(i know i know i know this took forever oh well–at least i didn’t forget)
At last, the feminist card! To waive responsibility, indeed. By Iris.
Ta-dah!
Suggested uses:
-When people are being annoying
-When you feel like leaving a conversation
-When someone says something bigoted and you feel the need to contest it.
-Iris
I’m writing this article out of frustration after an argument I just had with a friend who used the term “man up.” This individual ended up making me repeat myself like 12+ times in a row, which wasn’t too bad this time because it allowed me to really formulate an argument. I don’t expect them to read this, but anyone who does, please consider.
Traditionally, our society has a list of associations with male/female sex. The term “man,” though it can be applied to people who are male gendered and not necessarily male anatomically, has societal associations with anatomical masculinity. We choose to associate being male with being muscular, having short hair, being athletic, wearing pants, etc., but the problem is that these habits are present in people who aren’t anatomically male. By saying “man up,” you are reinforcing the particular association that persistence, emotional strength and being deliberant are inherently masculine, when they can in fact be true of men and women. Saying this discourages women from showing or possessing these useful and important traits, and discourages men from showing the weakness that they all no doubt possess. It’s reinforcing sex and gender associations, and associating a generally good trait with masculinity.
Roxane Gay wrote an article for the Virginia Quarterly Review called “Bad Feminist.” I heard about it from reading Tavi’s interview with Bitch magazine (link at the end of the article, but you don’t have to read it for this post.) I strongly suggest you read Bad Feminist before this article–it doesn’t have “spoilers” or whatever but most of my points are directly addressing Gay’s. Just a suggestion.
Tavi’s article is actually a really good segway into Gay’s. She talks about, with complete validity, the fact that she does not consider herself an activist and though she is a feminist, not everything she does must be a feminist act. I spoke in my last article about the importance of subjective, friendly debate of feminist issues. This is that. To be honest, I never understood the “artist vs. activist” distinction, and I still don’t. I do not think that they are mutually exclusive, and, like I said, I just don’t understand the distinction. Furthermore, I entirely see the latter point, that not everything a feminist does must be a feminist act, but I respectfully disagree. Maybe this is the “activist” talking, but isn’t it important in order to have equality to consider feminism in everything? I don’t even mean that in a hyperbolic way–I find it unrealistic to decide that I’m only going to actively discuss inequality in the sense of parenting, or that I’ll shave my legs even though I don’t want to and shouldn’t have to. That said, Tavi’s point is in the context of Rookie, and she is essentially saying that Rookie can’t be perfect and entirely equitable. I definitely agree with that–Rookie is feminine, and feminine is not ant-feminist. It is anti-feminist to enforce femininity, but that’s really not what Rookie is doing.
I have mixed feelings about the other article, Bad Feminist. It makes me feel sad and awful overall because because it says a lot about the feminist movement. It can be exclusive, at times, and the article is a woman’s opinions on how she felt excluded from feminism. At least, that’s one way of looking at it. On that note, I want to say that any and all criticism of the article is not meant to imply that the writer or anyone is a “bad feminist.”
Moving on, Gay’s article is a little misleading, until the end. She goes into detail about how she considers herself a bad feminist for a while, but then at the end offers a conclusion, saying that somewhere along the line she was presented with the idea that a feminist was a certain kind of woman, and then saying that she’d rather be a feminist then not a feminist at all. I have poor reading comprehension and I’m kind of an idiot but I honestly found that excessively misleading–to the extent that it didn’t validate her point, if that makes any sense. She just went back and forth, arguing two sides, and not for the sake of conversation. The body of her article, I will say, I fundamentally disagree with. and for the following reason!
********femininity is not anti-feminist**********†
which is actually a fantastic segway into something I wrote in my notebook when I should’ve been in PE a while ago: Feminism, for me, is the act of dissociating femininity from traditional womanhood. That is, separating the feminine identity from being anatomically female. Femininity, and masculinity, for that matter, should be accessible to everyone, and if that should ever be the case, our society would be devoid of gender-based double standards, because gender would not have any associations. To clarify, it’s not a solution.
