Reexamination: Sex dolls, hate speech and third wave feminism

We all have people in our lives with whom we can have conversations about crazy things without being called crazy. The other day, I had one of those conversations, and it eventually veered into some interesting territory. Just go with it for a while.

The initial topic of conversation was sex dolls. Not the inflatable kind, but those newer ones that are apparently getting more lifelike with each new iteration. As a good feminist, I am typically initially repulsed by the idea of these sex dolls. It’s difficult to think of a more literal method of objectifying women. Really, it’s a pretty macabre representation of a certain set of cultural values: when women are only valued for their physical bodies (and their physical sexuality in particular), creating rubber “women” like this seems like the logical extension. This time, however, I stopped to think about it and realized that maybe such an obvious conclusion isn’t necessarily the whole story.

The problems of objectifying and silencing women are embodied in these dolls, and that’s the primary problem I think we have with them. They represent the acknowledgement that women are viewed this way, and they allow consumers (presumably heterosexual men, though this again may not be all there is to it) with the ability to denigrate and objectify to their hearts content. Now, this is a problem because as feminists (and as logical, thinking human beings, some would argue) we believe that people of all gender designations have inherent worth and are deserving of rights and equality. However, that definition really only applies to humans. Doesn’t it follow, then, that it’s better for a person to abuse, objectify and malign a rubber doll than another human being. Is it possible that this is perhaps a better release of that negative energy than the abuse of a real person? Once I got to thinking about that possibility, all sorts of other things suggested themselves.

Maybe we can apply that thinking to other acts, like hate speech. The proliferation of the internet and the fragmentation of media in the recent decades have raised alarms about the amount of hate speech and extremely oppressive material out there online (such as on blogs or dedicated websites). This behvaiour is typically thought of as terrible because it breeds oppressive thinking and may potentially lead to oppressive actions. However, if the majority of the hate speech bloggers out there will never actually do the terrible things they write about (which may or may not be true), then isn’t it better for them to be doing it in an indirect forum like a personal blog? The incredibly vast majority of people out there likely don’t even know that the blog exists, and most non like-minded people will never see anything that is posted on it. Maybe it’s not oppressive if no one reads it?

From there it’s easy to get into all sort of things about objective thinking and universal definitions of things like oppression. However, I think it’s relevant to think about this in terms of third wave feminism. The reexamination and reclamation of typically oppressive things (such as the word “bitch”, make-up, etc.) is a cornerstone of third wave feminism. I am not about to say that sex dolls are feminist, or that some anonymous hate blog isn’t an oppressive act. I just think it’s critical to remember that we do not live in a binary world of good and bad. It may be uncomfortable to reexamine some of these things, and we may not always like what we find, but it never hurts to subject even the most obviously terrible things to legitimate critical analysis. If nothing else, it will just reinforce how important it is to be aware of oppression, in all its many forms.

Black History Month screening & discussion: Good Hair

This is going to be a quickie since I have a dinner date at Ban Righ in fifteen minutes, but I wanted to invite all of you reading to join me at the Black History Month’s screening and discussion of Good Hair. You might remember one of my first blog posts here was about that movie!

Anyway, you can come check it out at 7:30 in Dunning rm. 12.

There is actually a whole slate of events scheduled for Black History Month, all organized by Anna Thomas and Queen’s Coalition Against Racial and Ethnic Discrimination. If you want to get involved, check the Facebook group! I missed promoting (and attending, unfortunately) the launch event two days ago, but there are a ton of fantastic events scheduled for the rest of the month and I hope you will come on out!

We’re almost finished reading through the text submissions and you should hear responses from us regarding your inclusion in the publication very, very soon. We’ll start checking out the art pieces tomorrow night.

Hope to see you this evening at Dunning!

Ask Men Dot Com – A Critique of Modern “Humour”

Procrastination some days gets the best of me. I make some tea and lounge on the couch, my cat purring at my feet.  I start talking with a friend who goes to school in Ottawa.  After completing our routine how-are-you conversation she sends me a link to a website, claiming it’s something I would be interested (and offended) at reading.  It was the (popular?) Askmen.com, a website I later found my male housemate was familiar with.  I opened the link to find a list called “Top 10: Reasons Women Can’t Drive” (please follow: http://www.askmen.com/top_10/cars/top-10-reasons-women-cant-drive.html).  The list of reasons are, first of all, incredibly sexist and stereotypical, but they also are paraded as some form of what do you call it, entertainment? As a site that apparently caters towards men, I have to seriously question whether or not this website is a joke – but then I continue to ask, if it was a joke, how is this funny? 

            We have grown into a culture that enjoys humour as a minority-bashing, difference-hating network that only appreciates targeting the ‘inferior’ of our society.  The website further claimed that women don’t have the “driving gene” – now (if it is appropriate to say), that statement is outright preposterous.  I would love for this website to back up their claim of how they came to that conclusion, or were they using a stereotype to be funny? There are many women that love driving, including myself.  I do not text while driving (as the article suggests we do), I do not apply make-up while driving (which they again suggest), and I certainly pay attention to the road when friends are in the vehicle.  Claiming that gender plays a role in driving ability not only denounces our integrity as a gender – but we must remember gender is a social construct – peel that all away and we are virtually the same people.

