t say much we don’t already know about her beliefs, but some of the arguments she is throwing out in the comments are so bizarre that they are hard to ignore.

Susan Walsh says:  I have no interest in where JF has sex, with how many people, or anything else. What I am interested in is her idea, that this model can work. If more than a few outliers were to actually adopt such a model, the economy, then society, would collapse. For this reason, it will always be the talk of the fringe.

I would love to see some data (from a credible source, mind you) that proves that “if the world were having casual sex” the economy, and then society, would collapse. Also, it would be great if you could show me some data proving that it’s only a few “outliers” who have embraced casual sex and sex-positivism. Consider it a challenge – anyone who can do it gets a cookie. (Hint: you’re never getting that cookie.)

The second thing that caught my attention was this:

Hooking Up says:

Both Friedman and Marcotte are middle-aged so I imagine that aging, along with drinking the sex-positive kool aid for so many years, frees them to be detached. But it’s not a prescription for your average 20 something who still wants to experience “true love” and “bonding” – which comes with a bit of possessiveness as it’s territory.

Susan Walsh says:

@Hooking Up

Welcome, thanks for leaving a comment! It’s interesting that you raise the question of age. I’m finding that nearly all of the women I’m in opposition to on this issue are in their late 30s or 40s. I suspect they don’t want to know what is really going on for women on campus, or women in their 20s looking for “true love.” The truth is that when Marcotte and Friedman graduated from college, hookup culture was just taking hold. They’re a generation to old to be promoting no-strings sex to students.
I’m older still – but I don’t speak for myself, I speak for the women who come to me for support in a culture that is fairly hostile to relationships. We need to be objective and familiarize ourselves with the research, whether or not it fits with our political objectives. Failure to acknowledge failed policy continually puts a new generation of women at risk.

So apparently, women who are “middle-aged” (I’m not exactly sure when 30′s became middle aged) might be able to practice casual sex without emotional devastation, but only because they have, er, numbed to the pain or something? So apparently Jaclyn Friedman and Amanda Marcotte are “too old” to speak for young women. Susan Walsh, who is older still, however, claims that she can – and does – speak for young women.

The thing is, Jaclyn and Amanda never claimed to speak for young women. Jaclyn’s piece, My Sluthood, Myself, was so powerful in part because she spoke only for herself and was very careful to point out that sex and relationships are different for EVERYBODY and cannot be generalized. In fact, that is the basis of the idea of “sex-positivism” that Walsh thinks will destroy society.

Susan Walsh, however, does claim to speak for young women and that offends me. As a young woman. It’s easy to speak for the handful of young women you socialize with, and maybe even the ones who read your blog. Susan Walsh says she speaks for the young women that come to her, and that would be fine if she recognized the fact that she’s not speaking for ALL young women – just some. And that is why in my response, I would love to be able to say that I speak for my entire generation, but obviously I cannot.

But I can say that I personally disagree with Susan Walsh just about as vehemently as possible. I can also say that the young people I associate with and the young people who comment on my blog also disagree with Susan Walsh.

I believe that casual sex can be a healthy and fulfilling experience. I believe that women are no more likely than men to “get attached” to a sexual partner during a hookup, despite Walsh’s claims about oxytocin, which Heather Corinna does an excellent job of dismantling using actual research at Scarleteen. I believe that people can enjoy periods of causal sex and then still have perfectly healthy monogamous relationships down the road if that is what they so desire. I believe that people can have sex, casual or otherwise, with any number of partners without destroying their chances at “finding love.”

Oh, and I don’t believe that if the world embraced sex-positivism, the economy, and then society, would collapse.

I am 24 years old. It was my generation that all those New York Times articles referred to when they wrote about “hook up culture.” Hell, they were referring to me. During my college years, I was a sex educator and sex counselor for my fellow classmates. I wrote a sex column for the school newspaper. And if, for some reason, being 3 years out of college disqualifies me from being considered a “young woman,” I would like to share an excerpt from a piece I published in my school newspaper in 2006, when I was 20 years old.

I wrote this BEFORE I identified as a feminist, before I began reading sites like Feministing, before I had ever heard of Jaclyn Friedman, Amanda Marcotte, or  Jessica Valenti. These were the conclusions I came to as a young woman in college based on my own experiences, the experiences of my friends, and the experiences of those I counseled, not to mention the courses on sexuality and gender theory that I took.

From “Meditations on Hooking Up”

Even Sex and the City did an episode on women having sex like men where they posed the question: Is it even possible for women to have sex without emotional attachment? I think it is definitely possible. I think it is possible for the women to have sex without attachment, just as I also think women can get attached after having sex. Same goes for everyone else, of any gender. I also think the same person can have sex with one person and feel nothing, then have sex with another person and be unable to keep emotions out of it.

But having sex without emotion is not having sex like a man. And having sex with attachment is not having sex like a woman. Its having sex like a human, and we are all capable of an entire spectrum of emotional responses, or lack thereof.

But Walsh would like you to believe that her cohort is the mainstream and all us sex positive people are on the fringe. She included a poll on her blog post, the results of which I’m sure she’ll include in her follow-up post. How much do you want to bet the results back up her position?

After my last exchange with Walsh, I swore to myself that I would not let myself get baited and that I would take the high road. Or, that if I was going to be snarky, I would at least do it in a mature fashion. I admit that a previous dig at her for being afraid sluts were coming to steal her husband was a tad immature – and sadly, I’m the one she’s referring to when she wrote: “Until now, sex pos fems have portrayed dissenters primarily as women who are afraid that the ‘sluts are stealing all the menz.’ A favorite theme in their attacks on me was that I fear losing my husband to a woman like Friedman.” But at least I know when I’m being immature. It’s ironic – as it turns out – that it was me, a 24 year old, who stooped to her level, rather than the other way around.

Unlike Walsh, I do not claim to be able to speak for entire generations or entire genders. I do not claim to know what kind of sex is best for everybody else. I do not make wild, outlandish statements without data to back them up. I have respect for scholarly research, and take the time to evaluate a source’s credibility and bias. I do not respond to reasoned criticism by saying “nah, nah, I got more comments than you.” And I do not presume to believe that polling my own blog audience would give me a representative sampling of public opinion.

So no, I cannot speak for all young women and disprove Walsh’s ideas about my generation’s beliefs about sex and relationships. But I can add my own voice to the mix, and invite others to as well.

The reality is that people of all generations and of all genders have a diverse array of beliefs about sex and relationships. And that, in a nutshell, is why I believe in a sex positive model that validates that diversity of belief.

But if I were hard-pressed to make a generalization, I would argue that there is one thing MOST of us can agree on: that “If more than a few outliers were to actually adopt such a model, the economy, then society, would collapse…” is a load of crap.