Femininity is not anti feminist because, if there weren’t gender based double standards, anybody could be feminine. Gay labels her feminine aspects as characteristics of a “bad feminist,” when really, the two should have no relationship. A feminist wants equality. Why can’t a feminist like the color pink?
Furthermore, she criticizes women for not using the term “feminist.” That’s a really valid criticism that I usually agree with because it points out how our culture perceives feminism, something that can be long lost on people who do consider themselves feminist. Marissa Mayer’s explanation of why she’s not a feminist is kind of like that analysis itself: “I think it’s too bad, but I do think feminism has become, in many ways, a more negative word.” Her criticism of Marina Abramovic, though, I disagree with. Marina doesn’t like labels in general, and furthermore says ze believes zir art is genderless. Lack of gender, I’ll remind you, is kind of what we’re striving for.
But, to end on a kind of melancholy note, Gay says she’s a feminist because being a bad feminist is better than not being one at all, which is really true. We have to appreciate that, given the associations that come with the term, it’s not easy for anyone to label themselves like that. Questioning what feminism is for us is important, but at the end of the day, feminism is about not questioning our own interests and opinions, and not comparing them to gender normative standards of femininity or masculinity.
Iris
†You can buy totes rad denim patches that say my mantra from a canadian with pink hair.
If you’re a feminist and you’re reading this, you’ve probably heard or read something about this whole Rashida Jones business. (If you haven’t, don’t go googling things yet!)
A lot of people have written about it. Besides the article itself and the tweets that started the debate, Jezebel had an especially adamant op/ed, a bunch of tumblr blogs, etc. Both articles, Jezebel and Glamur, articles are linked at the end of this piece. But aside from all that, this is what definitely happened:
Late October, Rashida Jones sent out a series of tweets. These are them, unedited:
“This week’s celeb news takeaway: She who comes closest to showing the actual inside of her vagina is most popular. #stopactinglikewhores
Let me clarify. I don’t shame ANYone for anything they choose to do with their lives or bodies…
BUT I think we ALL need to take a look at what we are accepting as “the norm”…
There is a whole generation of young women watching. Sure, be SEXY but leave something to the imagination.
Also, calling on all men to show me dat ass.”
Then, more recently, Glamour magazine ran an article titled “Rashida Jones on the Pornification of Everything.” She wrote the article herself; it is both a defense of her messages, which could be considered somewhat antifeminist, and an elaboration to persuade. It is hardly an apology. She says in the article, “I’m not gonna lie. The fact that I was accused of “slut-shaming,” being anti-woman, and judging women’s sex lives crushed me. I consider myself a feminist. … But I will look at women with influence—millionaire women who use their “sexiness” to make money—and ask some questions.”
Now my totally subjective opinion: In general, I am disinclined to criticize any pop culture participant who calls themselves a feminist, because I feel like it’s so anomalous already to have someone powerful on our side. And furthermore, I hate to see what is already such a marginalized group become polarized over a single disagreement. That said, sometimes it is necessary to have subjective discussion about a big issue for women today, and what Jones is talking about is a part of that. I just think it’s a shame that she had to use sexist rhetoric, because regardless of what defense comes after it, actually publishing the phrase “#stopactinglikewhores” is going to be offensive to the people who might have agreed with what came after. Jones’s defense of that hashtag was the following:
My hashtag was “stopactinglikewhores.” Key word, acting. Like I said, I’m not criticizing anyone’s real sex life… This isn’t showing female sexuality; this is showing what it looks like when women sell sex.
be I stand by what I said. You have to consider your audience. Whore is a really offensive word, and I could probably write an entire article on why I don’t respect people who use it. But Jones did, and the validity of the point is scarred.
Which is a shame because, like I said, it’s a really valid point. Women are shown portraying a kind of hyperactive sexuality (my term,) one that is undoubtedly incongruent with the actual sexuality of some of the women who sport it. This is awful. But the question is, as it should be for all discussion of feminist issues, whether or not this is actually a sex-based double standard.
