The Subtleties of Sexism

This entry might make me sound like I'm verging on hyper-feminism, but it's something that has been bothering me for quite a while. I'm talking about a show on the Oxygen network, called Snapped. The first time that I saw this show, something about it made me feel uncomfortable. I watched it again another time and my feelings of discomfort continued.

Here is the premise of Snapped, taken from Oxygen's website:

Each year, approximately 16,000 people are murdered in the United States. 7% of the killers are female.*

Who are these women and what drives them to kill? Oxygen's hit true crime series Snapped in its 5th season, profiles the fascinating cases of women accused of murder. Did they really do it? And, if they did, why? Whether the motivation was revenge against a cheating husband, the promise of a hefty insurance payoff or putting an end to years of abuse, the reasons are as varied as the women themselves. From socialites to secretaries, female killers share one thing in common: at some point, they all Snapped.

The show begins with various images of women across the screen, many of them mugshots or family polaroids. Text flashes alongside the images: greed, lust, adultery, etc.
The show produces a very anti-feminist discourse: women are dangerous. Women, when given the taste of freedom or independence, will "snap" -- they will become decidedly unwomanly. The show, when watched, almost seems to be like a warning to men (and to the world). Women are becoming too independent and too ambitious. They are no longer content to be wives and mothers -- they want more. And this desire to have more leads them to "snap." It is strangely similar to the "hysteria" myth of the Victorian period -- women who have too much autonomy or education will suffer from hysteria. In Snapped, the women are almost consistently portrayed as manipulative and calculating -- bordering on sociopaths, while the men are shown as unassuming, innocent victims of their malicious partners. Never mind the fact that a huge number of women on the show were victims of years of intimate partner abuse -- both emotional and physical. Many of them were married to wealthy, controlling and womanizing partners. I'm not trying to make excuses for murder, but to shove something as complex as battered woman's syndrome into a half-hour television show is demeaning and exploiting to these women.

The show itself has earned much criticism from organizations such as Free Battered Women and the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women who explain that the show sensationalizes and trivializes the lives of women. They cite the facts that over the past 30 years, the number of women who have killed their partners has declined (perhaps due to the increased amount of resources for victims of domestic violence and the abilities of women to free themselves from dysfunctional and abusive relationships), while the same is not true the other way around. Currently, about one third of female murder victims were killed by an intimate partner, whereas only 3 to 4 percent of men are killed by their female partners.

But instead of the focus being on the many women who are victims of controlling and violent men (because is that really interesting to anyone?), we get a show like Snapped which places men in the role of victim and leaves everybody feeling more ready to restrict women's freedoms. Rather than portray the women as desperate, isolated and abused (which most of them were), the show portrays them -- as I said before -- as manipulative, calculating and sinister. So maybe some of them are. But is that any different from men who kill? Why is it that when women murder someone they've "snapped"? "Snapped" means that they have become unwomanly -- they have deviated from their gender's acceptable standards. Women are not supposed to kill. When a man kills, no one says that he "snapped." Violence and aggression is not so surprising in men. In women it is more scary. The show plays on people's fears of the "maternal" figure turning on her husband and children and becoming violent. It is also in line with the anti-feminist discourses of the 1980s which showed the "free woman" as castrating, infertile and abortion-loving.

For a network that claims to "put a fresh spin on television for women", its portrayals of them are surprisingly offensive and archaic.

Mothers safeguard your young daughters! (Updated: 7/8)

FOX News, always ready to bring us the important issues, has recently run a short story on The O'Reilly Factor uncovering the lesbian "gang movement." According to Bill O'Reilly and "Fox crime analyst" Rod Wheeler, gangs of lesbians (such as DTO -- Dykes Taking Over), are attacking men, raping young girls and indoctrinating people into homosexuality. And these are not isolated instances, oh no, according to Wheeler it is all over the country -- over 150 networks in DC alone.

As Sarah Warn, editor over at AfterEllen puts it, "Yes, it's true, we're just one cell short of being a full-fledged terrorist network. Don't bother asking us where bin Laden is — we'll never tell!"

Interestingly, if one were to head over to NBC and read the coverage of the story there, a different picture emerges. In addition, the few news stories put out about these alleged "lesbian gangs" have been painfully one-sided. As one blogger states, when Eyewitness News put out a report on this supposed issue, "When they finally interview two women who actually claim to be in Gays Taking Over (both in prison for robbery), the women seem confused by the allegations that GTO members assault or rape other women — or even that it’s a gang."

