For awhile now I've been meaning to post something about Mika, the new love of my life. That's right - move aside Margaret Atwood and Michael Ondaatje. I now search youtube for interviews with Mika.
He's perhaps best known for the above song (Grace Kelly), a song that had me head over heels for him the first time I heard it. But there are a lot of gender-related issues tied up in Mika's music too. First of all there's his somewhat controversial Billy Brown. Apparently reporters are always trying to get Mika to "come out" and tell them he's gay, but Mika refuses to make a statement about his sexuality. Here's an interview where Mika discusses his viewpoint on the role sexuality and politics play in art:
(If you just want to listen to the part about sexuality, skip to 3:30 or so)
As a creative writer who also studies the social impact of artforms, boy do I ever feel that tension between art and social activism!
Mika is also noteworthy on this blog for this wonderful song, Big Girl You Are Beautiful. The story Mika tells about this song is that he saw a documentary about obesity in the US, and the only point in the documentary that felt positive and hopeful to him was that part where it discussed The Butterfly Lounge, a club for big women and the men who like big women. That documentary inspired him to compose this fun and wonderful song:
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Are You a Good Feminist or a Bad Feminist? What Sarah Palin and Feministing.org Have in Common (from Emily)
Palin's recent speech at the Susan B Anthony Fundraiser has some people calling her a chauvinist in feminist clothing. In between praising Reagan, the troops, the NRA, and of course the Tea Party, she claimed the title of feminism for conservative women. But don't worry, she still insulted feminists in general while doing so. The crux of Palin's argument? That allowing women to get abortions is bad for women, and therefore it's true feminism to oppose abortion.
Her argument taps into a debate as old as feminism itself: can two groups want opposite situations for women, both firmly believe what they want is best for women, and yet both claim the feminist title?
Enter Jessica Valenti, the founder of feministing.org. Valenti critiques Palin's speech, and she makes a lot of excellent points in her critique. Namely, that Palin simultaneously insults and embraces the term "feminist," at times claiming the title and at other times rejecting others who claim the title. As Valenti also points out, Palin claims that "these feminists" tell pregnant women they aren't capable of carrying a child full-term, without providing any evidence that feminists say so, and without even defining who "these feminists" are.
And that's my complaint about Palin's argument in general. I don't hear any evidence in this speech to support what she's saying about "other" feminists. Even pro-abortion-rights feminists don't tell women that they have to get an abortion, but that's what Palin's implying they do. She also never defines what she means by "pro-life." Are we talking no abortions ever, under any circumstances? Are we talking restricted access to abortion, only as a last resort if the mother's life is in danger? Those who think the pro-choice, pro-life debate has only two options are buying into the myth of a polarized, black-and-white world.
Enter Valenti again... Now, in her defense, Valenti's article provides much more evidence to support her claims. And Valenti obviously has a better grasp than Palin when it comes to rhetoric and the principles of strong writing. But when it comes to prejudice and logical fallacies, she is right there with Palin, spearing strawmen and strawwomen left and right.
Prejudice is more obvious in Palin: she insults liberals, The Media (I assume Fox News is no longer a form of media?), and "Pro-Women's Rights Feminists." It's typical Palin rhetoric: you're either good or bad, with us or against us, a true feminist or a radical feminist (though she does admit that even "East Coast University Feminists" have a right to their opinions). The Good Witches / Bad Witches perspective is tempting. If you misrepresent your opponents they're easier to tear down. For instance, according to Palin "left-wing feminists" don't like her because she has a large family. Because everyone knows feminists hate women who have the audacity to give birth.
Valenti's logic is just as fallacious when she turns feminism into a restricted club. Her article dismisses conservative feminists outright, saying that if they oppose abortion rights, they oppose women. And Valenti makes me just as angry as Palin makes me, when she says that feminism is about equality and fighting patriarchy. I'm all for fighting unhealthy forms of patriarchy and promoting equal opportunities. But I spend a lot of time trying to convince people that feminism is about elevating women. Period. Not just elevating our position in relation to men. If all we wanted was equality, we could just make everyone poor and illiterate. Equality is good, but not the only goal of feminism.
