How I Became Who I Am: My Most Influential Reading List

I'm totally stealing this from a friend of mine, but I'm going to do that whole shebang ten thing. I'm doing it because at first I wondered what books, if any, helped influence who I became - how I became who I am. As much of a bibliophile as I am (and I am), the writers who most influence my actual perceptions of reality tend to be on that TV machine. Books tend to be an enjoyable escape, because as much as I love Pride and Prejudice and James Thurber, I'm pretty sure they have not formed the very backbone of who I am. But then, I thought about the books I've read. And then I wondered how I would whittle that list down to ten. So, away we go:

1. Waiting for Godot - Samuel Beckett. I found Waiting for Godot in high school. It was my first, aside from Whedony works, exposure to that wide world of existentialism. I loved it. There are lines in works, moments, that blow your mind. In the first act of the play, Vladimir's ponderings about the two thieves mentioned in the Gospels was that moment for me:

   VLADIMIR: But all four were there. And only one speaks of a thief being saved. Why believe him rather than the others?

   ESTRAGON: Who believes him?

   VLADIMIR: Everybody. It's the only version they know.

   The play wasn't necessarily introducing anything new to my life: I was already an atheist, I already was suspicious of metanarratives, I was already bemused and intrigued by the absurd. But it was the dream-like quality of the play, and the follies of the various participants, the obvious allusion to an absent, if not outright fictional, god, that really struck me.
   
   
2. The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand. Now, years later (YEARS), I've come to the conclusion that I've read this book all wrong, that the philosophy Ayn Rand was expounding probably wasn't what I took out of it, and that all those people who were like, "Oh, The Fountainhead is awesome!" probably got the wrong idea about what I'm about, politically, ethically, and philosophically. And plus, there's that whole rape apologia thing surrounding Roarke and Dominique that makes the book fairly unsavory for me. Don't get me wrong, after reading The Fountainhead I had a period where I read up a lot on Ayn Rand. I knew she was a dogmatic free market capitalist, I knew she was all about the individual. I knew she was if not the than pretty close to it quintessential "pull yourself up by your bootstraps, cuz I'm not giving you one of my dimes" person. And yet. When I read The Fountainhead, I... ...not missed, but pretty much overlooked a lot of that. What I took from the book was, in no particular order, architecture=cool, selfishness=awesome, looking to society for vindication=stupid idea. All of that? I was totally down with. And then, no more than a couple of weeks ago, it occurred to me that the scene I'd always thought meant "to do charity work for society's praise is just stupid" probably was meant to be expanded to "to do charity work at all is just stupid". So, The Fountainhead influenced me greatly. But I took from the book, "Act selfishly. Actions solely to please others will end up, in the long run, being unworthy of your time and energy, and will get you down in the process". I took, "Do the right thing, even if others look down on you for it, even if doing the easy thing will bring you short term praise and success". But, for me, doing the right thing isn't really about a totally free market capitalist system. It may be about making pretty buildings. I'm not totally sure yet.
   
   
3. Wide Sargasso Sea - Jean Rhys. I was going to put The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir here, because I love that book, because it intersected my feminism and my existentialism well, and because it was a lightbulb moment for me, a moment where what I had previously felt was brought into sharp relief via words on the page. But. The Second Sex, although I love it for articulating a matter that had long danced at the back of my skull, didn't really change who I am. It simply gave me another tool to utilize when I myself already knew and tried to explain to other people. Wide Sargasso Sea did something else. One, it made Jane Eyre, a book I have always despised, palatable. Two, did something The Second Sex did not. It took me beyond myself. It was like "The Yellow Wallpaper" in its gradual destruction of its protagonist. It taught me a new way to critique existing works. And, pathetically enough, it brought the issue of race in Jane Eyre into the equation. It was a book that was (I think) better written than the book it was inspired by, and it made me recognize other ways that original text failed, by fixing that failure. By illustrating the other voices in the world we would never recognize if we merely stuck to what is in the accepted literary canon.
   
   
4. A Wrinkle in Time (series) - Madeline L'Engle. I would be remiss if I were to leave this book, and the subsequent books, off my list. Much like The Fountainhead, it occurs to me years later that I again culled something from its pages the writer did not intend, though in this instance it was a bulwark for my atheism. A Wrinkle in Time, having reread it, is an extremely spiritual - and outwardly religious - book. You'd think I would have gotten that from Many Waters being about two characters meeting Noah and interacting with Seraphim, but my obliviousness (and the fact that a majority of my religious education comes from musicals) blocked that reading entirely. Instead, I took from it themes of interdependence, of looking at problems and people through love and not hate and fear, and that being weird was a pretty cool thing to be. That, and the knowledge and the first dimension is a straight line, and the second dimension is a square. Beyond that, Meg Murray was (and is) one of my favorite girl/women characters. She preceded Buffy by about a year. She was so awesomely real, strong and yet flawed, it was incredible. I should also mention that I could recite the entirety of the book A Wrinkle in Time until a couple of years ago, and I could still probably do a couple of the more major passages.
   
   
5. West With the Night - Beryl Markham. My father gave me this book when I was in 6th grade. My copy has the note he wrote to me, explaining why he was gifting it to me specifically, on the inside cover. That alone may explain why this book makes the list. My father introduced me to a lot of books - among those, The Fountainhead. And those all had personal reasons behind his love of them, and wanting to share them with me. But Beryl Markham and her story captured my dad, and made him think of me. So, I read it. And if this were merely a list about books that influenced me because of how well they were written, West With the Night would also make that list:

   How is it possible to bring order out of memory? I should like to begin at the beginning, patiently, like a weaver at his loom. I should like to say, 'This is the place to start; there can be no other.'

   But there are a hundred places to star for there are a hundred names - Mwanza, Serengetti, Nungwe, Molo, Nakuru. There are easily a hundred names and I can begin best by choosing one of them - not because it is first no of any importance in a wildly adventurous sense but because here it happens to be, turned uppermost in my logbook. After all, I am no weaver. Weavers create. This is a remembrance - revisitation; and names are keys that open corridors no longer fresh in the mind, but nonetheless familiar in the heart.

   This book, and Markham, however, make the list because she is an inspiration. The first woman to fly east to west, from England to Nova Scotia. She is attacked by a lion as a girl. She is a one time (literally, one time) horse racer. She is the first licensed woman horse trainer in Kenya. And although I still have that note in the book, I'm in awe that she made him think of me, still strive to be as cool, as confident, as ground-breaking as Markham herself was.
   
   
6. On the Road - Jack Kerouac. Yes, it is enormously cliche. And yet. I loved the book. It probably helps that I read it on a long train ride, so it felt like I was actually a part of Kerouac's philosophy and adventure. On the Road is why I spent the summer and the semester of my '50s class obsessed with the Beat and the Beat Generation.
   
   
7. Redesigning the American Dream: Gender, Housing, and Family Life - Dolores Hayden. Every so often, a book comes along that makes me think, a la Chicken Run, "But we've always been egg farmers. My father, and his father, and all their fathers, and they was all..." And then the author fairly hits me on the head and says, "And wouldn't it be so much better if we looked at why, and what that's done for us, and maybe try to do X?" This book is that. This book is when I started thinking about how the structure of our lives and our environments shape our lives and our expectations. How we are, essentially, coveting little boxes on the hillside that are all the same. And how we can maybe go along making a different world, if we'd just change our expectations regarding neighborhoods and soccer moms and mini vans.
   
   
8. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge - Jean-Francois Lyotard. I don't mean to sound like a braggart, but I have an exceptional memory for words. Not names, and not faces, and definitely not tasks I was assigned two minutes ago, but words. Sometimes, that means I can quote what I want out of a book or television episode from memory alone. Sometimes that means I know exactly where to find the exact line I'm looking for in the book or episode. Believe me when I say, I can give you none of this work back. I couldn't even really remember the name of the book, just the author. Maybe it's because it was originally written in French. All I can say is that it has deepened my personal understanding of the world. Lyotard writes about the totalitarian nature of the metanarrative, and about the worth of the more democratic micronarrative. And, as I discovered in my quest to discover which book made the micronarrative something I believe in and agree with, I discovered something else. Before college, I was someone who believed in a reachable, objective truth. I hated anything that touched upon relativism with a passion (that may have been due to all of the moral arguments against my atheism starting with, "If you don't believe in God, there is no moral structure. And if there is no moral structure, then nothing can be immoral"; I'm just saying, those religious zealots trying to convert me kind of fucked me up). And yet, now I still despise moral relativism, and am passionately for micronarratives. Wha?! The answer, as I discovered, also lies with Lyotard. He postulated that there is an objective truth that we humans shall never fully understand. Which is basically my position. High five to Lyotard.
   
