Mercy

When I was checking the BBC this morning, this story popped out at me. For those who will say "tl;dr" and refuse to click the link, the summary is that Texas has executed a man named Mark Stroman who hunted down and shot "people who resembled Muslims," killing two of them and injuring at least one other. The kicker, for me, was that this man's plea for clemency was backed by Rais Bhuiyan- a survivor of the shooting. Mr. Bhuiyan's rationale was that, while Mr. Stroman had committed a hate crime, his execution would not eradicate hate crimes from our world.

I thought I'd share this article because sometimes- especially in the field I work in- mercy can be hard to come by. Abusers don't take mercy on their victims, commanders don't either, and the people who day-to-day deal with the sentencing and punishment of the abuser often treat the whole system like a cut-and-dry deal ("Court-ordered anger management classes, and in two years the slate's wiped clean. Ta-da!") instead of the only real treatment option that might make a difference. Not only is it refreshing to see someone who has every right to be angry and vindictive choose to look for a way to make the world better instead; it's also an opportunity to ask ourselves how we can practice mercy as we fight to make the world a better place for all people. How can we practice mercy- education, empathy, respect- instead of condescension, vindictiveness, and dismissal?

Dealing with other Women

Often I look at my fellow sisters and I’m a little disgusted. Who does that obnoxious chick in the corner think she is? She’s obviously my intellectual inferior, look at the things she believes! Look at her behavior!

I know my outrage is vague right here, let’s just say that in real life I have a MUCH more focused anger, but I don’t want to point fingers at specific behaviors. Why? Because I’ve just become aware of a problem within myself, well, maybe not a problem, but definitely a concern and I’m not really sure how to deal with it.

How do I, as a feminist and someone who believes in the building up of other women, really treat other women? Especially those that don’t share some of my social and political beliefs? Unfortunately, I think I don’t treat them very well. I deride their decisions, make snarky comments behind their back, and wonder why they can’t think for themselves. Looking at this behavior, I feel that it’s problematic for obvious reasons.

1. If I truly am a feminist, shouldn’t I support, encourage, and lift up those women? Shouldn’t I love them and treat all of them with respect? I’m opinionated and outgoing, shouldn’t I use those personality traits to build up my fellow sisters, rather than devalue their decisions?
2. However, some of these women do fight against everything I believe. They actively fight against feminism, believing it’s an organization of “no-bra-wearing-lady-libbers” (to borrow a line from a fabulous movie). If these women so actively engage in what I believe to be the oppression of other women, shouldn’t I fight against them? Aren’t we supposed to stand up for what we believe in? That’s what all those Disney movies taught me and I think it’s a pretty good philosophy. In a sort of sick cycle, should I uphold and support women who are fighting to continue a system of repression that hurts me?

I don’t know anymore. The issue seems complex, obviously we shouldn’t bad mouth other women, but is it inappropriate to speak out against another women’s core belief system or disavow her choices? Especially if she’s engaging in behavior that I feel induces more oppression?

Truly though, I feel that I have no answer for this question. Where is the line between standing up for what you believe in and hurting the people you thought you were helping? While I pose this question to everyone, I feel I should point out that I do want to encourage cooperation and support throughout the ranks of womanhood, but I’m wondering how to do it and I’m not sure there is a right answer.

Supreme Court Dismisses Walmart's Discrimination Against Women

This one makes me feel sick, so I'll just let Colbert break it down for you:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Rihanna's Man Down and the Intersection of Colorism, Racism, and Hypocrisy

Rihanna's latest music video, "Man Down," has opened some fascinating discussions. Parents and pastors have cried out against the video for what they see as graphic violence and a poor role model for young viewers.

The video starts with Rihanna playing a character who watches a crowded station, and then pulls out a gun and shoots a man. The man then falls, and a pool of blood forms beneath his head, as his face takes on a horrified expression. The crowd that was surrounding him takes off, acting panicked. The video then goes back to the day before and shows Rihanna's character prancing carefree through town. She kisses and hugs children and elderly neighbors and even flirts and teases young men who are holding guns. As the video unfolds, it becomes apparent that the character went to a club where she danced with several men at different times. When one of the men tried to go further than she wanted, she clearly shoved him away and shook her head. He then followed her outside and raped her. The rape is never shown explicitly. Instead, the scene cuts from him holding her against the wall, his hand over her mouth and her eyes fearful, to her falling to the ground, still clothed but dejected and traumatized. It's clear what's happened, and it's clear that she's only clothed still for the sake of viewers. Immediately following the rape, Rihanna runs home, where she pulls a gun out of a drawer - a gun that was apparently there all along, but which she didn't feel she needed before the attack.

