6 posts tagged “fun with gender issues”
I have been a delinquent blogger lately, and I apologize to all seven of you (especially you, Winnie, I want your final days in graduate school to be blissfully distracted!).
Here's what I've been too lazy to write about:
-How excited for summer I am.
-How much I love dresses.
-How, after spending Saturday afternoon with my friends and their toddler, I think psychologists need to look into what will surely be the revolutionary "baby therapy." Seriously, the kid randomly ran up to me and gave me a big hug and a kiss and I'm just coasting through my week.
-How I should probably be a writer for 30 Rock. Sup, Tina?
-How surprised I am that I'm not sure if I want Jim and Pam to (SPOILER ALERT) get engaged on The Office. Cue Destiny's Child "Independent Woman."
All new and exciting thoughts! Not.
Oh, but the pole dancing. Right.
I've also been following pretty closely the media-spun "cat fight" that's allegedly taking place between the old feminist Clinton supporters and the young feminist Obama supporters. Here's some required reading on the topic:
- "Young feminists just want to go wild and pole dance," Feministing.com
- "Yo Mamma," Linda Hirshman for Slate.com
- "More than a Mother-Daughter Debate," Courtney E. Martin for The American Prospect
"...While there will probably always be generational misunderstandings within feminism, keeping [our] complexities in mind helps ensure that the dialogue stays productive."
She goes on to say that, "women, like men, are diverse and will never vote as a bloc." That was the ass-kicker for me.
Recently, I was fortunate to hear some experts speak on single sex education. The bottom line about single sex education is that it can be dangerous when parents, educators, and administrators separate boys and girls based on assumptions that there are simply too many differences BETWEEN the genders. Meanwhile, the fact remains that there are so many more differences AMONG girls and AMONG boys that both groups in and of themselves are entirely too diverse to even compare.
And so it goes with the old feminists vs. young feminists debate. AMONG trumps BETWEEN yet again: let's remember the complexities that make us who we are -- that make us passionate about issues and candidates -- before we make generalizations about what we're not.
See what I did there? I totally tricked you guys into reading another boring post about gender issues!
I've been really excited to see Juno for a while now because I am always in the mood for a quirky comedy full of witty banter starring my boy-crush Michael Cera (seriously, MC, call me when you're 21).
I've been really really excited to see it ever since I read that A.O. Scott called the film, "a feminist, girl-powered rejoinder and complement to Knocked Up" in his New York Times review. It got me brains a-thinking.
So, here I am for days musing, "Was Knocked Up really that un-feminist?" but also being kinda busy and without time for my daily internet catch up on all things pop culture, gender issues, and Michael Cera (honestly, MC, should I just post my cell phone number on my blog? Sorry, Matt...). But lo and behold, the Juno vs. Knocked Up debate has begun, fueled by a poorly timed quote from Katherine Heigl, when she told Vanity Fair that it was hard for her to love the sexist Knocked Up! Hooray!
Since I haven't seen Juno yet, I can't totally weigh in with my OFFICIAL opinion, but I did see Knocked Up twice (once with my mom, who, incidentally, loved it), so I can tell you that I did not consider the film to be anti-women or un-feminist on the whole.
Relationships are really hard. Sometimes you have to be the worst, ugliest version of yourself to make your relationship the best, prettiest version of itself. Lately, thanks to Katha Pollitt, I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a feminist and I'm really digging her whole society- vs. self-based concept. I think that theory is really applicable to our micro-societies that are our relationships: if we're with people who are fighting for equal ground -- who fight to truly understand us and live, love, and share equally in our lives on our level, then that's feminism in action for you.
For me, Knocked Up is a film about relationships and the mystery of making romance reality, whether it's a night old or a decade old. Ultimately, the characters are fighting for equity and understanding in their relationships. They're risking the ugly for the pretty. Because it's a comedy, the ugly is hilarious, and yeah, sometimes it's the male characters (or is it just the actors?) whose uglier selves are the funniest.
