feministhemes.com

In looking for an image to go with the links I posted on sexual assault earlier this week, I came upon these posters.  They are from 2007 class project, and as far as I can tell the campaign no longer exists (you can check out the original link here).  I don’t doubt that the motives here were well-intentioned, but I think that the posters that the students developed are a prime example of how we talk about sexual assault, rape, and domestic violence in our culture.

Myth #1: Rape doesn’t count unless she was a virgin

This poster says “No one has the right to take it by force.”  Reasonably and appropriately, “it” means sex.  However, the imagery here of a bruised and wounded cherry doesn’t imply “it” as sex – cherries are a notorious symbol of virginity.  The poster essentially says “No one has the right to take [your virginity] by force.”  The truth is that no one has the right to demand or force sexual contact ever, regardless of virginity or purity or anything.  Whether a woman* has had sex before or not, even whether she has had sex with the partner demanding sex or not, does not negate her right to say no at any time, for any reason.  Rape and sexual assault have nothing to do with “cherries.”

Truth #1: No one has the right to force sexual contact, under any circumstances

Myth #2: Victims of sexual assault are irreparably damaged

As a graduate student in the field of psychology, I would be about the last person to say that survivors shouldn’t seek help.  However, the image of a shattered plate that needs someone to piece it back together is not a very flattering metaphor for survivors of sexual assault.  Even the use of the word “survivor” rather than “victim” begins to return power and control to the individual.  Survivors need to regain a sense of strength.  The fact of the matter is that no matter what happened, she survived. In fact, many in the field of psychology have begun taking strength based approaches to working with clients, allowing the individual to “own” their own change and recovery.  This is especially important for survivors of rape and abuse.

Truth #2: Survivors have more strength than they know

Myth #3: You need to talk about it to get better.  Now.

Again, I would be the last person to say that assault survivors don’t need help.  However, there are not rules about these things.  Remember that tip above about the survivor taking her power back?  Shaming survivors into seeking services is counterproductive.  First of all, as with any other type of recovery or change, there is nothing that the people around someone (friends, family, therapists) can do if that individual isn’t ready for change to happen.  Many people do find that talking about what happened has a healing effect – but that talking needs to happen on her time frame, not yours.  The best thing that you can do is let her know you’ll be there when she’s ready.

Truth #3: She’ll talk when she’s ready.  Be there, but don’t be forceful.

Myth #4: Victims are too busy defending their abusers to face the facts

This is quite possibly the most victim-blamey poster of them all (although you could probably make a strong argument for each of them to win that prize).  This poster essentially says “We can see you’re messed up, quit making excuses.”  There are lists a mile long of reasons that women stay in abusive relationships, and many of the reasons are understandable.  Just like any other decision one must make, there is a cost-benefit ratio that must be considered, and leaving is much harder than it sounds.  Defending one’s abuser and/or minimizing the abuse are just two of many psychological self-defense mechanisms that may be involved.  Rather than blaming women who stay, we should work towards making it easier for them to leave.

Truth #4: Leaving isn’t easy, and survivors need support to get out of an abusive relationship

*For the purposes of simplicity I’ve used female pronouns throughout this post, but another common myth is that only women can be assaulted.  Men may also be survivors of sexual abuse, assault, rape, and domestic violence and are less likely to come forward for help due to cultural attitudes about “masculinity” and “victimhood.”  Although the post uses female terms, all of these points also apply to males.

I hope that seeing these posters in a new light helps you understand how deeply ingrained our stereotypes about sexual assault victims are – even when trying to help we might imply these blaming, shaming messages.  Think critically about the language and imagery we use in day to day life (whether it be talking about sexual assault only when it happens to “nice girls” or using the word “rape” casually ex. “That test raped me!”).  Be aware of these myths and truths, and educate the people around you when they fall into those traps, too.

Let them eat cake!  No, wait, I mean, let them listen to Cake!  Mmm, cake…  Sorry.  *Ahem.*  If you listen to Cake, you’re probably wondering what they’re doing on a feminist blog.  If you don’t listen to Cake, you’re probably wondering the same thing.  Well, I think it’s time to play a new game I’m going to call Feminist Rorschach, in which we interpret a piece of art, music, film, television, or whatever and try to determine whether it’s feminist… or not.  And why, and in what ways, and so on.  Wanna play?

The song is called Pretty Pink Ribbon off the 2001 album Comfort Eagle.  It wasn’t released as a single and has no official music video, but I found this cool Power Rangers themed video (which is frankly more interesting than staring at the album art for three minutes).  Lyrics after the cut.