Much has already been said about this video, but I want to reiterate and elaborate on a few key areas: colorism, race, and interrogating the lenses the tint our judgment.

Colorism

As Renee pointed out on Womanist Musings, it's significant that the rapist is dark-skinned, while Rihanna is light-skinned (as is her ex-boyfriend/attacker, Chris Brown). When news broke of Chris Brown's assault on Rihanna, a surprising number of people held her responsible and said that she must have provoked him. While it's not unusual for others to blame victims for what happens to them (I can tell you first-hand all about that one, as can the vast majority of victims and survivors), many pointed to stereotypes of black women as assertive and loud as evidence that Rihanna was somehow responsible. Yet it was hard to imagine the same response coming if Rihanna had been a white woman dating a black man. OJ, anyone?
      
So yes, no matter what Rihanna and the director intended when they cast the video, there are repercussions from the racial and skin hue breakdown of the "Man Down" video. Rihanna is easily the lightest-skinned person in the video. Every other character is played by a darker-skinned actor, including the children and elderly neighbors who are there in the sunnier scenes that lead up to the rape. On the one hand, this inclusion of dark-skinned actors in a major music video is fantastic. Actors with African descent have a lot against them as far as the performing arts go, particularly if they have darker skin than Oprah, Beyonce, and Rihanna. So it was great that Rihanna produced an all-black-cast video, with a mostly-dark-skinned cast. Heaven knows there are plenty of all-white videos out there.

But, as bloggers and commenters have been pointing out, why did it take a video about being raped, for the cast to be dark-skinned? And while only one of the dark-skinned characters rapes Rihanna's character, many other characters appear to share responsibility. After Rihanna's character leaves the party, the rapist follows and asks another man where she went, who helpfully points him toward her. Granted, there's no evidence that the other man knows what's about to happen, but camera angles make it clear that the rapist attacks her just feet from a group of other dark-skinned black men. It's not clear whether they hear but ignore, or if the rapist covers her mouth before she can ask those men for help. Either way, those men have implied complicity in the crime because they enable it by pointing him toward her and not interfering.

On the other hand, not all dark-skinned men are portrayed negatively in this video. The scene I find most compelling is the scene on the beach where Rihanna appears to be apologizing to a group of young boys, who transition from playing on the beach, carefree, the day before Rihanna shoots a man, to staring at Rihanna with somber eyes after she shoots him. I'm reading into things here, of course, but it seems like she's apologizing for killing one of their own, while also facing the fact that a man who became a rapist was once an innocent child. The implication that one of these young boys could some day take on a similar role is... well, haunting.

Ultimately, I don't know how to react to the way the video represents color, but I wonder if on some level (whether conscious or subconscious), Rihanna and/or the director selected a dark-skinned cast in order to differentiate the fictional video from what Chris Brown did to her, and to make certain that audiences would sympathize with the rape victim. After all, if audiences are more likely to take the word of a rape victim who is paler than her attacker, then why wouldn't Rihanna play into the system? It would be a tragic but understandable response on Rihanna's part.

Race

Ok, so I've already been talking about race as I've talked about colorism. But now I want to talk about the way race impacts our interpretations of violence. Remember Tim Wise's article from last year, "Imagine if the Tea Party Were Black"? As Tim Wise suggests, black Americans (or any Americans of color) who did and said what the Tea Partiers were doing and saying at the time would have appeared quite violent, to mainstream media and mainstream white culture. Many scoffed at Wise's article last year, but we all re-encountered the problem of latent racism when Michelle Obama invited rapper Common to the White House for a poetry slam. A few right-wing politicians and most of Fox News criticized Barrack Obama for allowing a "violent" man with "terrorist sympathies" into the White House, and many news stations quoted select lyrics out of context, to make it sound as if Common was promoting violence, in songs where he in fact was promoting the opposite - you just had to read the whole song to realize that the violent lyrics were an imitation of violent people, whom he was criticizing.