To make the film stand apart from romantic and other comedies starring their "Frat Pack," filmmakers Jud Apatow and Seth Rogen threw in a pretty unique conceit: what if you had a baby when both you and your relationship were horrifically unprepared -- the LEAST prepared they could possibly be? Interestingly enough, Apatow and Rogen chose the hottest-button feminist issues to heat up their film's appeal -- babies n' marriage n' careers -- but I'm glad this film is opening up some intelligent debate about the portrayal of women in film, particularly comedies.
Critics are comparing Knocked Up and its alleged un-feminist messaging to other films of that genre, most recently and understandably, Juno, but I think they need to add an additional canon by which to compare it: Apatow and Rogen's other TV and film work, which has some pretty awesome, hysterical, and well-balanced messaging for both the boy and girl sets.
I'm totally going to try to squeeze in Juno this weekend, so stay tuned. Until then, here's some required reading on this topic:
- "Seeking Mr. and Mrs. Right for a Baby on the Way" A.O. Scott's review of Juno in The New York Times
- "Katherine Heigl's Knocked Up" by Meghan O'Rourke on Slate.com
- "Knocked Uptight," Jezebel.com
- "Katharine Heigl Clarifies Knocked Up Remarks," People.com
I would be lying if I said I wasn’t totally mesmerized by
what Jezebel.com is calling “Badonkgate”,
Jennifer Love Hewitt’s fiery reaction to some papparazzi photos of her in a
bikini.
“A size 2 is not fat! Nor will it ever be. And being a size 0 doesn't make you beautiful,” says JLH in her website statement that has been getting tons-o-press. She beseeches: “To all girls with butts, boobs, hips and a waist, put on a bikini – put it on and stay strong.”
You should learn why this is a mixed message that can be dangerously misinterpreted, so please check out what Claire over at the 5 Resolutions blog has to say in “J. Love Loves Her Size 2 Body. Did You Hear That, World? She’s a Size 2!”
As for me, I’m responding most strongly and personally to Jezebel’s questions:
“Is the American populace so ignorant and
dumbed down that the only thing that can keep their
attention is the process by which the consumption of
more
calories results in more body weight
and
vice versa? No but really truly?”
Last year, I asked the women in my family essentially the same question: why is talking about our weight so goddamn interesting?
I had been thinking about how – and how often—the women in my family talk about our bodies and I realized I didn’t like it. We are not petite skinny people, blood- and non-blood relatives alike. We are from tall and strong ancestors who had the flesh and bones to withstand famine, the Iron Curtain, and a labor camp in Siberia. With those genes, as well as some psychology and brain chemistry thrown into the mix, comes some weight issues.
So, often, when I would see family they would say things like, “You look skinny, Al. Are you eating?” or “Have you lost weight?” Or, if I mentioned over the phone or in an email that I was psyched about running more or trying Pilates I got reactions along the lines of, “Wow. You must be losing a ton of weight.”
Family gatherings are often a time to discuss gaining weight, not losing weight, or the fear of both.
I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings because it’s not easy to feel good about your body. In our culture, it’s hard work to have even a minute when you don’t absolutely hate your body, and the women in my family are no different from most girls and women around the world.
I know I’m young and haven’t been faced with the lifetime of body changes and issues most of my older female relatives have had to come to terms with. But I’ve lost weight and I’ve gained weight and I’ve loved my body and hated my body, so I’m not all that different from members of my family and every other woman. Hell, I’ll probably lose and gain some more weight even in just the next month or so.
But I know that as long as I do the things that make me
feel, well, just like the best version of myself, that’s going to make me feel
beautiful, and I’m not a size 0 and far from a size 2.
Incidentally, those
things? You know, the books I read, the places I run through, the work
I do, the
people I love, the lame blog I keep...? Yeah, those are the things I’ll
be
focusing on sharing with my family over the holidays. And they're
wayyyyy more interesting than the weight I've lost, the weight I've
gained, or the size of my pants, which, as the lovely Jezebels point
are nothing more than millions of boring, boring calories.