            It is 2010 – how is it that popular men’s sites continue to bash the female gender? Take a gander on the site, look at some of the other posts they have included – not only are they offensive, but they act to disempower all the good things people have done to minimize the gap between gender inequalities.  Our society should aim to appreciate how men, women and transgendered people can benefit our society, rather than poking fun at those who historically have been oppressed. We need to find a new source of humour, as humour these days seems to be entirely racist and sexist — come on society, do we want our grandchildren learning this in textbooks fifty years down the road?  Think about it, and maybe you too will reassess what you say or do.

And now for something completely different….

You know those days when you are aimlessly wandering around the internet and you come upon something wonderful but have no idea how you got there?

Well, it happens to me a lot. And I think everyone will benefit when I share with you today all that I’ve learned about the history of vibrators!

Did you know that vibrators were “the fifth domestic appliance to be electrified, after the sewing machine, fan, tea kettle, and toaster, and about a decade before the vacuum cleaner and electric iron.” ?! (thanks wikipedia!)

I couldn’t wait to post this cuz, who’da thunk?

http://www.slate.com/id/2121835/

A couple warnings: There is some nudity in this slide show, so if you’re not into that – be forewarned and proceed with caution, or don’t proceed at all. You can read about this sans graphics by googling “history vibrators”

A couple thoughts: I can’t decide whether this would have been the most wonderful, or the most traumatic doctor’s visit of a woman’s life. Personally, I’m leaning toward the latter, I can’t really imagine the extent of the discomfort I’d feel to have some doctor (probably, at this time, a man) looking at his watch, appearing fully detached while touching me…I’m fairly surprised that women were able to climax in such a situation.

Anyway, it’s an interesting read. Anyone reading this and thinking “hmmm, maybe I need a (new) vibrator” you can go to the Queen’s Sexual Health and Resource Centre’s website to see what they’ve got in store http://clubs.myams.org/shrc/products.html or drop into Cynthia’s at 292 Queen Street.

Happy reading!

A New Feminist Voice?

In an entertainment industry which is guilty of many violations of equality and women’s rights, it is often tempting to write off all pop culture as anti-feminist. However, I think that it is important to closely examine what messages the popular media is sending, especially since it is such a pervasive force in our society (and so influential to youth). The question I want to explore then is:  Is Lady Gaga’s work Feminist? I have to admit, I didn’t have the best first impression of Lady Gaga, especially from her earlier videos, like the one for “Disco Stick” where Gaga is handed around by a group of men and takes part in a (oh-so-overdone) sexy make-out session with a woman*. I saw her as just another female artist fitting into the stereotypes and conventions of the entertainment industry.

However, after taking a look at some of Gaga’s more recent work, I have was surprised to find that it does appear to be rather subversive. An interview with Lady Gaga in the LA times  (cited in an article on feministing.com)  explains further the kind of issues that she aims to address in her work. (Take for example, her music video for “Bad Romance”).

Lady Gaga explains that this video is about “how the entertainment industry can, in a metaphorical way, simulate human trafficking — products being sold, the woman perceived as a commodity”. I also enjoyed the way that this video challenges the ideals of beauty that the entertainment industry often perpetuates. She appears doll-like, super skinny, and in outrageously high heels, and her portrayal of all of these things comes across as shocking and even disturbing. She takes what is normally seen as the height of beauty and makes it strange, challenging and grotesque.

Outside her videos, she seems to stay true to this message too. She dresses in clothing that challenges the norm and makes people think about why we see certain things as beautiful, and not others. She also seems to create dialogue and challenge people’s conceptions about transsexuality. Rumours have circulated about whether Lady Gaga has male genitals (which often incorrectly becomes the question: is Lady Gaga “a man?”). However, she never seems phased by the question – which is often phrased more like an accusation. She (jokingly? Who cares?) even says or hints in interviews that she does have a penis, causing people to at least think about transsexuality. It also creates an interesting dialogue about whether people think that her success and pro-sex expression could only be achieved by someone with a penis.

While Lady Gaga does seem to be doing some positive things in the entertainment industry, I find myself considering if her success has more than a little bit to do with her own privilege. I wonder if someone who, unlike Gaga, did not fit into the conventional ideal of beauty (thin, white, etc.) would be as successful in making these criticisms in today’s popular media. After all, I’m sure a lot of her fans don’t admire her because of her radical social views, but rather the more conventional aspects of Gaga’s art – namely her appearance and catchy beats. I think that is the main dilemma which arises with satire – some people won’t get it. But does that matter? Can work still be effectively feminist if people don’t interpret it that way? I’m not sure. But I do appreciate the kind of perspective that Lady Gaga’s work offers, if you look a little bit more closely at it.

*note: I’m not sure what Lady Gaga’s intentions were behind this scene, so I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it. If she is genuinely attracted to women, then by all means I have no problem with her expressing this. However, I do have a problem with the kind of appropriation that goes on with women like Katy Perry, (“I kissed a girl”… followed by lyrics like…”It felt so wrong, it felt so right”) who take advantage of the stereotype of women kissing other women as “sexy”.

