Repost: Why are women scared to call themselves feminists?

Salon recently ran an article asking "Why are women scared to call themselves feminists?" If you'd asked me a few years ago whether I thought "Why are women afraid to identify as feminists?" was an important conversation to have, I would have called you crazy. Completely immersed in university culture, most of the people I associated with were openly (and actively) feminists. It got to the point where I mentally resituated feminism to the default politics I assumed in people. After all, who doesn't believe in female equality? If someone legitimately didn't then I would find that surprising and repugnant, and that became something I actively did not expect in people.

But things don't stay the way they are in undergrad. A few years out, I've had more conversations than I care to recall that pretty much go something like this:
Them: "No, I'm not a feminist."
Me: "Oh? Why not? Do you believe in gender equality?"
Them: "Yes, of cours, but feminism just... I don't know, it just seems like something for lesbians."
Me: ...

Yep. I shit you not, that's a conversation I've been a part of. More than once. I'm now at the point where, upon seeing Salon's headline pop up on my newsfeed, I immediately thought, "That is a damn good message that more people should be exposed to!" Hence this repost.

It's not that people don't believe in equality for women, generally I've found that most people still believe in that (or at least claim to). What I've found startling in recent years is the sheer number of people I've met, men and women alike, who claim not to be feminists as though that identifier is a dirty word. I've had numerous conversations with people who actively don't want to be associated with feminism because they see it as some sort of radical ideology. Sure, there are radical feminists, just like there are radical anythings. Radical liberals, radical atheists, radical [insert noun]. That doesn't mean that the underlying assumption of feminism is inherently associated with such radicalism. More than that, I still believe it should be shocking for someone in this day and age to say they are not a feminist given that doing so equates to not believing in gender equality. Is that really a message that is still mainstream acceptable in any way?

I think the major issue is that people don't understand the difference between feminism and the abstract notion of radical politics, and that's a very serious problem. I'm certain there are very good arguments that such misunderstandings are the result of misogynist attempts to undermine the goals of feminism, and while I don't think it's my place to make those arguments, I will say that if people (women or men) in positions of power continue to say that they are not feminists then that is straight up evidence of and a victory for the patriarchy. It literally means you don't believe in gender equality, and when people say it what I think they're actually trying to convey is that they want to be successful so they don't want to be associated with a political ideology that has been cast as radical and therefore repugnant. Is gender equality a radical notion? That's for you to decide, me I'm a feminist so I'll let you guess what I think.

I'll leave you with what I think is the best paragraph from the article, it really hits the nail on the head:

Let me just point out that if you believe in the strength of women, Ms. Perry, or their equality, Ms. Mayer, you’re soaking in feminism. If you’re like Ms. Bruni-Sarkozy and want to explain that “I imagine I am if feminism means claiming one’s freedom. But I am not if it means being committed in an active way to the fight that some women are still leading today I admire their bravery a lot, but I have chosen to commit myself elsewhere,” you should know that “the fight” is just being an autonomous person in the world. And if you’re like Ms. Fenton and think feminism means being treated like “anyone else,” remember that there aren’t a whole lot of “anyone else” options out there. You’re basically admitting that masculinity is the norm and that all we can do is aspire toward some kind of equitable footing in a man’s world. This sounds like a job for … feminism!

- - -
'Reposts' are inspired by other articles or blog posts around the Internet. They are used here with accreditation as the basis for short bursts of Max's interests.

Human Sexuality in Under Four Minutes

Hank from VlogBrothers has put together a fantastic and concise video explaining the surprisingly complex subject of human sexuality. This is my first experience of VlogBrothers but it certainly won't be my last: this kind of clear and engaging discussion of difficult topics is the stuff that Internet legend is made of. It's a quick and worthwhile watch so without further ado I invite you to get to it below:

(Big thanks to Chelsey for the heads up)

Guest Post: Men Who Hate Women

I'm starting 2012 off a little differently here at MaxRambles by featuring my first ever guest post. Back in December I went to see David Fincher's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo with my friend and fellow blogger Johanna. Based on the like-named 2005 novel by Stieg Larsson, TGWTDT shows an unusual pair of detectives investigating the murder of young Swedish girl over 30 years after the fact. In case you're not familiar with the source material, the story is primarily about sexual violence against women. The film features an extremely graphic rape scene that I've heard some say might be the most visceral depiction of sexual violence ever put on film. Either way it definitely deserves a trigger warning.