   
9. Full Frontal Feminism - Jessica Valenti. I was thinking about putting one of my favorite authors of all time, a Mr. John Steinbeck, on this list. But then I decided he is more of a Jane Austen type of person in my life: a writer I would not willingly live without, but one who has not had a profound influence on my being - aside from making me more of a snobbish reader than I was prior to picking up Cannery Row in high school. Instead, this spot goes to Jessica Valenti. It's like this: I was raised in a feminist household, so Full Frontal Feminism wasn't introducing me to anything I hadn't heard of before. But it was witty and well-written, and so not academic. And since I was reading Lyotard, I deserved some not quite academic-but-progressive reading. And if it had just been that, this book would not be on this list. But Jessica Valenti is the founder and an editor of feministing.com. And feministing led me to other, more substantial feminist sites, which then led me to womanist sites, which then led me to reading multiple blogs daily. And eventually, that led us all here. Without Full Frontal Feminism, I may never have gotten to this particular place.
   
   
10. The Short Stories of J.D. Salinger. I am one of the few people I know who did not appreciate the angst of Holden Caulfield in their own teenage years. One of those other souls is one of my 17 year old sisters, so maybe that inability to be charmed by him is genetic. Because of that, I avoided Salinger's short stories like the plague. I was wrong to (incidentally, my mother was the person who told me I would enjoy them). The first one I ever read was "A Perfect Day for Bananafish". From there, I was hooked. I quickly gobbled up "Franny and Zooey", and then moved on to the rest of "Nine Stories", and then to "Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction". I loved the style of writing, the restless and unsatisfied nature of it, the people populating these stories being genuine in a way I'd never felt was true for Holden, and yet all quietly broken. Perhaps more than the short stories and the people yearning to live a life of meaning within them, it was Salinger's ability to retreat from public life that makes these stories precious to me. Salinger managed to both give me, in all, 13 stories I prize. And then, he articulated my belief about writing when he said, "I like to write. I love to write. But I write just for myself and my own pleasure." I write, a lot. Some of that writing is here, the nonfiction stuff, the stuff that is separate enough from myself to share with both the people I know and potentially the people I don't who manage to stumble upon it. But my fiction is all my own.

And there it is: my list. Hopefully, in ten to twenty years, some of those books will have been bumped down the influence chain, with other books taking their place. I'm looking forward to the John Kenneth Galbraith memoirs possibly doing that.

Allies' Education: A Rant

After a couple of months of it hanging around under the Recent Editor's Favorites at Feministing, I decided to actually read Allies asking questions. And it wasn't exactly the post I was anticipating. I don't know what kind of post I was expecting with that title, but this far exceeded my meager expectations. It offered a measured, sympathetic look at why would-be allies ask the question, "How am I supposed to learn if you don't teach me?" It looked at how we are told throughout our lives there is no such thing as a dumb question. It delved into why someone of a certain group may not want to be on call to answer the would-be ally's question. And it talked about a better way to become not only better educated, but a path toward becoming a better ally.

And yet, the comments section was filled with comments that seemed to bypass the whole, "Here's a better way to handle this situation, person with a question!" and moved directly on to the "How could you suggest that the thoughts in my head, the very ones that have only now occurred to me, have been asked multiple times before? And even if that is true, how could I possibly know that? And if I don't know that, how could it possibly be my fault? Hmmm?!" A sampling:

Pantheon:
But the person asking doesn't know that you've been asked it over and over. If its been asked over and over on the same thread that the person was presumably reading, that's one thing, but if this is the first time they've thought of that question, they don't know you've answered it enough to be sick of it, or where to find the same kind of answer you would give.
Spiffy McBang:
when you say, if you're privileged you need to go learn, even though you may not know you're privileged, it sounds like you're throwing that out there at anyone who wants to ask something... but how is somebody supposed to figure that out if they don't see a post like this explicitly stating as much?
rebekah:
I personally would much rather have to take the two minutes to write a response to an honest question from someone who just wants information from the source than to have them google it and come across a site that is run by some ass hat and have them be misinformed.

There were comments that thoughtfully engaged with the post from the other side, like:

Flowers:
I feel a responsibility to answer Commenter A's questions, even though it gets very taxing and annoying. Answering privileged people's questions is a duty I owe to other non-privileged people, so that there will hopefully be one more knowledgeable person in the world, and our cause will advance just a little.

And I specifically do NOT want peple going to Google or Wikipedia to learn about an issue that I live out everyday, when they should be asking me directly. If I think that there is a particularly good article online, I will refer people to that. But so much of the internet is utter bullshit -- I would never just cite it as a general source.

But generally, a lot of the response was, "But why can't I ask questions?" and "But where else am I s'pposed to find the answers?"

Even though I think SociologicalMe's original post was fairly compelling and not out of the boundaries of the possible and the polite (and I wholly suggest reading it), I think s/he may have missed a few key points. Namely:

• Commenter B has already educated Commenter A. The post went into formal schooling and how blogging is not equivalent, but the analogy it didn't make was that of the research paper. As in, not all schooling is in the passive learning style. So, say would-be ally is on a site; would-be ally sees a term s/he has never seen before, or reads of a theory s/he has never heard of. S/he has already been educated. S/he has been educated to the fact s/he is entirely ignorant of a subject/subject matter. And, if would-be ally is truly interested in learning about the subject at hand, s/he now has something to go on, something to Google. And, like a research paper or homework, the would-be ally now has the ability to go off and do some of the hard work hirself.

• Commenter A may not be a known entity to Commenter B. rebekah made mention of writing an answer to an "honest question". The problem with blogs and with pseudonyms is that there is no interpersonal relationship between Commenter A and Commenter B. Due to that, Commenter A has no reasonable expectation that Commenter B knows the question asked has been asked in good faith. If the only people who ever stumbled upon a blog and asked a question were people who were honestly interested in learning, then perhaps the dynamic would be different. That is not the case. But even if it were, it doesn't change the fact that Commenter B owes Commenter A nothing.

• Commenter B owes Commenter A nothing because Commenter B has a life of hir own. Commenter B may have answered the question at hand a thousand or so times. Commenter B may be looking to get into the nitty gritty of a specific issue on a specific thread without the whole of the conversation being brought back up to a 101 level. Commenter B may have little interest in figuring out if this particular Commenter A is different from all of the others and really wants to learn, when Commenter B has other things going on - kids to play with, dogs to walk, food to eat. But mostly Commenter B may just not care about making the learning process extremely easy for Commenter A, because the living of it hasn't exactly been peachy keen for Commenter B.

• Commenter B may actually have been asked the same exact question a thousand times before. This goes to Pantheon's point, that "the person asking doesn't know that you've been asked it over and over". And that's true; no one can possibly know what another person has been asked before, let alone how many times. However, a person would have to be fairly obtuse to not even consider that the question s/he wants to ask has been asked before; possibly on that very site, possibly to that very poster, and possibly not that far in the past. Only a Very Special Snowflake indeed would assume the opposite, that this is an original thought only occurring to them. Which leads to the two last points, and ones I think SociologicalMe definitely should have mentioned.

• Many, many sites that encounter this problem have a handy-dandy search bar, or some other search tool to aid in the quest for knowledge. Feministing has a search bar, handily labelled "Search Feministing". Shakesville has one, helpfully labelled "Search: • Shakesville, • Google" with the option to search either Shakesville or Google. Feministe has both the option to "Search Feministe" or to browse the archives, category or tag. Many other sites employ the "cloud" technique of making available labels used on posts. So, if the would be ally wants to know about feminism, s/he could search that very site that prompted the question via search engine or tag. Amazing!