My instinct has always led me to believe that the pretty pink ribbon is a reference to a particular part of the female anatomy (c’mon, sticky little kitten?).  I found other interpretations online that the song is about cancer (pink ribbons) or about a girl that’s only as good as her tight little denim.  But I’m going to stick with my interpretation, and argue for the song as a commentary on socialization, social roles and maybe even empowerment, at least potentially.  Whether the pretty pink ribbon is symbolic of the vagina (what a cliche feminist interpretation, huh?) or simply a stereotypical expression of socialized femininity/girliness, the song addresses gender differences between men and women (“Without the pretty pink ribbon / You’d end up just like me”).

Let’s get the not-so-good out of the way.  There is some blatant objectification here (“Without your tight little denim / Your virtues would all go unknown”), and some accusations of shallowness (“Without the pretty pink ribbon / You’d float down to the sea”), golddigging (“Without the sticky little kitten / Your ticket could never be free”), and so on.   There’s also the limitation of not being able to speak one’s own mind (“Without the pretty pink ribbon / You’d say just what you pleased”).  Kind of makes it sound like it’s not so great to be of the female persuasion.

On the other hand, it doesn’t sound like its so great to be a dude in this world, either.  Apparently for those whose “muscles bulge underground” (phallic reference?), there is no escape from personal demons – our culture socializes men to carry their burdens alone.  There is also less hope for healing (“Without the room that you live in / Your cancers would eat through the bone”) and less compassion (“You’d burn all these dying leaves… You would lift this steaming herd / You would kill all the sick ones / You would bury them deep in the earth”).  Here men are expected to carry out the dirty work of facing death, causing death, and cleaning up after death.

To me the song represents the social limitations imposed on those who do/can wear a pretty pink ribbon and those who don’t/cant.  There are benefits in each circumstance (free tickets, expression of virtues, and a sense of peace, hope, and healing for her; an uncensored voice, strength, and the ability to “be tough” for him), and these are not shared across the sexes.  For calling these things out, I as a feminist give the song props.  What do you think?

Lyrics below

Ahh, the late 90s.  ‘Twas an era of platform shoes, belly shirts, pastel nail polish and high-waisted mini skirts.  We loved our teen flicks, and we especially loved our teen romances about the bro who took a bet that he could get a date with the untouchable misfit.  Two primary examples of this theme are the hit films 10 Things I Hate About You starring Julia Stiles and Heath Ledger and She’s All That, starring Rachel Leigh Cook and Freddie Prinze, Jr.

10 Things I Hate About You is a modern adaptation of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew (but Shakespeare merits his own post so we’ll gloss over that here).  In the movie, younger sister Bianca desperately wants to date but Dad (who spends most of his time delivering babies to teen mothers) won’t allow her to until older sister Kat, who couldn’t care less about dating, does.  Enter the exchange of money to a dude (Patrick) to take out the untouchable female.  What works about this film is that although Kat is supposed to be a “heinous bitch” according to her peers, she is very likable to the audience.  She listens to riot grrls, she reads feminist literature, she’s socially conscious, she’s an independent thinker, she’s courageous and outspoken, and she is (rightfully) cautious in terms of relationships.  I can’t think of another teen film character that is as openly feminist.  And she gets the hunk in the end, who initiated their relationship as part of the deal but genuinely fell for this complex and charismatic woman.

On the other hand, there’s She’s All That.  When Zack, the most popular boy in school, is dumped by his girlfriend for a reality star he makes a bet with his buddies that he can turn any girl in the school into the prom queen.  After gruesomely critiquing every female to walk by for the remainder of the scene, the guys settle on Laney, the weird artsy nerd.  Like Patrick and Kat, Zack ends up falling for quirky Laney, but only after he has erased her eccentricities and given her a makeover (including haircut, eyebrow wax, low-cut slinky red mini-dress, and platform heels that she can stumble around in).  Laney discovers the bet, goes to the prom with another tool who has placed another bet on Laney (that he’ll sleep with her that night), and ends up in her romantically lit up back yard with Zack, who confesses that he developed honest feelings for her once he changed “got to know” her.