I appreciate what each of these women is trying to accomplish. I'm willing to take their word for it when they say they want what's best for women, and wanting what's best for women is a prerequisite for feminism. Paradoxically, they're both right when they say that wanting what you think is best for women doesn't make you a feminist. Many people think genital mutilation or being treated like property is best for women. There is no easy way to determine who the true feminists are, as Valenti herself acknowledges.
But no matter how worked up we get, we cannot promote an Us and Them mentality. To do so would mean buying into the very notions that make sexism and racism possible. And as bell hook has pointed out, the Us and Them mentality prevents true progression.
Her argument taps into a debate as old as feminism itself: can two groups want opposite situations for women, both firmly believe what they want is best for women, and yet both claim the feminist title?
Enter Jessica Valenti, the founder of feministing.org. Valenti critiques Palin's speech, and she makes a lot of excellent points in her critique. Namely, that Palin simultaneously insults and embraces the term "feminist," at times claiming the title and at other times rejecting others who claim the title. As Valenti also points out, Palin claims that "these feminists" tell pregnant women they aren't capable of carrying a child full-term, without providing any evidence that feminists say so, and without even defining who "these feminists" are.
And that's my complaint about Palin's argument in general. I don't hear any evidence in this speech to support what she's saying about "other" feminists. Even pro-abortion-rights feminists don't tell women that they have to get an abortion, but that's what Palin's implying they do. She also never defines what she means by "pro-life." Are we talking no abortions ever, under any circumstances? Are we talking restricted access to abortion, only as a last resort if the mother's life is in danger? Those who think the pro-choice, pro-life debate has only two options are buying into the myth of a polarized, black-and-white world.
Enter Valenti again... Now, in her defense, Valenti's article provides much more evidence to support her claims. And Valenti obviously has a better grasp than Palin when it comes to rhetoric and the principles of strong writing. But when it comes to prejudice and logical fallacies, she is right there with Palin, spearing strawmen and strawwomen left and right.
Prejudice is more obvious in Palin: she insults liberals, The Media (I assume Fox News is no longer a form of media?), and "Pro-Women's Rights Feminists." It's typical Palin rhetoric: you're either good or bad, with us or against us, a true feminist or a radical feminist (though she does admit that even "East Coast University Feminists" have a right to their opinions). The Good Witches / Bad Witches perspective is tempting. If you misrepresent your opponents they're easier to tear down. For instance, according to Palin "left-wing feminists" don't like her because she has a large family. Because everyone knows feminists hate women who have the audacity to give birth.
Valenti's logic is just as fallacious when she turns feminism into a restricted club. Her article dismisses conservative feminists outright, saying that if they oppose abortion rights, they oppose women. And Valenti makes me just as angry as Palin makes me, when she says that feminism is about equality and fighting patriarchy. I'm all for fighting unhealthy forms of patriarchy and promoting equal opportunities. But I spend a lot of time trying to convince people that feminism is about elevating women. Period. Not just elevating our position in relation to men. If all we wanted was equality, we could just make everyone poor and illiterate. Equality is good, but not the only goal of feminism.
I appreciate what each of these women is trying to accomplish. I'm willing to take their word for it when they say they want what's best for women, and wanting what's best for women is a prerequisite for feminism. Paradoxically, they're both right when they say that wanting what you think is best for women doesn't make you a feminist. Many people think genital mutilation or being treated like property is best for women. There is no easy way to determine who the true feminists are, as Valenti herself acknowledges.
But no matter how worked up we get, we cannot promote an Us and Them mentality. To do so would mean buying into the very notions that make sexism and racism possible. And as bell hook has pointed out, the Us and Them mentality prevents true progression.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Arizona Immigration (from Erica)
This is a quick post to direct your attention towards an eloquent op-ed piece written by Elizabeth Kapnick, a student at an Ohio high school that canceled its women's basketball team's field trip to Arizona in protest over Arizona's new immigration law. The decision has riled team members, students, and parents, and has drawn heavy fire from political figures across the country- especially leaders in conservative media.