In my opinion, it isn’t entirely, but women definitely get the worse end of the stick. I mean, look at any element of the music industry. Men undoubtedly can’t all be interested in pasties and twerking, but so many of them act like they are. Then, there’s women, who, in popular culture, all are representing that sexuality. Not to mention that women are the ones actually performing the sexual acts, and men are off in the corner fully dressed in three-piece suits, enjoying it, or pretending that they are. There is a double standard here, and for this reason, Jones brings up an important point. If we all sit behind the lens of “slut shaming” and convince ourselves that women have a right to twerk and undress and show their “sexuality,” we’re ignoring so many issues within. Sure, she should be able to show off her sexuality, but she should also have the option of the three-piece suits and watching (Janelle Monae is so rad.)
And that’s really what Jones is trying to tell us. I don’t like her article, and I really don’t like her tweets (except for the last one, which is raising the double-standard point,) but I wish that she could just go back in time and get a more sensitive writer to help her get across what she really has to say. The article ignores the last tweet, and simply says that women should wear more clothing, leave more to the imagination, etc. I do not necessarily disagree with this, I actually agree that the societal norm should be women wearing just as much clothes as men. But honestly it seems that Jones says this coming from a different place, wishing this not for equality but because it leaves a bad impression on the young girls watching. I think that’s idiotic, and she never actually explains what’s wrong with young girls thinking they should wear less clothes. …But, she says she’s a feminist, which I appreciate.
Anyway, I do not have a positive or negative polar opinion on Rashida Jones’s feminism. I stand by what I said: She has a valid point and I wish she had never used that hashtag, had elaborated on her last tweet in the series, and furthermore, come at this from an idea of equality.
Iris
Sources:
Glamour article: http://www.glamour.com/entertainment/2013/12/rashida-jones-major-dont-the-pornification-of-everything?currentPage=2
Jezebel criticism: http://groupthink.jezebel.com/thats-not-ok-rashida-and-feminism-vs-whores-1478567788
If you’re a feminist and you’re reading this, you’ve probably heard or read something about this whole Rashida Jones business. (If you haven’t, don’t go googling things yet!)
A lot of people have written about it. Besides the article itself and the tweets that started the debate, Jezebel had an especially adamant op/ed, a bunch of tumblr blogs, etc. Both articles, Jezebel and Glamur, articles are linked at the end of this piece. But aside from all that, this is what definitely happened:
Late October, Rashida Jones sent out a series of tweets. These are them, unedited:
“This week’s celeb news takeaway: She who comes closest to showing the actual inside of her vagina is most popular. #stopactinglikewhores
Let me clarify. I don’t shame ANYone for anything they choose to do with their lives or bodies…
BUT I think we ALL need to take a look at what we are accepting as “the norm”…
There is a whole generation of young women watching. Sure, be SEXY but leave something to the imagination.
Also, calling on all men to show me dat ass.”
Then, more recently, Glamour magazine ran an article titled “Rashida Jones on the Pornification of Everything.” She wrote the article herself; it is both a defense of her messages, which could be considered somewhat antifeminist, and an elaboration to persuade. It is hardly an apology. She says in the article, “I’m not gonna lie. The fact that I was accused of “slut-shaming,” being anti-woman, and judging women’s sex lives crushed me. I consider myself a feminist. … But I will look at women with influence—millionaire women who use their “sexiness” to make money—and ask some questions.”
Now my totally subjective opinion: In general, I am disinclined to criticize any pop culture participant who calls themselves a feminist, because I feel like it’s so anomalous already to have someone powerful on our side. And furthermore, I hate to see what is already such a marginalized group become polarized over a single disagreement. That said, sometimes it is necessary to have subjective discussion about a big issue for women today, and what Jones is talking about is a part of that. I just think it’s a shame that she had to use sexist rhetoric, because regardless of what defense comes after it, actually publishing the phrase “#stopactinglikewhores” is going to be offensive to the people who might have agreed with what came after. Jones’s defense of that hashtag was the following:
My hashtag was “stopactinglikewhores.” Key word, acting. Like I said, I’m not criticizing anyone’s real sex life… This isn’t showing female sexuality; this is showing what it looks like when women sell sex.
be I stand by what I said. You have to consider your audience. Whore is a really offensive word, and I could probably write an entire article on why I don’t respect people who use it. But Jones did, and the validity of the point is scarred.