• Also, many, many sites have links on the side. So, if would-be ally has a question about, say, feminism, s/he could take a few seconds and scan the available blogs linked and take a gander at one called Feminism 101. Voila!

• In order for one to truly become learned in a subject, one cannot be spoon-fed the answers. One has to think, to work, to do a lot of the heavy lifting hirself. Commenter A denies hirself an education when s/he fosters all of the expectations upon Commenter B. Learning takes work. End of story.

In this time with more information available to each person with an internet connection than in any other time in history, with Google (kind of scarily) archiving all of the books under the sun, the idea that the only way we can learn is by getting the crib sheets from another in Real Time instead of actively reaching out to gain the knowledge ourselves is not only ludicrous but insulting. And the idea that others exist within cyberspace for the sole purpose to service our educational needs on the spot when directly questioned is also insulting, to both our ability to look into the problem ourselves and to the people upon which we impose.

In order for one to truly become learned in a subject, one cannot be spoon-fed the answers. One has to think, to work, to do a lot of the heavy lifting hirself. Commenter A denies hirself an education when s/he fosters all of the expectations upon Commenter B.

Monday Reading List

Girls Can Be Wild Things Too! by Lauren O. My favorite line is:

I was reading this month's issue of Spin, a magazine I will continue to receive long after I get even more bored with it than I already am because one of those door-to-door magazine-subscription salesman guilted me into it, and I am more susceptible to guilt-based pitches than anything else in the world because I was raised Christian.

But the more salient point is probably this one:

The fact is that when you live in a society that constantly portrays women as curious passive accessories to real humans, you're going to absorb that message to some extent, no matter how smart you are, and no matter how much time you spend studying and defending women's rights (not that that is something Steve Kandell probably does very often). I'm not going to pretend like I haven't been guilty of this, and I'm sure I'll catch myself doing it again in the future, thinking of white men as default humans and of the rest of us as deviations from the norm.

You Can Take Your "Just Joking" and Shove It by Andrea. Because I really, really hate it when someone says something wickedly offensive or insensitive, and when called out on it goes with the "just joking" defense instead of being an adult and actually apologizing for hir own myopic meanness.

Being Transgender Is Dishonest from silver unicorn at the Community at Feministing:

Transgender people don't fit into these ideas of gender, so we are dishonest always. I can't say I am female without being accused of lying about what my assigned biological sex. And I can't say I'm male, because that isn't my gender identity nor is how I'm usually perceived, so that of cause would make me dishonest as well. And I certainly couldn't say my gender identity is anything other than female or male, because those options don't even exist in a lot of people's eyes.

It's Been A Year Since Obama Ended Racism in America, and isn't that just great? My favorite part in it all is this:

Whenever a homeless white person asks me for change, I always sneer at him and say: “You can’t be serious. You’re white. Look at Bill Gates. Why don’t you go invent an operating system instead of trying to freeload off of society you lazy white man.”

Oh wait, I never say that. Because that would make me a giant prick.

But, again, well worth the read. Especially the part about how Obama is a giant dork. Cuz, yeah.

Why It's Awesome To Be a Joss Whedon Fan by pointy. Filled with fairy tale references:

So, were we talking about someone? Oh, yes. That writer. Too many TV writers intoxicate us with the literalized Little Red Riding Hood. Act I: Innocence is victimized. Act II: The hero identifies Evil Incarnate and does battle, as reasons to Kill It Kill It pile up. Act III: The Death Bringer is slain by the hero, and the community is restored to pure wholesome goodness. The good guys live, cuz they’re good! It’s amazing how many people think they’re watching realism when they’re told the latest rehash of this fairy tale, minus all the elements that clue a child in that it’s not real.

Thomas' Reductio:

I don’t think we have a society that is comfortable with women being large or containing multitudes. The survey Lauren links treats “mom” as if it encompasses the whole of the woman, defining her entirely. Women are expected to be one-dimensional, so that if a woman is a professional, and if she is also a mother, any sort of acknowledgement that she’s also a mom is seen as slightly or not-so-slightly inconsistent with her role as a professional.

The Kiva team Stuff You Should Know started has reached $17,700 worth of loans made in just over a month.

And, because I love mustard on my elbow noodles (which really grosses out my mother):

nataliedee.com

"Real" Women

I love Stuff Mom Never Told You, one of the three podcasts I listen to from How Stuff Works. Not as much as I love Stuff You Should Know, where Josh and Chuck's banter makes my workday so much more fun and interesting than it would be sans banter, but I still love it all the same. It's cool to have two girls discuss girl stuff, like why it is important to talk about dating violence, burlesque, women changing (or not) their names after they get married, and so on and so forth. Molly and Cristen are usually calm and even-handed, even when I would prefer it if they weren't, and truth be told, I can handle that because it reminds me not everyone wants to hear the rantings of a feminist about women's issues. That's what I listen to RH Reality Check with Amanda Marcotte for.

With all that being said, though, there is a problem with how they talked about women's bodies in their recent (otherwise fabulous) podcast about women's magazines. And it was in this way - the way they talked about 'real women':

CRISTEN: There was a huge, you know, outpouring of praise for Glamour for showing a real, real woman's body with actual, not - they didn't photoshop out her belly flap, she actually had a little, a little thigh fat, and it reflected more of a normal woman's body than, say, Kate Moss.

...

CRISTEN: Oh, yeah, it was very positive. They were saying, 'Oh, thank you so much, Glamour, for actually, you know, showing a real woman's body. We can actually relate to this'. And Lizzie Miller got all this wonderful attention and Vogue has also promised to, like, start showing more 'plus-size' models in their magazines as well.'

...

CRISTEN: If there was such a huge outpouring of love for a single photo, Molly, in Glamour, what does that say about women's magazines and where we are today? I mean, if it was such a breath of fresh air to actually see some semblance of a real woman's body, what kind of messages are we getting from these magazines?

...

MOLLY: I remember this one time [17 Magazine] put in this chubby model - not, she wasn't chubby, she looked real, but they got just as many letters, they said, from people who didn't like seeing someone who looks like that in a magazine as people saying, 'Thank you, that looks like me'.

Four 'reals' and one 'normal' in the course of the first 4 minutes and 34 seconds of the podcast to describe women's bodies.

That is not good. It isn't good, because it's not like Kate Moss isn't a real woman. She is. She is a flesh and blood woman. She isn't an automaton. She isn't a cyborg (I don't think...). She counts as really being a human being and really being a woman.

Delineating which women's bodies count as real and normal and should be shown because they are real and normal and which women's bodies are fake is just as much as a problem and only showing women like Kate Moss as THE type of body that is acceptable for women. Women come in a profound amount of shapes and sizes. Women should be shown to come in a profound amount of shapes and sizes, without one body counting as good and real and worthy of attention and one being sick and bad and not normal.

I'm not saying this because I look like Kate Moss. I'm not saying this because I look like Lizzie Miller. I'm saying this because women as a group can't make progress by delegitimizing another woman's body. Every time we talk about how one body type isn't 'real', isn't 'normal', doesn't make up a 'real woman', we are implying that the women who are that body type are fake, are freaks, aren't women. That is the problem with the title, "Real Women Have Curves". Yes, a lot of women have curves. Yes, more women with curves being given prominent roles in various forms of media would be good. No, there is no such thing as a 'fake woman'. Women with curves? Women. Women who are more angular? Still women. Trans women? Also still women. Just women. Not 'real women', because there are no 'fake woman', no 'false women', no women-who-just-don't-count women. And every time we talk in those terms, we alienate those women who aren't immediately enveloped by whatever stipulation we've placed on womanhood.

This is the same problem I have with articles like a recent one linked on Feministing, called 10 Ways to Teach Kids About Sexism. Number 1?

Take direct action: make a small bonfire of Bratz dolls. As their creepy baby doll- faces, collagen'ed lips, wisp-thin waists and fishnet tights begin to melt into a toxic blob, encourage your daughters and her friends to clap and chant "Burn the freaks!"