Gender Imbalance in Academia: A Multi-Disciplinary Look

Check it out. From the Facebook event:

presented by Andrew Lee, on behalf of the Committee on Gender

Andrew Lee is a Sociology PhD student interested in medical knowledge production and anatomical constructions of the body.

Shannon Coyle (BSc, BAH & specialized certificate in Sexuality and Gender) is a Master’s student in the
department of Gender Studies. Her research interests lie with transgender individuals and health care, in particular their access and personal experiences within Ontario’s health care system.

Together, they have prepared a presentation examining gender imbalance in academia at all levels in Canada, with specific focus on Queen’s University, within a historical framework of how sex and gender have been constructed in Western society.

Attendees are encouraged to ask questions and stimulate discussion following the presentation.

Head to Dunning Hall rm. 14 on January 22 from 7:30-10:30 to participate in this event.

A new manifestA for a new decade

Drum roll, please! Here is The Queen’s Feminist Review’s shiny new mission statement, mandate and ManifestA:

QFR is a safe space for dangerous ideas. We will engage the Kingston community in feminist thought, expression and activism, and we won’t shy away from debate. This is an anti-oppressive publication and we take responsibility for it, from providing warnings before violent content to reviewing and improving our accessibility and sustainability. Our mandate is to encourage and feature a broad range of voices and opinions, with an emphasis on the importance of intersectionality and unique identity. Artistic merit is one of our goals, but it is not our primary goal. QFR is a source of strength but also a source of conflict; we will challenge the status quo and support the people and organizations who fight it. QFR will celebrate historical and current feminisms, but will also celebrate the new movements and activism that are so necessary to change our world.

So, what do you think? Are we missing something that you think should be included? Is this mandate similar to the one you envisioned governing the creation of QFR? Your thoughts and opinions are, as always, welcome and valued. Let us know and help us be better; this is, after all, going to be the compass for our beautiful QFR yacht.

(Was that too much?)

Hope you’re having a successful first day of classes, those of you from Queen’s U! For the rest of you, I hope you’re just having a successful day, whatever shape that takes.

Happy New Year!

Hope you all had a great evening. From the depths of winter break, I just wanted to poke my nose out of the igloo and let you all know that QFR is still active – we’re just in hibernation mode. Home-cooked food, heavy snow and candy canes are keeping me, at least, from thinking too much (about anything, not just anti-oppression).

But we’ve still been keeping busy. Right now we’re in the process of creating a new mandate to refer to while selecting submissions for publication, and we’re also busy reading the 140+ submissions you sent in! It’s all very exciting and impressive. As soon as the mandate is finished, likely by January 11, I’ll post it for everyone to see. We welcome your thoughts and if you have any changes to suggest, that would be wonderful. QFR is for the community, after all.

And, I promise, there will be a  blog post that outlines our selection process, too. This will go up after January 15th: that’s the deadline for submissions and I figured it’s unfair to post our selection process (which may help people to craft their submissions better) when those of you who have already submitted can’t benefit from the info.

In the meantime, here is a great blog by Sady at Feministe, in response to an editorial by Nicky Loomis of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. The editorial called for “rebranding feminism” in 2010. This is something I have a lot of opinions about, most of them contradictory and all of them needing a little more thought. On the one hand, I find a lot of self-proclaimed feminist ideas problematic; there is serious ignorance of intersectionality and other issues in some feminist circles. On the other hand, there are a lot of self-proclaimed (and some unproclaimed) feminists I admire.

Loomis takes a very flippant, unfounded look at some of the issues feminism has faced since its beginning, and I don’t appreciate that, and ultimately that’s where I have a problem with her article. Feministe does a better job of covering those flippant paragraphs than I ever could. That’s not to say there aren’t problems with feminism, but there are far better ways of engaging with those problems than the way Loomis did. Plus (and maybe this is a bit of a cop-out, but like I said I’m stuffed with home-cooked food and there is deep snow outside), after talking with the rest of my editorial board, I’m starting to see feminism’s problems in more of a Feministe light. Sady sums it up pretty well:

Feminism is especially tough to define if … you insist that a movement dedicated to bettering the lives of over fifty percent of the human beings on the fucking planet have only one priority (again: getting me a rocket car is a good one to pick, ladies) which is universally agreed upon and espoused by all of its members! Just saying.

The fact that I disagree with some feminists means, actually, that feminism is thriving.

Alright, that’s all for now. Back to hibernation. See you on the 11th.

As posted on Feministing: New Moon and Domestic Violence

I was very glad to see this posted on Feministing yesterday. I’ve never been a Twilight fan, but I have seen both the films out of “cultural interest” (that’s what I keep telling myself). The scene this article references was extremely disturbing to me and I found myself quite distracted by how utterly horrendous this representation was for a little bit after (fortunately, I don’t think I missed any key dialogue).

Warning, contains SPOILERS.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/019307.html

“Why James Chartrand Wears Women’s Underpants”

Another example of gender discrimination (and a savvy woman overcoming it) over at Copyblogger.

Sorry for the lack of posts – I have two exams coming up!