Which is a shame because, like I said, it’s a really valid point. Women are shown portraying a kind of hyperactive sexuality (my term,) one that is undoubtedly incongruent with the actual sexuality of some of the women who sport it. This is awful. But the question is, as it should be for all discussion of feminist issues, whether or not this is actually a sex-based double standard.
In my opinion, it isn’t entirely, but women definitely get the worse end of the stick. I mean, look at any element of the music industry. Men undoubtedly can’t all be interested in pasties and twerking, but so many of them act like they are. Then, there’s women, who, in popular culture, all are representing that sexuality. Not to mention that women are the ones actually performing the sexual acts, and men are off in the corner fully dressed in three-piece suits, enjoying it, or pretending that they are. There is a double standard here, and for this reason, Jones brings up an important point. If we all sit behind the lens of “slut shaming” and convince ourselves that women have a right to twerk and undress and show their “sexuality,” we’re ignoring so many issues within. Sure, she should be able to show off her sexuality, but she should also have the option of the three-piece suits and watching (Janelle Monae is so rad.)
And that’s really what Jones is trying to tell us. I don’t like her article, and I really don’t like her tweets (except for the last one, which is raising the double-standard point,) but I wish that she could just go back in time and get a more sensitive writer to help her get across what she really has to say. The article ignores the last tweet, and simply says that women should wear more clothing, leave more to the imagination, etc. I do not necessarily disagree with this, I actually agree that the societal norm should be women wearing just as much clothes as men. But honestly it seems that Jones says this coming from a different place, wishing this not for equality but because it leaves a bad impression on the young girls watching. I think that’s idiotic, and she never actually explains what’s wrong with young girls thinking they should wear less clothes. …But, she says she’s a feminist, which I appreciate.
Anyway, I do not have a positive or negative polar opinion on Rashida Jones’s feminism. I stand by what I said: She has a valid point and I wish she had never used that hashtag, had elaborated on her last tweet in the series, and furthermore, come at this from an idea of equality.
Iris
Sources:
Glamour article: http://www.glamour.com/entertainment/2013/12/rashida-jones-major-dont-the-pornification-of-everything?currentPage=2
Jezebel criticism: http://groupthink.jezebel.com/thats-not-ok-rashida-and-feminism-vs-whores-1478567788
Dear Mr. Thicke,
I think that Blurred Lines is a pretty cool song. I like to dance to it while threatening females. But in this letter, I hope to help you gain knowledge of some more viewpoints on the matter.
First of all, the very idea of blurred lines is pretty problematic. I’ve been training for some standardized tests recently, and I can only imagine what would happen in the geometry section if the lines blurred. I’d be rendered incapable of discerning various angles! Chaos.
And frankly, I find your mockery of the eye’s refractive errors distasteful. There are people out there who really suffer from astigmatism, and your song is hardly an anthem, I’m afraid. Perhaps some education could do us all good.
According to the American Optometric Society, astigmatism is a condition that causes blurred vision due to either the irregular shape of the cornea, or the curvature of the eye’s lens. many people suffer from this disorder, and the result can be the inability to discern a line’s beginning and ending. While you may have trouble telling whether or not a woman is made of a petroleum by-product, there are people who are rendered incapable of simple feats. I find your intolerance disgusting.
Though your song does not greatly discuss the matter, blurred lines raise an ethical issue. If a store clerk cannot correctly analyze the bar code on a for-sale item, they might price it wrong. This could be a loss of several dollars for the selling party. In my humble opinion, it is very important that these lines remain CLEAR and NOT BLURRED, so as to keep our society in check.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest for the world to see. Anyway, if perhaps in another song you addressed these concerns, you’d gain some PR with the visually challenged audience.
Cheers,
The Concerned
P.S. WTF was Miley Cyrus doing to you in the VMA’s??? Looked like unwanted sexual advances to me. How disgusting.
WEEVILS OF EVIL 