Yes, the best way to lead your daughter and her friends to body acceptance is to make freakish other bodies. It's not to explain that most people don't have lips like Bratz Dolls (Tina Thompson, basketball player extraordinaire, excluded). It isn't to explain that no, a preteen cannot be dressing like the Bratz dolls dress, for X,Y&Z reasons. It isn't to make your daughter and her friends feel comfortable in their own skin and with their own bodies by continually stressing how bodies other than Bratz bodies and Kate Moss' body and so on and so forth are also beautiful. It is to create an Us-vs-Them dichotomy, a 'normal' body and the body of the 'freak'. And that, if we come across a 'freak', we can and should see them as subpar. And maybe try to roast marshmallows over them.

Tip number 5?

Explain to them that though many young women idolise Victoria Beckham and want to be as thin as her no man in the known world finds her attractive.

Except, one assumes, her husband. Who married her and has three children with her. And here's the problem with this (as well as the Bratz example and the constant pickings on Kate Moss): we're still teaching girls (because even though the article's heading talks about teaching 'kids' about sexism, apparently only girls need to know) that being attractive should be an end goal, and that there are certain body types that are prohibited from being attractive. If Lizzie Miller is a 'real woman', then Kate Moss and Victoria Beckham are not. If I'm allowed to have men attracted to me, then Victoria Beckham, with her body and hair oh-so very different than mine, loses out. It can't be that attractiveness is all relative, that Victoria Beckham is beautiful and I am too; it can't be that there is a guy who will like me and think I'm pretty and Victoria gets Becks to do the same for her.

There is an end game, and some women count and some women do not. That does nothing to lessen the sexist lessons. All it does is supply new sexist lessons; all it does is change up some of the victims of these various sexist practices. And though I know (or hope) that Cristen and Molly - two cool girls who have taught me how to make my own lip gloss - don't mean for the take away of the 'real women' description to have an inherent 'as opposed to those other not-real women we've been exposed to in magazines for years and years', it is still there. And we need for it not to be.

"Joss Whedon and the Real Girl"

Culled from the Feministing Weekly Feminist Reader is this article about Joss Whedon, and what it means to be human. I think it's interesting, partially from the selfish glee I got when I realized the article went to the same place I did in the "Dawn-Echo" comparison in the 'what does it mean to be human' question that continually permeates Whedon's work. But also because it is truly a piece that acknowledges what Dollhouse can be, and what it is lacking.

I also love the title, which is the title of this post. One of my favorite lines from Buffy the Vampire Slayer was, "All right, yes, date and shop and hang out and go to school and save the world from unspeakable demons. You know, I wanna do girlie stuff!" The juxtaposition with dating and shopping with saving the world, all falling under the category of 'girlie stuff' in such a mundane way, encapsulated not only what the show was for me but also what I think Whedon's best weapon in terms of a feminist message is. Girlie stuff, far from being a minute list of activities filled with pink and bows and skirts, encompasses what girls do. Girls can save the world; girls saving the world is cool. Girls saving the world aren't becoming "masculine"; they are eschewing gender norms, but that doesn't mean letting go of being a 'girl'. It means changing the definition of what is meant by being a girl. It means changing the perimeters of what we allow ourselves to think of as girlish behavior. Whedon does it again and again. We are told at various points in the series that Buffy is "just a girl", usually right before she does something to save the world. In the season finale of season five, right before heading off to battle a hell goddess, Buffy saves a teen from a vampire attack, ending with this exchange:

BOY: But... you're just a girl.

BUFFY: That's what I keep saying.

Buffy is just a girl, albeit a super powered one. But what Whedon does so deftly is to change the meaning of that phrase. Usually used as a diminution of girls and women, Whedon uses the phrase almost as a call to power.

If Buffy is just a girl and wears that proudly, then she isn't an example of the extraordinary female. She isn't someone who transcends her gender in order to perform heroic feats. Instead, she is a girl who performs heroic feats. Her girlness is a key part of who she is. Whedon's brilliance in creating Buffy Summers is partially the fact that he allows her to be a girlie girl, without having that part of her be any less than the rest of her. Aspects of girls that are traditionally considered frivolous, and yet ironically things we as a society expect girls to take part in, become an aspect of strength. The knowledge Buffy gains from her love of fashion, for example, helps just as much in picking vampires out of a crowd as Giles' more respectable book-learning does. Buffy's consumption of pop culture, her quips, her heels, her dating, all mesh with her knowledge of beheading techniques, her fighting, and her ability to continually save the world from certain doom; and what comes out is a girl no less real than one who isn't thinking about beheading techniques and ambush tactics, who, in turn, is just as much a 'real girl' as the girl who thinks of nothing but. Likewise, Kaylee is no less a girl because she is an excellent mechanic; her mechanical skills are no less because she loves sex and pink pouffy dresses. Willow is no less of a girl because she has seen "the softer side of Sears" and doesn't wear make-up, preferring instead to hack computers in her spare time; she is no less a computer whiz once she gets a boyfriend.

And in conjunction with that is how Whedon tackles different aspects of humanity, generally through women. His men, even though they are powerful, wonderful, three-dimensional characters in their own rights, are rarely utilized to answer the question "what does it mean to be human?" Even when the men exist in the same space as the women, like in Dollhouse, women are still the focus. Buffy, with her superpowers; Dawn, with her spontaneous 14 year oldness; River, with her government-imposed craziness; Echo, with her blank slate life. It certainly opens up the question of 'why always the women, Joss?!'; but I think that question is easily answered. One, Whedon has said that the powerful woman is his "identification figure", going farther to say:

Those characters are the person I am in my fiction. They're like my avatars. I really hadn't realized that and it's weird for me not to. All those years of writing Buffy, I'd say, 'Well, I relate to Xander.' And it was always Buffy. Buffy was always the person that I was in that story because I'm not in every way. Why my identification figure is female, I'm not exactly sure but she is.

 Yet, he also because seems to want to explore this:

What is wrong with women?

I mean wrong. Physically. Spiritually. Something unnatural, something destructive, something that needs to be corrected.

How did more than half the people in the world come out incorrectly? I have spent a good part of my life trying to do that math, and I’m no closer to a viable equation. And I have yet to find a culture that doesn’t buy into it. Women’s inferiority – in fact, their malevolence -- is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkhas. I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards, and not just the ones for horror movies. Women are weak. Women are manipulative. Women are somehow morally unfinished. (Objectification: another tangential rant avoided.) And the logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are, at the very least, expendable.

His writing generally starts with this premise. Who is sent out to fight the vampires? A young girl. Who is utilized by the government? A young girl. He starts from there, because that is where the thinking is. Because we as a culture do see women as something other than the norm, as something less, as objects to be used. But that is not where he stays. He creates worlds to illuminate his perception of where we are, and then he seeks to demonstrate why this thinking is harmful, and why it is wrong. In an odd way, Whedon seems to like to take what I consider the end product from works like The Yellow Wallpaper or The Awakening, and brings them back. Society breaks them, but they - with help from their friends - fix themselves. He also balances those women out with a variety of other women and men. And what comes out at the end of the day is the conclusion that all of this women are 'real girls', and the men are real too. That they are precious and unique, "actual and whole", and far from expendable.

I don't think Dollhouse is there yet; I don't know if it will ever get there, or if it will be allowed to get there. I see the formation of these ideas shining through, like beacons. It is there when Boyd moves from seeing Echo as something other than a person to someone he cares about, even if every time they meet he is a stranger to her - and in a strange way, her to him. But I do think that no matter what, Echo is being presented as a real girl, just a different kind of one. And that difference doesn't make her any more expendable than any of the others.

On another note, I'm going to try to not post on Whedon for at least 6 days, and post on other stuff in that time. Every day! Let's see if I can do it, shall we?