And back to Ms. Love Hewitt: if you’re reading, I hope you do the same.
There was a great interview with writer Katha Pollit on NPR's Fresh Air last week. She was on to talk about her new book, Learning to Drive: And Other Life Stories, which includes two of my favorite essays.
Pollitt gets some flack from time to time from feminists. The title essay of this latest book is essentially about how she only forced herself to learn to drive after she had run out of reliable men in her life who would drive her around. Another essay, "Webstalker," is about how she obsessively Googled her then-recent ex-boyfriend, desperately trying to trace past infidelities she thought he may have committed during their seven-year relationship.
You should listen to the Fresh Air interview because Pollitt (and my girl, champion interviewer Terry Gross, of course) will make you think seriously about two things:
Many popular memoirs, personal essays, and non-fiction narratives are stories of triumph against adversity and redemption. Pollitt is taking some hits for writing about failed relationships with men, admitted character flaws, and overall bad habits because she writes about losses without the promise of any wins. At the end of the title essay, she fails her driver's test and her relationship has deteriorated. During the Fresh Air interview, in so many words, she asks why she just can't be a loser. Sometimes she loses and those stories should be just as compelling as tales of triumph.
During the interview, Pollitt is also asked about her views on feminism. This is the best part of the interview. She has a lot of great insights, but I'll spoil it a bit and sum up my favorite one. Feminism, says Pollitt, is about changing society--not yourself. It's not a self-help program. Feminism will not--it should not--guide you on how to dress, what to eat, what to read, how to cut your hair, or where, when, and if at all you choose to shave, wax, or pluck...
What are you doing reading my lame blog? Just listen to the interview already!
Yesterday, I was on the elliptical machine, sweating profusely and watching the Democratic presidential candidates discuss faith and politics at a forum hosted by George Washington University and broadcast by CNN.
I know, I know. Elliptical machine + faith and politics + CNN = recipe for disaster.
Soledad O'Brien was interviewing Hillary Clinton about her political stance on faith.
"Blah, blah, blah," said Hillary. "Blah, blah, when I went to a small Methodist church in Podunk, USA the kindly reverend there, with whom I shared a deep connection, looked into my eyes and said God thinks I would make the best President EVER," she said, looking pointedly at the cameras.
Or something like that.
After Hill-Clint gracefully evaded talking about anything (ed. note: I'm not supporting or endorsing any of these fools yet, they all somewhat gracefully evaded all their questions), O'Brien asked Clinton about her personal relationship with her faith. She must've known that Clinton would balk at the personal question, because O'Brien cushioned her hard-hitting journalism by saying, "It's okay, it's just us girls chatting!"
Yes. That is exactly what it is. When you're a national television journalist interviewing each of the Democratic presidential candidates on CNN, you should totally couch your tough question aimed at the only female candidate as "just girls chatting."
What gives, Soledad O'Brien?
I'm in the middle of reading Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy. To sum up the book, Levy asserts that some women -- these Female Chauvinist Pigs -- think that they are reclaiming feminist principles and empowering themselves by participating in the trends of raunch culture: strippers, "lad" mags like Maxim and FHM, Girls Gone Wild DVD's, etc. But, says Levy (and I agree), buying into the notion that there is only one way to be sexy is totally the opposite of empowerment. It's totally the opposite of feminism.
In one passage, Levy writes about a group of women who claim to be real guys' girls, who disdain "girly-girls" and all the high maintenance they represent, both physically and psychologically. These guys' girls claim to get along best with men and women who act like men. Levy points out, and I found this funny, that the raunch culture that these women are into actually sells the girly-girl stereotype. To paraphrase, she writes something like, "Have YOU ever seen a stripper without a perfect manicure?"
ANYWAY, I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a guys' girl who hates other women. I definitely once considered myself to be a guys' girl, hanging out with all the boys, and feeling overall pretty psyched if someone ever called me "just one of the boys" or something along those lines. Similarly, I seriously hated on the girly-girls at my high school.