While I did know the scene was coming, Johanna did not and so was unprepared for the devastatingly brutal scene (for the record I would have warned her if I'd known she wasn't expecting it). Her piece below is a response to both the scene and the larger film from a feminist perspective. It's not my typical thing and I don't fully agree with some of the points Johanna makes, but that said I think she's largely spot on in her critique of TGWTDT and so I'm happy (and frankly a little flattered) to be featuring it here on MaxRambles.

I do want to warn you that Johanna's piece is very much a response to TGWTDT and as such is geared towards readers who have seen the film. It's brimming with spoilers and doesn't waste much time explaining things, but if you've seen the film you'll be just fine. If you enjoy the piece then please let us know in the comments, and if you want to read more of Johanna's writing you can follow this link to her contributions on JusticeBlawg.org (she writes under the shared name lawunion but always signs her posts). And now, without further ado...

Men Who Hate Women 

*spoiler warning, and trigger warning for sexual violence* 

I just went to see the recently released American film version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Having avoided the explosively popular books, and never having seen the Swedish films that were based on them, I knew nothing about the storyline and was completely unprepared for what happens in the film. David Fincher’s The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo contains the most explicit, brutal and devastating scene of sexual violence that I have ever seen. Technically I didn’t really see it, because it was unwatchable, but what I did see (and hear) is burned in my brain, and it was enough to have a full picture of exactly what was going on. After that I didn’t relax for the rest of the film and, two days later, I haven’t quite gotten out from under the cloud that it put over me. While that scene was particularly disturbing, it was not a thematic anomaly within the film. It is preceded by another sexual assault that I thought was bad enough, and is sandwiched within a story about missing and murdered women, victims of a misogynistic father-son serial killing (and raping) team. Needless to say, I wasn’t too surprised when I read that the English translation of the Swedish book’s original title is “Men Who Hate Women.” I guess the publisher figured that wouldn’t sell as well. 

The trouble that I’m having, and hope to work through a bit in writing this piece, is whether or not the graphic depictions of violence against women in the film are redeemable, in that they are both necessary and useful to a discussion of misogyny and rape culture, which the film seems to be interested in having. 

TGWTDT is, in my opinion, very clear about the power dynamic that is inherent in sexual assault and other forms of violence against women. Lisbeth Salander, the survivor of both of the scenes of sexual assault that I referred to above and, it is suggested, assault by her father during her childhood, is a ward of the state and prohibited from controlling her own finances. Early in the film she is assigned a new social worker, and very quickly he takes advantage of his position of power to coerce her into performing sexual acts in exchange for the money that she needs to live, and which she should be able to access freely. The first time this happens, she is forced to give him oral sex. The scene is stomach-churning, even more so when he states that her obvious reticence is a turn-on. However, it demonstrates a number of things. One is that any coerced sexual act is assault, regardless of whether or not it is physically forced. Sure, she could have turned and walked out of the office without acquiescing, but her situation was such that to do so would have meant total impoverishment and probably institutionalization. That is not a choice, and so she was sexually assaulted as certainly as if he had physically held her down and forced himself on her (which, unfortunately, is what happens later). It also shows that sexual assault is about power, not sex (although perpetrators of sexual assault clearly derive sexual pleasure from that power). After suffering further sexual violence from this man, Salander reveals that she recorded her rape and forces him to watch it. He appears to be visibly distressed by what he sees, which could be read simply as his panic about the situation that he is in generally, but I would prefer to think that it is the film’s way of showing that, as a sexual offender, he recognizes how disgusting his actions were when he sees what it really was: one person forcing himself upon another, physically weaker, incapacitated and unwilling person. While he may have felt powerful during that act, and taken sexual gratification from that feeling of power, forcing him to watch that recording dispelled the illusion. 

If by this point the audience had not understood that there is a connection between power relations and sexual assault, the film provides another opportunity when Daniel Craig’s character faces Martin Vanger, a serial rapist and murderer of women. He explains to Mikael (Craig) that he likes to watch the hope draining from the faces of his victims, and it is only when they have realized that they have no chance of escaping their fate that he becomes aroused. In other words, he is sexually aroused by the feeling of complete control and dominance over another party. That’s what it’s all about. So, all of this is to say that the film does a pretty good job of depicting and discussing sexual violence without sexualizing it. The rape scene is not titillating in the least; there are no lingering shots of Salander’s body, no romanticization or shying away from what is going on. It is very clearly violence, and for that I give the film some credit. Does that make it redeemable? After quite a bit of thought and a few discussions with some friends, my answer is no. 