Gender and SXSW

While meandering around Feministing this morning, I saw the weekly "Feminist Friday Fuck You/Fuck Yeah" video (actually, I just read the transcript, because I'm the only one in my house who is awake, and to play the actual video would have been a bit rude). Since it was about SXSW, the insane and insanely long music festival I'm kind of sad I don't get to go to, it was even better:

One of the things that stands out to me is the fact that "the bands with even one female member is a whopping 388 out of 2000 bands". Like Samhita and Ann, I'm a bit appalled. I'm also a bit intrigued. I would think that there are a whole lot of social factors going into whether or not women would be playing in bands, including but not limited to how the culture at large influences who is interested in being a musician and who thinks they should be on the side of the stage offering their adoration, as well as a multitude of other factors that stem from both the sociological and the individual. After all, even in conceivably feminist-friendly spaces, the aura of the greater culture still looms. As Tina Weymouth of Talking Heads said regarding the early days of punk rock, ‘Women musicians tended to be treated like women drivers…if they aren’t much good, well what can you expect? And if they’re hot stuff, it is despite the fact they are women' ('RiotGrrl: Revolutions From Within', Signs, Vol 23, No. 3). 

That sort of stigma has to be somewhat debilitating as an artist, or even getting to the point where one wants to be an artist. If that mindset is still prevalent (and I see no indication that it is not), then it not only affects women who are musicians but the men judging them. If a woman is auditioning for a band or even looking to audition members for her own band, wouldn't it seem plausible for social assertions such as the kind Weymouth discussed to be - even unintentionally - damaging? Are women in bands an example of another case where women are, due to the stigmas and stereotypes surrounding them, judged differently than their male peers? It seems likely that Dr. Bonnie Bassler's conclusion about women in science, that "women scientists have to achieve two and a half times what their male counterparts have to achieve to have the same credibility" may be also applied to women in bands.

So, assuming that the amount of women even interested in making music is less than men (ignoring, for the moment, why that may be), then it would make sense for the amount of women and the amount of men in bands at festivals like SXSW wouldn't be equal. But the disparity between 388 bands that have even one female member versus the whole 2000 bands available seems a bit high. And questioning that seems like a good thing. Which is why questions like this on the Feministing post:

"Would you have rather they skimped on the acts they wanted to to play just so there would be more women there?"

rather confound me. Firstly, it sets up a false argument. The argument isn't that the promoters should have skimped on bands they wanted to play there in order to maintain a greater level of equality, but why is there such an inequality? What reasons could there be for people wanting to have more male bands play than bands that contain women? It could be as simple on an individual band level as "The bass line in band X is better than the whole of band Y". But in looking at the whole, a different set of issues emerge. Looking at the individual bands is focusing on the trees instead of the forest.

But almost more importantly, thoughts like the one above only reinforce societal inequities. There is a scene in American History X, where Edward Norton's father is talking about how in reading books written by people other than the white men who have always made up the tomes of great literature, there is some disservice being done to those other works. In essence, it boils down to the thought that to highlight a neglected work means to undervalue or ignore a work that has already been considered great. But that isn't really how it goes. If all we read is Shakespeare and Dickens and Twain, we miss the bigger picture. And we cut voices out of our bigger picture. Access to public space is an exercise of privilege - the privilege to be noted and noticed. Too often, the already privileged occupy that space, because they are, also too often, those who control the distribution. So instead of griping about demanding the sublimation of the organizers' own desires for gender equality - an equality that may already be hampered by things outside of their control - we should be looking at how who controls the modes of exposure helps or hampers those who become exposed, and how that affects things like parities between bodies, parities between gender divides and racial divides and even the content of songs.

Illustrating The Wage Gap

Here's something really, really cool from the New York Times: an interactive scatter plot graph demonstrating the wage gap between women and men. Being a graph, it doesn't delve too deeply into the hows or whys except for in a few broad cases (like the differences in salaries for professors), but it is still educational - and fun to use. I personally like the "putting the mouse over the dot" feature, and the fact that you can clear all but one category from the screen for easier analysis. Overall, I'm thinking this goes down as an awesome.

h/t to Feministing

Women Don't Need Real Food - We're Good With Gum

I hate this commercial, and I'm pretty sure everyone else in the world should as well. Why? Well, watch it.

Let's see; it has a skinny woman who can't have that white chocolate macadamia nut cookie because she "caved" on eating that brownie yesterday. Her internal battle is between that bad craving, and her "good" self that really doesn't want to do anything that might jeopardize her skinniness. So what does she do? Well, she does what any smart woman who wants to be good does: she eats a piece of gum instead. Right, that isn't at all problematic.

The fact is, women should not feel like they've been bad for eating a brownie, or like they can't eat that cookie even though they've done some cardio. The fact is, self-denial in pursuit of bodily perfection does us no good. The fact is, this form of food-consumptive shaming has been going on for too long. We should not be congratulating the woman in the video for resisting her wish for a cookie. The woman in the video should not consider it a battle won that she not consume that cookie. This should not be held up as a triumph. It should not be held up as triumph because eating one cookie (or even 3) is not the end of the world or a negative action. Eating a sweet is not a bad thing, and it is continually depressing that women are taught and told to believe that it is. A while ago on Feministing, this very thing was highlighted by Courtney on her Ten Things I Could Do Without list; clocking in at number 5 was:

"Hearing my otherwise enlightened girl friends say they're "bad" because they just ate dessert."

Samhita responded with Ten Things Samhita Can Do Without. At number 3?

"Having my weight scrutinized by friends and family on a regular basis even though I am a grown ass woman and it is none of your business."

And it is present in the story told by Darla on We Are The Wave, when her mother gladly bought her diet microwave dinners to eat and took pride in her daughter's weight loss.

Weight loss or gain is only morally good or bad if we find something deficient in those who actually want to do that crazy thing called eating. Sure, there are people who overeat. But too often, we feel ashamed that we have these cravings at all, that we truly want that piece of chocolate or that brownie or that cookie. And that shame and that denial is not healthy. It does not lend to a healthy relationship with the food we eat, or the shape our bodies take. We shouldn't have to work out as penance for doing so, as though those extra fifteen minutes on a treadmill "make up" for that deviation the night before.

I eat. I personally don't eat a hell of a lot; and because of my hypoglycemia I have to be careful of my intake of sugar, lest I pass out and freak out those around me. I do eat what I want and generally when I want, though again the hypoglycemia leads to a somewhat more structured meal routine if I want to remain upright and cognizant. If I want a cookie, I have a cookie. I just make sure it's close enough to bed time so when I start getting dizzy I'm already laying down. I learned long ago that denying myself something I wanted - be it sweets or books or CDs - just meant that I would later binge on that very thing; which, by the way, is how I end up with things like Scott Weiland's solo CD. That still doesn't stop my some of coworkers from commenting about "how much" I eat and what I eat and how one day my metabolism will stop working for me and I'll have to be "good" like most of them. But I don't want to be. I want to be active; but I want to be active for the sake of being active, and not as a kind of Hail Mary when I do something like eat a piece of cake. And I want my cake, sans guilt. I want to not see commercials on my television set informing me that good girls and women chew gum after agonizing for dozens of seconds about whether or not they could rationalize actually eating something. I want a world in which women are considered good for actual acts of goodness, instead of self-denial. I want a world in which weight is no longer a measure of a person's moral worth. And I want a world in which people chew gum because they honestly want to, and not as a substitute for something else.

Subtle Sexism

I'm not a gamer. I wasn't ever allowed to have a gaming system as a kid, because my parents wanted me to be active or reading a book - which I happily did. The only game I was even ever remotely good at was Duck Hunt, and when we were younger I'd make my best friend play the game constantly when I was over her house. She enjoyed my play drum set when she was over my place, so it was all a wash in the end. Games in college sometimes left me (or the virtual me) standing in a corner spinning helplessly around and around (Halo), or coming in 8th at Mario Kart 22 times in a row. So sexism in video games is something that I haven't really experienced; that doesn't detract from lindabeth's excellent blog post "Subtle Sexism: Analyzing The Witcher". What makes the article such a good read is that she isn't highlighting merely problems in this one particular videogame, but how these issues are reflective of our society as a whole and of gaming culture in particular. Yes, she is discussing this particular game explicitly, but the problems in the game wouldn't be quite so severe if those problems weren't also highlighted out in the "real world".