Kapnick's piece illustrates some of the very real challenges presented by the presumed alternative- allowing the team to make its field trip in spite of the law- and does so in a way that drives home some of the more frightening aspects of Arizona's immigration law. I highly recommend taking a look at it, particularly since it's better-written and more thoughtful than most of the articles- news or opinion- than you're likely to find anywhere else.
Kapnick's piece illustrates some of the very real challenges presented by the presumed alternative- allowing the team to make its field trip in spite of the law- and does so in a way that drives home some of the more frightening aspects of Arizona's immigration law. I highly recommend taking a look at it, particularly since it's better-written and more thoughtful than most of the articles- news or opinion- than you're likely to find anywhere else.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Historical Woman Writers and Contemporary Comedy (from Emily)
Carl The Open-minded Chauvinist may have earned himself a new nickname by passing this link onto me. So, let's start over. My good friend Carl emailed me the link to this delightful video. If only all action figures were this cool.
And speaking of woman writers, here is a Colbert video where he talks about Jane Austen. You'll need to skip to about 1:45 and then watch till about 3:30 if you just want to watch the Jane Austen portion.
And speaking of woman writers, here is a Colbert video where he talks about Jane Austen. You'll need to skip to about 1:45 and then watch till about 3:30 if you just want to watch the Jane Austen portion.
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tip/Wag - Marvel Comics | ||||
| ||||
And here is a delightful clip of my favorite contemporary writer, Margaret Atwood.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Call for Stories about Mothers (from Emily)
I meant to write this last night, but it's never too late to talk about mothers, now is it?
In honor of Mother's Day in the US, I'd like to invite everyone to share stories and insights about motherhood and the mothers they've encountered in their lives. I want to remind everyone too that not all people who mother actually raise their own biological children.
The biological mothers in my lineage are very important to me, because I owe my spiritual heritage to them. The story goes that my maternal grandmother and great-grandmother each joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while my grandmother was still young. My grandmother went off to BYU (a church-sponsored university where I'm currently enrolled in grad school), but when she ran out of money for school she joined the Air Force in order to get funding for her education. When she met and married my grandfather, she stopped attending church and never finished college, but she never stopped believing the gospel was true. She still taught gospel principles to her children.
When my mother was in high school, she decided she wanted to join the church. She contacted some missionaries and told them she wanted to join the church - which probably made their day, their week, their month, and their year. After awhile her sister joined the church too. Meanwhile my paternal grandmother joined the church long enough to introduce her son to my mother. While that part of the story didn't turn out so well, by joining the church even briefly my paternal grandmother did bring some of her grandchildren to a stabilizing and inspiring source that they would desperately need as her son descended into a debilitating illness.
But I didn't just have my mother and my biological grandmothers - I attended my aunt's daycare while I was little, and she helped shape my character from a young age. This aunt isn't related to me by blood, but she might as well be. Then there was my mother's sister, who lived just across the road from us. She's always stepped in and helped everyone in our extended family in any way she could. Not to mention all my other aunts. And I was lucky enough to know three of my great grandmothers, in addition to having an extra grandmother (my paternal grandfather's second wife).
Outside of my family, many other women guided and shaped me. I can't even begin to list the many teachers, both at church and at school, who influenced me, so I'm going to focus on two women who never had children but instead devoted themselves to young people in their communities. The first is a Math teacher from my high school. Let's call her Ms. Z. She introduced me to Flatland, a book that changed the way I look at the world, and she always came to class full of energy and prepared. She demanded a lot from her students, but we rose to her challenge and learned. The other teacher I'd like to talk about is Madame S., a French teacher who sadly passed away last year. She was a brilliant lady who paid for college with national merit scholarships, and she loved her students even more than she loved French. When she wasn't teaching, she spent a lot of time working with the youth group at a local church. She inspired many students during her lifetime.