In fact, as I looked into Common's music, I was shocked by how mild and upbeat it was. Given the controversy, I assumed the lyrics would be mysogynistic at best. But no, that's not what I found. What I found was a man just a couple swears away from sounding like Will Smith. So, why do I think race factors into the way Common's critics panicked over his White House visit? Well, consider this video from Jon Stewart, where he compares how the same individuals who defended white politicians and white singers with quite violent lyrics, then tore apart Common for lyrics that were no more violent - perhaps even less so:

                       

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Tone Def Poetry Jam - Lyrics Controversy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

2:20 through 3:30 is particularly telling. Essentially, Stewart says that Hannity's response to Common would be understandable, if he held other artists to similar standards. The show then cuts to a clip of Hannity saying that if Common had violent lyrics about Obama, he'd react in the same way. Followed by Stewart saying how amazing it would be if they had a clip to contradict Hannity, followed by a clip that contricts Hannity. In the clip, Hannity plays a clip (sorry for all the clips within clips confusion) of an artist who walks back and forth across the stage with two guns, exclaiming that Obama should stick the machine gun in his mouth and suck on it, and that Hilary Clinton should ride a machine gun into the sunset. Hannity then comments on the video by referring to the artist as "Friend and frequent guest on the program, Ted Nugent," who is "expressing his feelings toward President Obama and Secretary Clinton." Hannity then defends Nugent when a guest asks if he'll "disavow" Nugent. Clearly the rules are different for Nugent, where Hannity is concerned.

Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new, as far as human behavior goes. Hypocrisy is to be expected in human beings. And hypocrisy is much easier to see in others than in ourselves, which is why Democrats and Republicans alike love saying, "When Bush was in office, you said it was wrong to do X, but now that Obama's in office you're doing X." But I think we really need to step back and interrogate the lenses through which we interpret others' behavior.

Howl's Moving Castle and Male Adaptations of Female Work: A Feminist Film Review

The first time I saw Howl's Moving Castle, five or six years ago, I was delighted. I'd seen Spirited Away, but other than that I'd never seen any Miyazaki films, and as far as Miyazaki films go, HMC is a tad more accessible to Western audiences. Plus, they dubbed the animation so well that a friend convinced me the film was not, in fact, a translation, but that it had originally been done in English.

Well, that wasn't true. It's definitely a dubbed film. But I was surprised, a month ago, when my older sister handed me a copy of the book Howl's Moving Castle and recommended I read it. She said it was a little like The Princess Bride, in that the book was different from the movie but still delightful. And delightful it was - but I was surprised by the ways the story and characters changed when it was transferred from a Welsh novel written by a woman, to a Japanese film directed by a man. Miyazaki did a fantastic job with the film, and I still love it, but his adaptation places more focus on male characters and all but strips Sophie of her power. On the flip side, the film complicates age and evil witches in a really interesting way.

I want to make it clear up front that I don't know enough about Japanese culture and Welsh culture to comment on how culture has impacted this transition. In fact, I haven't even seen the movie undubbed. Accordingly, this review will compare a book that was published in English, to a version of the film that was released in English though Disney, and which was marketed to an American audience.

This romantic imagining of Howl says it all
(source: Dreamhuntress on flickr)

First of all, in the movie, Howl is the main event. He's dashing and pretty, and he swoops into Sophie's boring life to save her from the soldiers who are flirting with her. Yes, Sophie doesn't really need saving from those men, and Howl in fact puts her into more danger when the Witch of the Waste sees him with her and decides to put a curse on her, but there's still something heroic in the gesture. These heroics don't show up so soon in the book - instead of scaring off unwanted suitors, Howl is the unwanted suitor. Sophie gets nervous when he tries to buy her a drink, so he chuckles, offers to escort her wherever she's going, and backs off when she doesn't want him to. And the Witch of the Waste doesn't curse her because she's seen with Howl - she curses her because of a misunderstanding and a mistaken identity. I can see why Miyazaki simplified the witch's motivations here, mind you.

The Witch of the Waste is a complicated character in the book, in ways I won't fully describe here, since I hope you'll all read the book for yourselves. But I will say this: while the film complicates the idea of witches by turning the Witch of the Waste into a victim you can sympathize with, who is ultimately an ally, the book complicates the idea of witches in other ways by making Howl's struggle into one where he's trying to avoid becoming like the witch. She isn't evil by virtue of being a powerful woman, (and every powerful woman in the movie is, in fact, evil - even the witch only turns good after losing her powers). She has turned evil over time because she made the same choice Howl made, and his only hope is to undo that choice before it hurts him like it hurt her.