She highlights several issues about the sexual nature of the game, including:

"After a sexual encounter, you obtain pin-up trading cards to represent that sexual conquest-players, collect them all! (mass-printed cards, authentically medieval, right?) The idea of "collecting" women you have sex with (proof of your masculinity?) is really troubling to me. And by having sex with all the women available, you have a complete collection of women-objects. Having sex with all the women you are able to, thus, becomes a goal for the character, even if the "reward" for doing so is negligible (bragging rights?). As one gamer suggested, "Women are COLLECTIBLE."

This would be troublesome in any context, but it becomes more troublesome given the fact that this is very much an idea present in society; men aren't exactly discouraged from having sex with a lot of women; he may be labelled a "man-whore" (the modification of which just goes to show exactly how sexuality and "bad" sexuality is gendered), but that isn't exactly something that society is shaming men about - unlike women, who if they're "whores" may be good enough to sleep with but not marry in the common meme. It also plays into the "women are objects" idea, something that is furthered farther down in the article:

"in the game, you as the male protagonist can choose whether or not to have sex with the women, but they cannot choose not to have sex with you - you will never hear a "no". They may not suggest sex unless you do/say/buy/pay "the right thing", but you won't hear a rejection. So women's sexuality becomes a matter of figuring out the right tactics, the right series of responses or actions to get her to open her legs up to whomever gets the combination right."

Again, this would still be problematic, but much less problematic if there weren't a crazy line of thought that this is true, that women owe men who do nice things for them sex, and that women should "give" themselves to men who do all those right things. That thought is at the very heart of the Nice Guy™ syndrome:

Which is also nicely demonstrated here:
It is the thought that somehow men are deserving of sex with whatever women they wish to have sex with, and that all women a particular man wants are attainable; it makes men and their sexual wants more important that women and their sexual autonomy. Women's sexuality then always belongs to men; they just have to figure out how to get it. It makes women "collectibles". That the game reflects this is no surprise; that the game reflects any of what lindabeth describes is no real surprise. The surprise are the things that don't passively fall into the same harmful patterns of the culture, the games and books and songs and movies and television shows that - either through design or accident - go the opposite way.

The final point I'm going to lift from lindabeth (and really, you should read the whole article because it is awesomely well-written) before then traversing the comments left both on her own blog and on her Feministing Community post is one relating to two separate issues, those being heterosexism (but only really it seems when dealing with male homosexuality), and a dismissal of women gamers and their concerns:

"at the same time, you are also limited to having sex with women. This makes me pause - for a feature that is considered "optional", thereby theoretically inconsequential, how come sex with men is not an option. I can hear the objections from the homophobes now. But for those men out there in game chat board world who say it shouldn't be a big deal for a woman to play a male character, and to have sex with various women to complete the full game, then what would be the "big deal" for the het men playing that character to have sex with men to complete the card set?"

This is where being wholly in reference to The Witcher becomes a bit tricky for the women gamer who wants to play something other than a male character, because the protagonist of the game is an already-existing character. And this is where it is important to look at The Witcher within the larger gaming context - where what is acceptable in this particular game given the surrounding circumstances becomes part of a larger pattern when viewed in context with other games that arbitrarily do not offer a female protagonist who can sleep with the boys. The response to this line of thought is telling, in both places it is protested. On "Don't ya", Paul says, "The reason there is no option for gay sex is that it would mess with the story, Geralt is a straight male, they aren't being homophobes that's just how the story is." Ausir on the Feministing post asserts that "the game does not follow the plot of the books, but is set after the last book in the series". Which leads me to this: gay sex - especially if it were an optional feature of the game and not part of the linear plot - would not mess with the story. The story as Paul knows it is over; the game is a continuation. And Buffy Summers had a lesbian encounter in her story's continuation after the final episode of the television series, even though she had been up until that point a straight female. And while I may have some issues with that lesbian encounter, my issue doesn't stem from the fact that Buffy is a straight female and that sleeping with a girl messes with the story. Because stories can grow and change in any of their mediums.

Another critique of lindabeth's article, by azazeloo5, saying "The assertion that sex is never "refused" is because of the tale, not the gender's [sic] involved". Except that isn't exactly true; when the tale plays to cultural norms of gender, then it isn't strictly about the tale. The tale isn't a biographical narrative telling of a life that actually occurred; therefore, the tale and everything in it is contrived, and that contrivance follows the norms of the culture it stems from. And while this is hardly the most provocative, it still is representative of a sexist culture - and a subtle sexism because unlike rape or job discrimination or outright objectification, people like Paul or azazeloo5 can dismiss this as not being part of a grander narrative, and of merely representing this one particular tale that is by some stroke of luck or genius divorced from the world in which it was created.

And then there is from zarr, arguing, "Homosexual relationships are not included in the witcher for the same reason that the protagonist of Mass Effect is always portrayed as a male (even though you are given the option in the game to play as a female), audience. How much of the witchers [sic] audience would have cared for a homosexual relationships [sic] (cared enough to warrant them taking the time to put in such a feature)? I would argue a rather insignificant amount as the vast majority of people are heterosexual". And yes, the vast majority of people may be heterosexual. But at least 50% of the people are female; for girls playing the game who may not want to always sex up girls, it could be a nice addition - to not consistently and constantly fed objectified and commodified images of women while you're trying to play the game in its entirety. Not to mention, a good 10% of the population is homosexual - and that is leaving out the bisexuals, and the transexuals and everyone who does or possibly could fall under the "queer" category in the vast experience of humanity.

The last problem I'll mention is this, from Rhett Butler, saying, "The Witcher is puerile escapism and wish fullfillment [sic]. Geralt is the kind of character every guy wishes he was - famous, tough, cool, desired by lots of beautiful women. That's why he never gets turned down, becuase [sic] being turned down for sex is not on any guy's wish list". This actually leads into a problem I have with comic books, a problem I've been meaning to blog about for forever with nice visual representations but haven't yet because I'm just lazy (editor's note: Sorry, John! It will be coming soon, I promise!). And that is this: I have no interest in video games, and not for this issue. But I do have an interest in comic books, and I am frequently turned off from them for exactly this issue. The way most games and comic books are set up make it clear that not only is this a man's world but that it is intending on staying a man's world. This obviously isn't true for every comic book and every video game. But enough comic books have disembodied female parts (boobs, butts, etc.) on numerous pages - and gratuitously - for me to be massively put off. And enough video games objectify women characters and make men the only option - or the default option - that I can imagine it turning a lot of women off as well. I still read comic books - sometimes enthusiastically. And I know plenty of women who not only play video games but revel in them as well; that doesn't change the fact that it truly does suck to have that sinking "not again" feeling, to know that the male gaze is more important than the women readers/gamers, and that the guy wish fulfillment is more important than making games that respect women who want to play them. I'm not up for male objectification; I don't really think that equality should be attained by diminishing the other gender. But I am getting awfully sick of the idea that gaming and comic books have male target audiences just because, without recognizing or analyzing or acknowledging that one of the reasons why some of these things have a disproportionate male audience is the way women are portrayed (or, in some cases, not).

"Jessica" Isn't Clean

Risk® has decided that it would be better for business to exclude women from its base. Seriously. The board game now asks if you're "man enough", and the on-line version does something... ...rather strange. From Sociological Images: 

First of all, you have to choose a nickname. I tried a series of names: "Fred", "Thomas" and "Patrick" went through fine, but if I tried "Melissa" "Jessica" or "Natasha", the system wouldn't accept them, and I was told to "Keep it clean, please."

Whoa. I didn't know "Jessica", "Melissa", "Natasha" or "Lisa" are in any way dirty - unless, of course, being a girl is dirty.

I don't play Risk. The only game I'll play that takes more than 6 hours to finish is Monopoly®. I get bored, restless, and lose all interest. But a lot of women I know truly enjoy games like Risk.  And it sucks that they are being completely excluded from this world; it sucks that a game that had previously been neutral in its box has chosen to become genderized, and has chosen to play to the basest cliches of what guys are interested in. I especially liked one of the comments, which declared "I'm sure it's not their attempt to alienate female customers. this game is a slow game in some circle [sic] and they are only trying to win people over". Brilliant deduction! Of course, women don't count as "people". That would just be silly. And making women feel completely unwelcome is the best way to win them over. Obviously, this is some nifty marketing tool based on reverse psychology.