The other day I was talking with some friends about how strong women are. How, despite the stereotype that women are weak and men are strong, many women and mothers find that they've been abandoned by the men in their lives and left to hold things together on their own. Whether the abandonment is emotional, social, financial or physical, it hits many women. In some communities, grandmothers are essential in helping young mothers raise children without the children's father. And programs like micro financing are increasingly discovering that they can improve a family's economic prospects more by investing in mothers than by investing in fathers. Sorry gentleman, but that's just the way it is in general. So, here's to strong women. Strong women who step in and do what they need to do in order to hold families together. Strong women who have no traditional family but build families among friends and co-workers. Strong women who fight for social and economic changes where they see worthy causes. Strong women who know how to put the most important things first.
In honor of Mother's Day in the US, I'd like to invite everyone to share stories and insights about motherhood and the mothers they've encountered in their lives. I want to remind everyone too that not all people who mother actually raise their own biological children.
The biological mothers in my lineage are very important to me, because I owe my spiritual heritage to them. The story goes that my maternal grandmother and great-grandmother each joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while my grandmother was still young. My grandmother went off to BYU (a church-sponsored university where I'm currently enrolled in grad school), but when she ran out of money for school she joined the Air Force in order to get funding for her education. When she met and married my grandfather, she stopped attending church and never finished college, but she never stopped believing the gospel was true. She still taught gospel principles to her children.
When my mother was in high school, she decided she wanted to join the church. She contacted some missionaries and told them she wanted to join the church - which probably made their day, their week, their month, and their year. After awhile her sister joined the church too. Meanwhile my paternal grandmother joined the church long enough to introduce her son to my mother. While that part of the story didn't turn out so well, by joining the church even briefly my paternal grandmother did bring some of her grandchildren to a stabilizing and inspiring source that they would desperately need as her son descended into a debilitating illness.
But I didn't just have my mother and my biological grandmothers - I attended my aunt's daycare while I was little, and she helped shape my character from a young age. This aunt isn't related to me by blood, but she might as well be. Then there was my mother's sister, who lived just across the road from us. She's always stepped in and helped everyone in our extended family in any way she could. Not to mention all my other aunts. And I was lucky enough to know three of my great grandmothers, in addition to having an extra grandmother (my paternal grandfather's second wife).
Outside of my family, many other women guided and shaped me. I can't even begin to list the many teachers, both at church and at school, who influenced me, so I'm going to focus on two women who never had children but instead devoted themselves to young people in their communities. The first is a Math teacher from my high school. Let's call her Ms. Z. She introduced me to Flatland, a book that changed the way I look at the world, and she always came to class full of energy and prepared. She demanded a lot from her students, but we rose to her challenge and learned. The other teacher I'd like to talk about is Madame S., a French teacher who sadly passed away last year. She was a brilliant lady who paid for college with national merit scholarships, and she loved her students even more than she loved French. When she wasn't teaching, she spent a lot of time working with the youth group at a local church. She inspired many students during her lifetime.
The other day I was talking with some friends about how strong women are. How, despite the stereotype that women are weak and men are strong, many women and mothers find that they've been abandoned by the men in their lives and left to hold things together on their own. Whether the abandonment is emotional, social, financial or physical, it hits many women. In some communities, grandmothers are essential in helping young mothers raise children without the children's father. And programs like micro financing are increasingly discovering that they can improve a family's economic prospects more by investing in mothers than by investing in fathers. Sorry gentleman, but that's just the way it is in general. So, here's to strong women. Strong women who step in and do what they need to do in order to hold families together. Strong women who have no traditional family but build families among friends and co-workers. Strong women who fight for social and economic changes where they see worthy causes. Strong women who know how to put the most important things first.