I don’t know what it is about betting on girls that hollywood deems a worthy plot, and the thought of this being a common high school phenomenon is nauseating.  However, in 10 Things we see that although this was a rocky way to initiate a relationship, Patrick comes to find (and quickly) that Kat is a fantastic woman as is, and is torn about accepting payment for taking her out.  He ends up using the money to buy her the guitar she had been dreaming of throughout the film and they get a happily ever after in which he is honest with her and she remains true to herself.  In She’s All That, we have a even shallower, more hurtful motive behind the initiation of the relationship, and ignorance of Laney’s value as a person, multiple and recurring betrayals, and Zack loses the bet (resulting in a nude graduation walk), but he “wins” the girl.

I remember watching these movies as an adolescent and thinking how cute the boys were, how cool the music was (in 10 Things, anyway), and how magical Laney’s makeover was.  The makeover is a classic adolescent fantasy – that with the tweeze of an eyebrow, trim of the hair, stroke of eyeliner and splash of lipstick any girl can be transformed into the popular, beloved prom queen.  And somehow the idea that that will garner male interest is romantic, not pathetic.  What if young women instead were bombarded with stories more like Kat’s: that being true to yourself, even when it’s not popular, is attractive and respectable, and all around cool?

Lately I’ve developed an affection for TV shows that aired on ABC between 1989 and 1993. Doogie Howser, and the Wonder Years have been faves for some time, and nostalgia has led me to add thirtysomething and Life Goes On to my Netflix queue. Most recently, however, I’ve fell in love with a show I’ve actually been hunting down for years: Homefront.

Homefront aired on ABC from 1991-1993. Its short run means it was rarely syndicated and no one has gone through the trouble to release it on DVD, so creative googling and luck are necessary to hunt down VHS recordings. It was rather critically acclaimed during its initial run but failed to pull in the ratings necessary to guarantee renewal. It seems a very similar story to my favorite show on TV these days, Friday Night Lights. Kyle Chandler stars in both, but whereas Homefront died due to lack of viewership, Friday Night Lights had the advantage of being produced in a more flexible era of television, allowing it to live 5 (short) seasons–for which I am eternally grateful.

But back to Homefront. It’s an evening soap that revolves around a town, River Run, Ohio, at the end of WWII. The first episode begins with the young soldiers returning home from overseas and begins to explore the early post-war era.

Read the rest of this entry »

Released in 1999, I had never seen The Cider House Rules until a few weeks ago.  I’m not usually into period pieces or Tobey Maguire, so I didn’t expect much.  However, there were some powerful lines about the importance of a woman’s right to choose and to have safe medical treatments available to her once she’s made her choice.  Furthermore, there were some powerful examples of times that removing that choice is truly cruel, regardless of your political beliefs on the matter.

The Cider House Rules is the story of Homer, an orphan boy who never made it out of the orphanage, and has been trained as a doctor by his mentor and father figure, Dr. Larch, who runs the orphanage.  In addition to delivering the babies of women giving their children up for adoption, Dr. Larch offers safe medical abortions to any woman who asks for it.  He doesn’t advertise this service (as it is illegal), and he doesn’t suggest it to women no matter how many times he’s delivered their unwanted babies, but he won’t turn away a woman in need.  When Homer accuses him of playing God in this way, Dr. Larch responds:

Dr. Larch: I have been given the opportunity of playing God or leaving practically everything up to chance. Men and women of conscience should seize those moments when it’s possible to play God. There won’t be many. Do I interfere when absolutely helpless women tell me they simply can’t have an abortion – that they simply must go through with having another and yet another orphan? I do not. I do not even recommend. I just give them what they want.

Read the rest of this entry »

I wasn’t expecting a lot when I Netflix’d Baby Mama. The movie seemed to come and go when it was released and the lack of buzz took it off my radar pretty quickly. However, I love funny women so I gave it a shot, and I’m glad I did.

About a month ago I watched Bride Wars with my friends. I feel like that movie and Baby Mama could be categorized together, in that they’re both movies about women with stereotypical feminine desires, and both have over the top happy resolutions. They’re the kind of movie you’d watch on a lazy Friday night with a few friends and a bottle of wine (or beer). The difference between the two is one of them made me weep for humanity and the other just made me wish for a slight change of ending.

[Spoilers Ahead] Read the rest of this entry »

Straight from io9, who said it better than I could:

Big, beautiful, lusty women. Gorgeous, gigantic, muscled men. Fantastic animals and larger-than-life settings. This is the wonderful world of Molly Crabapple: the woman who married art and burlesque and watched them make beautiful music together with Dr. Sketchy’s Anti-Art School.

Dr. Sketchy’s Anti-Art School is an amazing event. Roughly twice a month (in the NY location) artists come to sketch live models, but not just any live models, actual cabaret performers. Skits, performances, music, all kinds of festivities. So much more than just a bunch of artists sketching models.