One of the problems with the film is that while one of the main characters is experiencing all of this sexual violence, the other is becoming involved in an intriguing mystery, which becomes the central narrative thread. The assaults occur relatively early in the film, and are ostensibly used as a plot device, giving Salander a motive for helping Mikael “catch a killer of women.” The result is that instead of meditating on sexual assault as a systemic problem, it simply incorporates it as just another aspect of a story that is, ultimately, about entertaining the audience. This is the point that I had the most difficulty coming to terms with because if I believe that film is an important and relevant medium through which to discuss broad societal issues, which I vehemently do, how can I reconcile my feeling that there is something inherently exploitative or “problematic” about including so much explicit violence against women in this film? 

Here’s how: film absolutely can be used as a progressive tool to comment on and engage with issues like sexual assault, however in order to do so the film’s commitment must be to that discussion entirely, in contrast to TGWTDT, which is a mystery/thriller that happens to contain a bunch of sexual violence. In TGWTDT, the climax of the film, narratively speaking, is when Mikael is captured by Martin, and facing imminent torture and death. If this were a film about sexual assault, the film would have had to centre on the rape scene. For me, and for a number of others that I’ve spoken to, it did; I mostly shut down after that happened. However, others that I’ve spoken to didn’t seem to have been impacted by it in the same way at all. This applies predominantly to the (self-identified) men that I’ve spoken to about it, and I say that not because I think that men can’t understand sexual violence, or aren’t impacted by it, but because I think that the audience is encouraged to identify with Mikael, and that it is less likely that men will resist that identification. The result is that the sexual assaults fade into the background as the plot moves forward, with the audience getting the vague sense that they have somehow “dealt with” sexual assault as an issue because for a few minutes they were forced to engage with it, and to feel uncomfortable. 

There is a rich tradition within Hollywood of churning out liberal “issue films” (see Schindler’s List, Crash, etc.) that claim to make important statements about oppression, while actually just maintaining the audience’s complacency by leaving them with the self-satisfied sense that they now “understand racism.” I would argue that TGWTDT is operating in the same way with regard to sexual assault, and that is why I ultimately cannot forgive it for its violence. 

I think that there is a lot more to say about TGWTDT, in terms of Salander’s character more generally, which has been lauded as an exceptional depiction of feminism. I haven’t read the books so I can’t speak to how she is written, but based on the film alone I’m not convinced of this. She certainly has a great deal of agency, and is remarkably intelligent and independent, I give the writers that, but I was left feeling very conflicted about the scene in which she takes revenge on her social worker. She tattoos “I am a rapist pig” on his chest, and violently inserts a dildo into his rectum, which is unquestionably sexual violence in itself, and I cannot accept the message that sexual violence justifies further sexual violence. It is a scene of great catharsis, and it is very tempting to think, “Fuck yeah,” but that is precisely what makes me uncomfortable. I don’t want her actions in that scene to be associated with feminism, because that is not what feminism is to me. There may be an argument to be made on other bases for her as a strong, feminist character, I don’t discount the possibility, but I haven’t heard one yet. I also acknowledge that there are many other aspects of the film deserving of discussion, and as a thriller I think that it succeeds; but therein lies the problem, because there is nothing thrilling about rape. 

- Johanna

Jesus in Portuguese Playboy

I'm going to present this without comment. It's better that way. Check out the link for the context and consequences.

(Via Geekosystem)

The Bechdel Test

A recent post at /Film alerted me to the existence of the Bechdel Test, and I must say it really got me thinking. First described in Alison Bechdel's 1985 Dykes To Watch Out For comic strip (below), the test exposes a disturbing trend in mainstream cinema. The test asks three simple questions of any given movie:

1. Are there at least two female characters in the film?
2. Do they talk to each other?
3. Do they talk about something other than men?

If the answer to any of these questions is no then the movie fails the test, and you can check out Bechdel Test.com for a surprising list of films that do and do not pass. It's disheartening to see that such a limited portrayal of women is so prevalent, and that so many good movies perpetuate it. Worse than that it's difficult to admit that the test is still so effective and relevant after 25 years.

Glee On The Word "Fag"

Last night's episode of Glee featured a great scene that I was surprised to see on network television. In it the show's writers explicitly address derogatory use of the word "fag" and identify it as a hateful slur on the same level as words like "nigger" and "retard." It's an extremely powerful sequence that sends a fantastic message and I want to share it because the statement it makes cannot be reiterated enough.