Mother's Day
Happy Mother's Day to all our readers, and to all those who aren't our readers but who are mothers anyway! We all know that the holiday has become yet another commercialized annual event intended to make corporations a lot of money, but it started from a desire to honour women whose sons were killed during the Civil War. Somewhere in between the two is a holiday that pays respect to all the (often unacknowledged) things that mothers- whether by birth, law, action, or love- do for those in their care.
So to that end, here's a huge shout-out from those of us at Not Another Wave to the women (trans, genderqueer, and cis) who have made a difference by dedicating their time, energy, resources, and love to raising children- those that they birthed or adopted, and those that they've taken under their wing. We'd like to give a special thanks to our own mothers, who have each struggled with their own choices and responsibilities while trying to give us the best opportunities possible. Thank you for all the positive things you've done for us.
So to that end, here's a huge shout-out from those of us at Not Another Wave to the women (trans, genderqueer, and cis) who have made a difference by dedicating their time, energy, resources, and love to raising children- those that they birthed or adopted, and those that they've taken under their wing. We'd like to give a special thanks to our own mothers, who have each struggled with their own choices and responsibilities while trying to give us the best opportunities possible. Thank you for all the positive things you've done for us.
Friday, May 7, 2010
The Name Game, part two
Name-changing is a complicated subject for couples of any stripe. But when you throw present or future kids into the mix, things get even messier. As a follow-up to my previous post on last names and marital partnerships, here's further food for thought!
While the traditional route is that a woman marries a man, takes his last name, and then gives his last name to their children, it's a lot more complicated today- especially when the mother (because, for the purposes of this discussion, we're assuming a male-female couple) chooses not to change her last name. What implications does that have for her children's last names? And, more importantly, what implications does that have for her parental rights and responsibilities?
There are so many options available these days, you'd think that people would hardly blink at last names. Many parents with different last names hyphenate their children's names- in which case there's a whole new debate to be had about whose name comes first- but many others pick one parent's name or even combine their last names into a whole new name. I grew up in a family where my sister and I were given our dad's last name, while our mom kept her own. This was pretty common for my friends whose parents had made similar choices regarding their own names- when the mother kept her name, the kids usually got his. A couple of my friends growing up had hyphenated names, but for the most part, many of us had only one. And, if I remember correctly, all of us had our father's last name.
The politics behind such a choice are obviously individual, but do play into a collective trend. For some, the choice has to do with the fact that the last name acts as a surrogate bond between the children and father for the bond created between children and mother by the process of pregnancy and childbirth. "I carried you for 40 weeks and then laboured for you, so this was his contribution," the argument seems to go. Of course, surrogacy and adoption don't really fall into this argument with any sort of neatness, and again the politics of last names brings us to the historical Western tendency to view women and children as the property of male heads of the household.
There's also a problem when children become older and travel with one parent at a time- whether the parents remain together or are separated. When I was about 11, my mom took my sister and me up to Montreal for a brief trip. In order to do this, she had to carry our birth certificates and a notarized document stating that she had our dad's permission to take us abroad. The reason for this, according to the border officials, was that mom's last name wasn't the same as ours. As she ranted later, our aunt- who had taken my dad's family name when she'd married my uncle- would have been able to take us across the border without anyone batting an eye. Nowadays, with heightened awareness about the risks of parental kidnapping, this reasoning may have been different. At the time, however, it was a reflection of the belief that all members of a family ought to share a last name. Similarly, mom generally had to go through a more rigorous process of proving herself to be our parent when she wanted to accomplish anything within our school district, simply because our last names didn't match.
These aren't necessarily challenges that will go away anytime soon, either. When the reverse happens- when children have their mother's last name but not their father's- there's certainly a kerfluffle not only because of the tendency to view the father as somehow weak or wrong, but also because of the social phobia we have about men with children that aren't obviously theirs. This is something I expect my cousin will face as her daughter grows up- she and her husband chose to assign their children's last name on the basis of the first child's assigned sex, and since their first child was assigned female, their kid(s) will have her last name. While her husband is a wonderful person and parent, I would not be surprised if he faces suspicion from institutions when he picks her up, takes her on father-daughter trips, or does anything- however innocently- that involves just him and her in public.