And gaining power in the book doesn't corrupt all female characters. While the movie carries a warning to all magical beings - all the other wizards and witches in the land are losing their humanity to war - the only witches we meet (Madam Suliman and The Witch of the Waste) use their power for evil, while the wizards we meet (Howl and his apprentice) use their magic to help people/ to hide. In the book, however, we meet several witches who are good, including Howl's teacher, a woman who teaches magic to Sophie's sister, and Sophie herself. Yeah, that's right, Sophie herself has magical powers in the book. In fact, in the book Sophie is able to save Howl because of her magical powers, not because they're in love - although they are.

And that last point transitions nicely into my last critique of the movie - the movie is more a love story, where the book is more a coming of age story. Accordingly, it follows traditional patterns of love stories in ways that downplay how powerful women are and play up how powerful men are, while also reinforcing the Beauty and the Beast myth that a virtuous woman can save a dark, brooding man from his animalistic nature. In the book, Sophie plays a huge role in defeating the evil force they fight toward the end. In the movie, it's mostly Howl, and Sophie's role pertains mostly to Howl's heart, which, remember, she is moving through their emotional connection and not through her own power. To reiterate: in the movie, her power and influence are defined in relation to Howl, but in the book she has her own power. 

Still, there's a silver lining to all this: the movie and the book are both about a young woman who only finds herself after losing her youth. How feminawesome is that?? Also, the characters are interesting and fleshed out in both mediums, and the movie's approach to war is interesting. And the animation and music - just incredible. So if you love the movie, I hope you keep on loving it. But take the time to read the book too so you can appreciate the powerful side to Sophie's nature. 

Despite a Recorded Confession from the Cop in Question, a Rape Victim Loses on the Technicality of "She Was Capable of Walking"

In a case that is as disgusting as it is familiar, two NYC cops were found not guilty of raping a drunk woman they had escorted home, despite staggering evidence against them. There was video footage of the cops escorting her home, and then leaving and re-entering her building (with a false excuse) three times. The video footage shows one cop standing outside and keeping watch, while the other one enters and remains for awhile. The woman called a friend the next day and said "I think I was raped last night," and then contacted the police officer in question, who initially denied having sex, and then admitted he'd had sex with her, but insisted he'd worn a condom. In court, he claimed they had only "cuddled," and that she had come onto him. She says he pulled down her underwear and then penetrated her while she was face down in her own vomit.

So how, despite video evidence, a recorded confession to having sex, and the woman's testimony that it was nonconsensual, did the police officers both get off? Well, the woman was drunk, so her memory was fuzzy, and the prosecution somehow pulled the argument that the woman was too drunk to know if she was raped but not drunk enough to legally be unable to consent. Don't even get me started on the logical inconsistencies in that line of reasoning. Feminite has a brief post about this atrocity too. If you ask me, this case just comes back to good old victim blaming, combined with the unreasonable prejudice in favor of a police officer's confession in court. While I have great respect for most police officers, a person's testimony is not more reliable simply by virtue  of that person owning a police badge.

Recent Links of Note: Roseanne Barr, Courting Feminists, Pro-Life Complications, and Discriminatory Legislation

(Image source: Leah Mark Photography)

Feministe has an article they're calling The Best Thing You Will Read Today, which quotes a New York Magazine article where Roseanne Barr describes her experience working on the Roseanne show as sexist, classist, and degrading. She  also says Roseanne is even more ahead of the times today, when TV shows like Two and a Half Men are written around characters and actors known as abusive, womanizing johns. If you want to go directly to Roseanne Barr's article, click here. The article is refreshingly down to Earth. Interesting fact: Roseanne Barr is actually from Utah, and when Michael Moore spoke at UVU back in 2004, she was a guest speaker.

We have another scintillating article from Feminist Mormon Housewives about mating rituals and Mormon feminists. The main question this post raises is what courting rituals Mormon feminists pursue / prefer, and to what degree we do (and should?) compromise our values where dating is concerned. All the comments are interesting, but I found this list of advice for those hoping to court feminists particularly illuminating.

Womanist Musings has an article that complicates the way we discuss abortion. I will warn you that the author overgeneralizes his opponents and makes unfair assumptions about how pro-lifers treat children. However, he points out some really tragic contradictions that are all too common among those of us in the US, contradictions that are especially problematic (and in some cases more common) in the pro-life movement.

For more recent links of note, please see Racialicious. Among the links they provide you'll find an article about a federal mandate that school officials not check immigration status of students applying for enrollment, an article about a wounded service man who worries that he only received so much notice because he's white,  and an article arguing that recent legislation in South Carolina will disenfranchise nearly 180,000 voters.

Happy Blogging!