To give a little context, in this episode Finn, a typically moral football player, finds out he's moving in with Kurt, a gay classmate and fellow member of the Glee club. Finn's mother recently started dating Kurt's father, Burt, who quickly became an important masculine role model to Finn. When Finn and Kurt start sharing a bedroom it puts a lot of stress on both of them, and the rising tension finally explodes in this fantastic scene:

I'm going to try to have a better clip soon

I don't have anything to add to Burt's speech, it's a powerful testament to the fact that using such hateful language is disgraceful. Considering Glee's popularity it's always admirable when the writers tackle important social issues. They're quick to criticize rural American culture but clearly aren't blind to their own faults, as seen in episodes like the racially-charged "Throwdown." There's also a brutal honesty to Glee that saves its moralizing from sounding like the stuff of after-school specials, as seen when they discussed disabilities in "Wheels." Burt's speech this week exhibited each of these strengths as he admitted his own guilt in having shared a hateful prejudice and indicted its perpetuation. Because so many people watch Glee it presents a a real opportunity for positive cultural influence, and moments like this show the writers are taking that possibility seriously.

If the sequence above had taken place in reality I would accuse Burt of being overly hard on Finn. The kid has repeatedly shown that he has a good heart and more than that he's struggling with his own serious issues. There's no doubt that Finn's treatment of Kurt is reprehensible, but Burt should have handled the situation better. He has taken it upon himself to become a father-figure to Finn, yet his exemplary criticism of the boy's language quickly devolves into an excommunication. Finn is wrong and he isn't Burt's real son so he has to go. No high school kid deserves to be so brutally devalued and disowned, period.

But this isn't reality, it's the television show Glee, and an episode entitled "Theatricality" no less.  Finn's a good kid, the audience likes him, and so hearing him use the word "fag" is especially shocking. Burt's rage is  righteous but hard to watch with Finn on the receiving end, and the divide between the audience's loyalty to Finn and their moral sensibility makes the whole event feel especially tragic. This elevated drama makes the scene all the more effective in sending the message that words like "fag" are hateful, hurtful, and unacceptable.

James Joyce's Incredibly Dirty Love Letters

I was perusing the Hark! A Vagrant archives this morning, as I am wont to do, when I came across an old favourite:

As this comic points out, the famed erotic letters James Joyce sent to his wife Nora are among the most hilarious and depraved pieces of writing ever conceived. Joyce uses his considerable literary talent to verbally assault himself and his "little frigging mistress," and describes how he wants to "fuck fuck fuck fuck my naughty little hot fuckbird's cunt for ever." It's all very lewd and personal but since both parties are long dead we are free to chuckle at their private correspondences.

Or so I thought. When I was first told about these letters in 2008 they were widely available online, but when I tried to search for them this morning they seemed to have all but disappeared. Perhaps the Joyce estate has deemed the letters detrimental to the great author's legacy and had them taken down. Perhaps I was merely looking in the wrong places. Eventually I was able to find them here, but the nature of the link fails to inspire confidence in its long-term reliability. As such I am including the text here in full for the sake of posterity.

I should warn you again that the letters are extremely graphic and Not Safe For Work by any standards. Also, for those of you with high moral standards, it should go without saying that once you have read these documents you will never be able to un-read them, and the perverted ghost of James Joyce may haunt you as in the comic above. That said, you can find them after the break.

On Glee and ChristWire.org

I've been meaning to post about Glee for a while now. I initially saw posters advertising the show in subways stations throughout the fall and didn't think much of it. Generally speaking, TTC ads and bad television seem to be attached at the hip. With Glee, however, I caught wind a good buzz through the /Filmcast. I figured it was worth a look and ended up stunned by how amazing the show is. Glee is fun, heartwarming, snarky, politically incorrect, and has an incredible soundtrack. I had forgotten how great musicals can be when they're done right. The show quickly became my favourite show of 2009, and I'm eagerly awaiting the April 2010 premiere of the second season.

Now Stephenson Billings from ChristWire.org has written a guide for parents, warning them against the evils of this show about a high school glee club. The post makes it seem like the author has absolutely no sense of irony, but I think it's actually a case of them having an incredibly astute one. It is one of the most hilariously conservative, homophobic, racist, and idiotic things I have read in recent memory. It's worth a read if only for an incredulous laugh, which is exactly why it was written.

Thoughts on Sexuality in Video Games

Last night my girlfriend linked me to an article discussing sexual relationships in video games that Alex Raymond posted on GameCritics.com back in August. Apparently the link just recently popped up over on Feministing (On a tangentially related subject, if anyone has any suggestions for feminist oriented/leaning blogs that are better than Feministing, we're all ears). I know that Rayond's article is a bit stale but it’s an interesting issue that is definitely still relevant to the medium as a whole. I started to write a response and it snowballed on me until it suddenly became this post.