I would also expect that, unless she looks a lot like him as she grows up, the public assumption will be that she's his stepdaughter because their last names don't match. And I'd be willing to bet that, if she shared his last name but not her mother's, no one would assume that she was my cousin's stepdaughter.
I'm not sure what else to write on this topic, since a lot of it mirrors what was said previously. The social tendency to view women and their children as the property of a male partner is pretty deeply ingrained in our general cultural norms, even if it's not our conscious philosophy, and is reflected in the way we create expectations for individuals and treat those who defy them.
While the traditional route is that a woman marries a man, takes his last name, and then gives his last name to their children, it's a lot more complicated today- especially when the mother (because, for the purposes of this discussion, we're assuming a male-female couple) chooses not to change her last name. What implications does that have for her children's last names? And, more importantly, what implications does that have for her parental rights and responsibilities?
There are so many options available these days, you'd think that people would hardly blink at last names. Many parents with different last names hyphenate their children's names- in which case there's a whole new debate to be had about whose name comes first- but many others pick one parent's name or even combine their last names into a whole new name. I grew up in a family where my sister and I were given our dad's last name, while our mom kept her own. This was pretty common for my friends whose parents had made similar choices regarding their own names- when the mother kept her name, the kids usually got his. A couple of my friends growing up had hyphenated names, but for the most part, many of us had only one. And, if I remember correctly, all of us had our father's last name.
The politics behind such a choice are obviously individual, but do play into a collective trend. For some, the choice has to do with the fact that the last name acts as a surrogate bond between the children and father for the bond created between children and mother by the process of pregnancy and childbirth. "I carried you for 40 weeks and then laboured for you, so this was his contribution," the argument seems to go. Of course, surrogacy and adoption don't really fall into this argument with any sort of neatness, and again the politics of last names brings us to the historical Western tendency to view women and children as the property of male heads of the household.
There's also a problem when children become older and travel with one parent at a time- whether the parents remain together or are separated. When I was about 11, my mom took my sister and me up to Montreal for a brief trip. In order to do this, she had to carry our birth certificates and a notarized document stating that she had our dad's permission to take us abroad. The reason for this, according to the border officials, was that mom's last name wasn't the same as ours. As she ranted later, our aunt- who had taken my dad's family name when she'd married my uncle- would have been able to take us across the border without anyone batting an eye. Nowadays, with heightened awareness about the risks of parental kidnapping, this reasoning may have been different. At the time, however, it was a reflection of the belief that all members of a family ought to share a last name. Similarly, mom generally had to go through a more rigorous process of proving herself to be our parent when she wanted to accomplish anything within our school district, simply because our last names didn't match.
These aren't necessarily challenges that will go away anytime soon, either. When the reverse happens- when children have their mother's last name but not their father's- there's certainly a kerfluffle not only because of the tendency to view the father as somehow weak or wrong, but also because of the social phobia we have about men with children that aren't obviously theirs. This is something I expect my cousin will face as her daughter grows up- she and her husband chose to assign their children's last name on the basis of the first child's assigned sex, and since their first child was assigned female, their kid(s) will have her last name. While her husband is a wonderful person and parent, I would not be surprised if he faces suspicion from institutions when he picks her up, takes her on father-daughter trips, or does anything- however innocently- that involves just him and her in public.
I would also expect that, unless she looks a lot like him as she grows up, the public assumption will be that she's his stepdaughter because their last names don't match. And I'd be willing to bet that, if she shared his last name but not her mother's, no one would assume that she was my cousin's stepdaughter.
I'm not sure what else to write on this topic, since a lot of it mirrors what was said previously. The social tendency to view women and their children as the property of a male partner is pretty deeply ingrained in our general cultural norms, even if it's not our conscious philosophy, and is reflected in the way we create expectations for individuals and treat those who defy them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)