What really miffs me is that this isn't even the first time Hasbro has blatantly played to gender stereotypes. I was already upset with them over the Queen Frostine thing, where they downgraded her to "Princess Frostine", sassed her up, and made her skinnier and way pink. Who thinks "pink" when they think of frost? Who, I ask you? No more. I've already written my angry letter about Candy Land, but now I'm writing another one about Risk. And I'm boycotting Hasbro, until Risk returns to being overtly gender neutral and possibly until Queen Frostine once again looks like she's ruling over a frosty land of winter and snow and hasn't accidentally fallen into a vat of cotton candy.

It's going to be Apples to Apples from here on out.

H/T to Feministing.

Why Feminism Is Still Relevant: Upskirting Incidents

One of the first Friday Feminist Fuck You videos I saw made by the women of Feministing dealt with public perverts. I think it may have been one of the first ones they actually did. I loved it. I was horrified by the first incident they talked about, that being a 16 year old who put on a skirt, went to a Target, had a man stick a camera up her skirt, and then had no legal recourse because she had no "reasonable expectation of privacy":

As Tracy Clark-Flory makes clear in her recent article addressing the subject, "In non-legalese: Wear a skirt in public, and you might just get a camera in the crotch." The article is incredible, both moving and scary. It definitely makes me want to think twice about wearing skirts or sundresses, and while I've always been more at home in a pair of jeans, I do love my skirts and dresses. And what makes matters worse is that concerns about "upskirting" are often boiled down to the most ridiculous of arguments. Like this one from John Morris, general counsel for the Center of Democracy & Technology: "If you don't want to be photographed walking down the street, don't walk down the street - it's a public street". That is the kind of response that minimizes the impact this has on women, on their autonomy, on their feelings of safety, and their rights as human beings not to be reduced to body parts and sexual objects as soon as they step out of the door in the morning. The idea that there is some debate about whether or not upskirting (or "downblousing") actually violates privacy and privacy laws is ludicrous. As Harper Jean Tobin writes at Polymorphous Perversity,

"Of course they do. How do we know? Consider the analogous situation of the bathroom stall. The bathroom itself is a public place. The stall is, typically, not completely closed off from the rest of the bathroom; its walls do not extend all the way to the floor or ceiling. Others could certainly peep over or under. Yet most of us would agree that there is a general, reasonable, and fairly strong expectation of privacy in the closed stall. This has often come up in Fourth Amendment cases, and court generally agree that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the stall (though they sometimes disagree about how it applies to many situations involving law enforcement searches and surveillance).

When you wear a skirt on the street, the parts of your body covered by the skirt are like all of you when you're in a bathroom stall. Your deliberate concealment creates a reasonable expectation of privacy as to the parts concealed, even if someone could go out of their way to peek. This doesn't seem to me to be a difficult question."

What upskirting demonstrates is something many women know all too well: that women are still considered, in some way shape or form, to be public property. That women are still second-class, are still worth less, and whose thoughts and feelings and autonomy still remain unconsidered by a whole swath of society. No, not every man is someone who would stick a camera under a girl's skirt and click. I would venture many men don't fall into that category. No, not every man is someone who would even contemplate catcalling a woman or thinking it is a complement. Again, I would venture that many men wouldn't. But that doesn't change the fact that it is not considered a societal issue, and the men who do engage in these activities are more often than not left out of the equation as we once again discuss women and women's behavior as being the root cause of their own strife. That is what John Morris' comment does; it puts the onus on women not to be made victims of upskirting. It says, "Well, you should expect to be photographed (or harassed, or catcalled, or leered at, or touched) if you leave the house."

And unfortunately, that is the dominant viewpoint of society; for instance, there are comments on Feministing from a man (KeithIrwin) who claims "There are times when I consider myself very proud to label myself a feminist male" but who had previously said on the same thread, "saying things like 'I don't want someone to take a picture of my crotch, so they shouldn't be able to, period' is why people sometimes assume that feminist is a synonym for fascist". Wha? Saying that I have a right to my privacy and to not be violated by someone sticking a camera in a place that had I been walking down the street with it exposed I could be charged with indecent exposure is fascist? How fucking clueless can a person get? Seriously now. How fucking privileged can a person be to not recognize that women have a right to be enraged by the very thought that they are susceptible to this sort of violation, to be enraged by the act of this sort of violation, and to declare unequivocally that this violation is unacceptable? How is that in any way fascist? Oh, this must be a definition of fascism I'm not aware of, where just by suggesting that a man doesn't have the automatic right to my body means that I am exercising strong autocratic or dictatorial control! The idea that this man may otherwise hold feminist notions is slightly frightening to me, because this one statement - along with conflating someone taking a picture of your hair with having someone shove a camera toward your crotch - belies the very truth of feminism; that being the radical idea that women have a fundamental right to personal autonomy, that women have the right to walk down a street without being accosted or threatened, and that women - as human beings - have the inherent right to be seen first and foremost as human beings and not simply as sex objects or dismembered body parts there for male pleasure, the male gaze, or male approval (or, for that matter, female approval).

Here's the thing: I'm not one to pull the "you don't know what it is like" card, because I find it more than slightly wall-building and a bit condescending and doesn't exactly open up the conversation toward a more mutually satisfactory debate. It basically shuts conversation down; and I am, beyond all else, a conversator (and a word maker-upper, but that's a whole other post). But guys like Keith really don't know what it is like. Guys in general usually have a hard time understanding what it is like to live in a world that constantly seeks to strip bits and pieces from you throughout your outdoorsy travels. I don't think I've ever been upskirted. But that doesn't mean that I haven't been, and it doesn't mean that I don't now worry about it happening. It doesn't mean that Karen Simoncelli, who was upskirted, hasn't suffered from it, describing her situation as:

"'I had to have my fiance for about a whole year walk me in and out of our house... ...I have had a loaded gun next to my bed ever since. I constantly think someone is following me.' She says she'll stare at a small sliver of her bedroom window that isn't covered by the blinds and become convinced that 'someone is watching me, someone is looking'."

Upskirting is just another way of asserting power over a subject, as Professor of political science Susan Gallagher states. It is another way of making women feel, like Karen Simoncelli, unsafe. It is just another example of what Gwen Stefani described in "I'm Just a Girl". This world continually seeks to force women to hold a man's hand. And although every individual upskirt picture snapper is individually to blame, this is also a societal issue. Because we as a society do not take these assaults against women very seriously. Because these assaults, in their various forms, have become engrained as normalized behavior. And that is the bigger issue. Because even if we manage to do what Japan did and require every single camera phone to make an extra loud shutter sounds, the reasons why this behavior is prevalent (and in some cases rampant) are still very much present. And so, I leave you with "I'm Just A Girl", both because I like it and because it is still so very relevant:

Part 1 of the series.

Another Love, And Another Cause

First, the new love:

I have to admit, I don't normally like Aussie accents. I'm weird like that, I know. Most people I know swoon over them, but the only accents I really swoon over come from the British Isle. Oh, Sean Connery! And Christopher Eccleston! Anyway, I like Natalie here for several reasons. First up, anyone who makes with the grammar corrections attains almost god-like status in my book. Secondly, I love how she goes on a mini-explanation about the toothpick holders and restaurants. Mainly though, I enjoy her cool and costumed way of making such blatant racism ridiculous and mockable. Props to The Feminist Underground for finding me a new interweb love who will never know of my existence. I may beat Habladora to the newest of the new Sarah Haskins videos, but I think she wins in the long run by continually alerting me to people like Natalie. Also, check out her YouTube channel for her other videos.

Now for the new cause, found via Feministing:

What can I say? I'm a sap. And I like the idea of bettering the world through female empowerment and entrepreneurship. This reminds me of something I saw on PBS a couple of weeks ago that I had planned on blogging about, and it was a school for women. It taught them -grandmothers, mothers, and girls- how to hook up and maintain solar powered cells in order to provide electricity to their villages, giving them a skill set and also improving the way of life for those of their communities. It seemed really cool, and if I can track down the link, I'll add it. The Girl Effect seems to operate under the same premise, that improving the lives of women helps their communities and the world at large.