I remember having an argument with my mom over a snobby comment I made about a high school ski trip I had been on. I was SHOCKED and APPALLED that some of the girls on the trip -- friends of friends who I skied with that day -- had put on makeup and DID THEIR HAIR before going on the ski trip. WHY, my sixteen-year-old brain wanted to know, would a girl put in such a fruitless effort? CLEARLY they were just going through the motions to impress the boys, something that was not to be done on my sacred slopes. Now, of course, I realize that each woman does what she has to when it comes to giving our self-confidence a boost. Will you ever see me out of the house without mascara? Hardly ever. But back then, had you showed up for a beach day wearing mascara, you would've earned some serious judgment demerits from me.
I wasn't only friends with boys during high school, but they were a big part of my life. I think part of it was simply stuff we had in common. I didn't know any girls who loved to ski as much as me, but Dana did. The boys liked to go rock climbing and would stay in the water for hours at the beach and ride waves with me; I just so happened not to have many female friends who liked to do that kind of stuff. Admittedly, I spent a fair amount of time cruising around listening to Ani DiFranco and Joni Mitchell, to balance out the three-hour long ski trips with Metallica blasting from the tape deck.
From time to time, I wonder what sort of effect (if any?) this has had on me socially. I know that a large part of my bad attitude toward lots of other girls back then was probably influenced by the way girls treated my boy-space-friends. When Dana or Jim or Craig would complain about how CRAZY girls were, I took that as absolute truth. Duh, teenage boys are far from perfect and way the hell far from sane, but these were my friends, and they were burned by girls from time to time and I took that as a blow to my gender. I saw myself as an Ambassador of Good Will, showing that girls could be totally awesome and not crazy.
Ironically, my childhood friend, Vikki, is a total girly-girl. She sleeps in velcro rollers each night so her hair looks perfect in the morning. She has fake nails. She wears heels when I go to meet her for a beer in our hometown. She probably looks at my flat, air-dried hair, short, unpainted nails, and beat up Chucks on my feet and would love to make me over, but our differences in style -- which is truly and simply what these things are -- have never stood between our friendship.
It really wasn't until college that I was able to take all the great stuff and non-judgment of that friendship and translate it to close friendships with other women. Now, my lady friends definitely outnumber the dudes, and in my opinion that's the way it should be at this point in my life. Inherently, and now that I'm able to (try to) see beyond some differences that really just boil down to makeup bags, hairdryers, and morning routines, I feel closest to my female friends. Sometimes, I do think that female friendships ARE higher maintenance: when you share so much of yourself with a friend, as women often do, it ups the ante. It raises the stakes in terms of what's on the table for conflict.
My friendships with my ladies definitely require more than my friendships with my dudes. I think that's because my female friends (and this is of course with a couple of male exceptions) and I know each other the best. We know what makes us feel the best, and what makes us the most fun to hang out with. If we mess up, or do something sub-par or totally out of character, we see it. There's no pressure to be perfect -- this is unconditional lady love, after all -- but when you know you have these friends totally rooting for you and totally having your back, you want to do your best.
Maybe that's what the Female Chauvinist Pigs Levy observed can't hack. Or maybe they've never experienced close female friendships and they'll settle for the semi-cool feeling you get by being one of the guys, by being able to take in shocking aspects of our culture without flinching. I can't say that my experience being a guys' girl as a teenager is totally the same as that of these Female Chauvinist Pigs who are my age and older, but we're not all that different. When I was 16, I clearly felt like I had to apologize on behalf of my gender, and I think that that's what's at work in the case study I mentioned from the book.
These days, if one of my boy-space-friends complains to me that girls are CRAZY, I just laugh. CRAZY, as defined by men, seems to be synonymous with expectations within relationships, so I say that if one of my male friends is involved with a woman who asserts her expectations, he has a total catch. No apologies.