The World of Molly Crabapple contains artists and performers from all walks of life. Her vibrant images capture happy, smiling people that we’d like to get to know. Not just the most beautiful women around but also circus performers, muscle-men and lots of other interesting characters. You will notice that many of these pieces show their subjects on stage, with adoring fans surrounding them.

As you can see… Molly likes to put lots and lots of characters into her work. An image is packed with detail. You can look at these pictures all day long and still not see all the cool touches in them.

Pretty flippin’ sweet.  Be sure to check out more of Molly’s work at her personal site,  and learn more about Dr. Sketchy’s Anti-Art School.  Mad shoutouts to io9 for this one!

Star Trek: Enterprise – the final episode “These are the Voyages…”

Original Airdate: May 13, 2005

The final episode of Enterprise doesn’t quite seem as epic as it could have. TNG and Voyager both ended with a look ahead to the future as well as a nod to the past. DS9 left everyone parting ways with a farewell that served the characters and audience equally well. Enterprise, however, falls flat.

The episode takes us 6 years into the future (from the perspective of the last episode, 10 years after the pilot). The Enterprise is returning to earth where it will be decommissioned as the new, faster fleet comes to take its place. Captain Archer will give a speech honoring a new charter between humans and a handful other alien races. A hitch in the trip home comes when a former acquaintance, Shran, shows up. Apparently Archer owes this guy a favor, so the Enterprise helps him get his kidnapped daughter back.

(Click the link to check out the rest of the entry, but I’m putting SPOILER ALERT on this post. If you ever plan on watching Enterprise you might want elements of this episode to remain a surprise. The episode itself actually spoils those moments early on, but, well… I’m warning you anyway.)

Read the rest of this entry »

I did not watch the SuperBowl.  Proudly.  But my stance on professional sports is a topic for another discussion.  Anyway, if there’s one thing that the SuperBowl is known for (besides hypermasculinity and large men in spandex trying to kill each other in addition to rubbing up against one another and grunting in a totally non-sexual way – wait, another post, right) it’s envelope pushing advertisements.  These are being covered all over the place today, so here are some links to get you thinking about the fallout.

Woes Of Bros: Super Bowl Ads Star Pathetic Men — And The Women Who Ruined Them [Jezebel]

Knowing that Super Bowl Sunday is the only day of the year in which TV viewers actually care about commercials, you’d think ad agencies would have tried to reach the men and the women watching at home, right? Wrong.

Superbowl Sexism: Spineless, skirtless edition [feministing]

I’m sensing an anxious masculinity theme for the Superbowl commercials this year. I mean, we get it, dudes: You’re worried about being castrated by lavender scented candles and shopping with your lady friend. Go kill something, quick! And for the love of god, stop being nice to your girlfriend.

The Super Bowl and Madison Avenue Misogyny [feministe]

Superbowl ads are sexist. This is well trod ground: Marketers objectify women and play up stereotypes in order to sell things to (heterosexual) men. But we knew this year was going to be special. This year there was going to be some extra anti-feminist flavor… There were fewer half-naked women and dick jokes this year. Instead, the 2010 Superbowl Ad Mantra seemed to have one common theme: “Feeling castrated? . . . by women? Man up.”

The Critics On The Super Bowl Ads: Boring, Misogynistic [Jezebel]

• From Time’s James Poniewozik:

Wow, Super Bowl ad men really hate Super Bowl ad women this year, don’t they? …. Why would CBS turn down a Super Bowl ad from a gay-dating service, then run a bunch of ads with the message that men can’t stand to be around women?

• From  Slate’s Seth Stevenson:

Is it me, or was this year’s dose of casual misogyny a little rawer and angrier than usual?

• From The Washington Post’s Tom Shales:

An oddly recurring theme had to do with men asserting their masculinity, or attempting to assert it, as well as the perpetual male fear of emasculation.

• NOW via the Los Angeles Times:

NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women. “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,” she said.

Looks like a big mess.  Did I miss any good critiques of last night’s ads?  Feel free to leave your own responses as well as links to more posts in the comments.

CBS doesn’t want America to think about Choice, so we have to do it virally.  Here are some awesome counterpoints to the anti-choice rhetoric that is being crammed down our throats with Doritos and beer this SuperBowl Sunday, starting with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards explanation of the meaning of Choice:

For a multitude of reasons I will not be watching the SuperBowl today, but welcome any tips on who the winners and losers in advertising are this year.

« Older Entries