Quizzes and Videos

First things first: I took a "blind" test from ABC News that I found via A Slant Truth that takes one of John McCain's statements on a specific issue and one of Barack Obama's statements that same issue without labeling them, and you pick which one you agree with most. Some of the questions are really a competition in the lesser of two evils, like on gay marriage:

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans ... that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."

VS

"I do not believe gay marriage should be legal ... but I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, other ways that people [who] have relationships can enter into."

Since I believe firmly that gays have every right to marry, what do I go with in that case? Do I go with the first one because it leaves open the option some states will give homosexuals marital rights? Do I eschew that one because it leaves open the option some states will deny homosexuals any rights? Do I go with the second one because at least that gives homosexuals some rights no matter what state they occupy? Also, immigration questions I had a hard time with, like:

"The program ... will ensure that all undocumented aliens either leave or follow the path to legal residence. America cannot permit a permanent category of individuals that do not have recognized status - a permanent second class." 

VS

"We should require them to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for citizenship behind those who have come here legally. But we cannot -and should not- deport 12 million people."

Should I accept that those who are often denied even minimum wage should pay a fine just because they chose to take what is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty at face value? Do I think that they should be forced to learn English, when societies within the United States have developed where no English is necessary (like Chinatown in New York City) and when the US has no official language in order to facilitate the idea that we are a society open to all? Should I take it on faith that a great majority of those in quote #1 will not be deported, and the author is at least on board with the idea that a systemic creation of a second class of people living in America should not be tolerated?

Apparently, I agree with Obama 12 out of 13 times. I'll leave those of you who choose to take the quiz guessing on where he and I diverge. I do wish the quiz had taken a different approach than just straight quotes though. Maybe a serious of True or False questions about specific areas of policy. I know how I feel about immigration and gay rights and the Iraq War and universal healthcare, but I would like a blind test to sort of make me honestly reevaluate where I stand on the issues due to their specific requirements and pros and cons. That would be more helpful, I think, than a series of quotes that are about as unspecific as one could be in two or so sentences.

On a completely different note, I found this video via Feministing. Offensive, or thought provoking?

I'm on the fence with this one. I laughed, but then I felt kind of bad about it.

Michelle Obama: Angry Woman or Woman Who Gets Angry

Women are conditioned to be pleasant. Don't believe me? Check out this thread on Feministing called "Ten Things I Could Do Without", and count how many women bring up being commanded to "smile" (I've personally never experienced that, but that's because I'm unnaturally smiley). And it bothers me. It bothers me when women speakers tend to sound and look like Tour Guide Barbie. There is a time and a place to be peppy, but I really think that political rallies and national conventions and, well, life should allow for a bigger range of emotions than just that one, outwardly pleasant, wholly  unthreatening one; Senator Claire McCaskill demonstrated that Barbie-esque way of speaking at the DNC, and although I like both Senator McCaskill and her speech, her delivery was less than impressive because she did not display that range of emotion -because she had that permasmile attached to her face:

Hillary Clinton doesn't have a permasmile. That sometimes leads to unfortunate photo ops, but it also is an attribute that I like about her. It is also what I like about Michelle Obama. Michelle Obama has a very nice smile. But Michelle Obama also has a right to be serious, and to get angry, and get upset. She has the right to not have Bill O'Reilly (or Fox News in general) say outright that "She looks like an angry woman":

I don't know Michelle Obama personally; but I know people and I know that people -those of us in the human race- tend to experience a range of emotions. I know that calling Michelle Obama an "angry woman" is different than saying she is a "woman who is angry". One recalls a perpetual, generally irrational state. And one allows that Michelle Obama isn't stuck on one emotion or in one drive, and that she may, in actuality, have reason to be irate. I've read elsewhere that this is a racist driven remark; and I don't doubt that Michelle Obama's race plays some part in all of this, but I think what really drives people is the fact that she is a woman. And though the easiest way to discredit a woman has always been to bring up her sexual proclivity (oh, wait, Fox News did that too!), the second easiest way is to declare that the woman in question is "hysterical", "emotional", and "irrational". And that is what saying Michelle Obama is an angry woman does. It makes her emotions tantamount while ignoring the reasons behind them. It makes her concerns easier to dismiss, and makes her easier to dismiss, because as an "angry woman", she is just looking for something to rail against. She could not possibly be passionate and reasoned and right, because she is an "angry woman". We should not want this woman as our First Lady, because she is angry, and without purpose or cause. And it is an argument that has been making the rounds for some time, and it is ridiculous each and every time it is uttered.

Michelle Obama, like every other person on the planet, could very well be a person who gets angry when she sees injustice, about the state of our economy, about the state of inner city schools, and the state of inner cities in general. And the fact that Bill O'Reilly and Fox News -and even the woman who was on the program defending Michelle Obama- never thought of that is aggravating. And it necessitates that we continue to question how we examine women in society, and how we allow women to express their emotions and their concerns.

Bitch Needs Help

I was first introduced to Bitch Magazine in college, and I'm going to attribute that introduction to my good friend Media Maven. I bought many of their magazines. I've read a lot of the articles they post on their website. I've listened to their podcast. They're also nicely linked on the side of this blog under Sites of Info and Interest. But lately, I've been slacking. So I was shocked to visit Feministing and learn that Bitch Magazine is in danger of going under unless they raise $40,000 by mid-October. Here are two of the women from Bitch explaining their plight:

My first thought: Punk Planet went under? How did I not hear about that?!

My second thought, though, was that this is going to be a busy donating season for me. I'm not a community organizer. I don't actually like a lot of people. I'm like Linus in that way. I love humanity; it's people I can't stand. I'll gladly give food or money, and I will give money to almost any organization that asks for it. Except for Planned Parenthood, but that is because they sold my name when I was 16. Anyway, I've already done my part for the ACLU this season. I'm contemplating giving money to the Dali Lama (he sent me prayer flags). And now I'm going to be donating to Bitch Magazine. I would encourage anyone who enjoys progressive, well-written, feminist thought in a magazine form, independent publishing, or who just has an extra 10 bucks floating around, to do the same.

Help feed the dog at the top of their screen!

Edit: It may help if I supplied the actual donation link. Oops!

"Somebody's Sister"

There are many things I like about Feministing, but I think the thing I'm really appreciating the most is the new "community" Feministing. An interactive feature, it allows users to blog themselves -to highlight issues they see in their lives. Some of them aren't as well written as others, but there are a lot with good ideas and more than a few gems; ones that make me rethink my own complacency. This one, entitled "That's somebody's sister", is one of those gems. As sad as it is, before reading this piece I had never stopped to consider the phrase before, how that "someone" is often male and how the possessive quality of the phrasing eliminates treating a woman well for the woman's sake and instead makes it about treating the woman well for someone else's sake. The end note is one that should be repeated often:

Ultimately, misogyny, sexism, discrimination, harassment, rape, and domestic violence aren’t bad because of what the female victims’ brothers will feel. They are bad because the woman , a person in her own right, is being hurt. And until this starts being the frame around which people, even men trying to appeal to misogynists, argue for equality, equality will not be achieved.

Genevieve PlusCourageuse deserves much applause for highlighting and emphasizing a prevalent theme in society, and an accepted one. She deserves kudos for bringing attention to an issue I have previously mindlessly accepted. And we all deserve this phrase -and the behavior that elicits it- to be stricken from society.

A New Crush-Worthy Individual

My list of intellectual crushes is growing rapidly, it seems. There's that one on Jessica Valenti, on this guy, Aaron Sorkin, Joss Whedon, and many others. And now there is a new one: Sarah Haskins. I'm not the only one who has a love for her. She is just so cool, she even made me visit Jezebel after that incident with Moe and Tracy led me to promising myself I never would. So sit back, and enjoy a veritable plethora of her video offerings, guaranteed to make you laugh. Or at least smirk a lot. I sure will. I also liked her more serious comments on NPR.