The legitimacy of Rod Wheeler as an actual crime analyst is also questionable and one has to wonder when he states that "These are lesbians that actually carry pink pistols ... They use these. They commit crimes, and they cause a lot of hurt to a lot of people." Apparently Rod has gotten his facts confused with an organization called The Pink Pistols -- which is not a gang, but rather a queer pro-gun rights organization which is dedicated to protecting “the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community.”

If one reads up on these supposed lesbian gangs which some claim are "infiltrating" schools across the nation, it seems to be more a case of sexual minority students actually standing up for themselves. As this article from Arcadia University suggests, lesbian aggression may just be cases of young girls standing up for themselves or lashing out at those who show them intolerance. According to GLSEN (the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), four out of five lesbian, gay or bisexual teens had been physically or verbally harassed in school. And according to one teen interviewed in AU's article, the DTO acronym is merely a symbol, such as the rainbow flag, and not a sign for a formal organization. "It lets people know who we are, and we're proud of it."

It's just like conservatives to treat any open displays of homosexuality as attempts to "recruit" people into an alternative lifestyle. One would hope that if this type of aggression truly is going on in schools, it can serve to highlight the need for more awareness of the issues faced by LGBT teenagers and not as a means to further persecute a vulnerable minority.

I hope that Bush has heard this important report from O'Reilly because it looks as though the War on Terror needs to be expanded to protect freedom-loving Americans from those scary lesbians with their pink pistols.

Here's the full report (if you can manage to make it all the way through)



UPDATE: While the O'Reilly "report" was good for a few laughs, overall, it really just made me angry. And that anger was only refueled after reading this intelligence report from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Ad Campaigns Target Body Image

A new ad campaign for the Brazilian yogurt, Itambé, has been garnering much criticism. At first glance, the ads seem to promote positive body images. They are recreations of famous movie scenes, featuring plus-sized women:


















































But one only needs to take a look at the fine print to realize that these ads for the Brazilian lite yogurt actually continue to enforce the same old ideas. The translated caption reads, "Forget it. Men's taste will never change." The ads are of confident-looking, beautiful women being told that they should wipe those smiles off their faces and start losing weight.

Most bloggers that I've read seem to be fairly outraged over this ad campaign, while reader comments seem to be mixed. One anonymous comment stated, "uh, heads up -- it is unhealthy to be obese. and it is not insulting to suggest that people lose weight be more attractive. i dont think it is backwards thinking to suggest that someone who is overweight ("over" = exceeds what is healthy) should attempt to lose that weight. the only unfortunate issue here is that it doesn't target men, too." Another says, "good someone had to speak the truth! fat is unhealthy and gross." Someone else comments, "It's disgusting to see marketing firms catering to the obese. Instead of promoting fitness and healthy lifestyles, the world seems to be accepting obesity. Who cares if she has a beautiful face, she is overweight and not an image that should be used in advertising."

On the other hand, there are comments such as these: "These women are beautiful, luscious, confident women -- how dare their modeling agency accept this kind of negative, hate spewing, misogynist work! It just goes to show that even when corporations profess to be changing their attitudes on weight issues and body image, they are still selling women out" and "the pictures are great, esp the last one. She is beautiful! But the tag line is awful & compeletly offensive. If you are overweight & want to do something about it, do it for yourself not to get a man." Finally, one reader states, "I think the tagline is sick but those women look fabulous!"

Itambé's website has a statement concerning these advertisements. The statement is of course in Portuguese, but thanks to my language skills I am able to bring you a loose translation. The company states that the ads were created by a Publicity Agency for some type of fair and that they were not approved by Itambé nor do they reflect the company's values. The company claims to be outraged by the ads and states that they value and respect all of their consumers. I find their claims to be somewhat questionable, but at least they made a statement. I also think it is nice that so many people have spoken out against these ads. It seems to me that we are at least starting to move towards a broader definition of beauty -- albeit at a painstakingly slow pace.

In my opinion, what we really need to start seeing is more publicity over the fact that there are a wide variety of shapes and sizes that can be considered "healthy." Obviously someone that is 400 pounds is not healthy, but whose to say that a 180 lb woman isn't healthy? Scientists and nutritionists are now beginning to ask the question, "Can you be fit and fat?" This 2004 article from The Washington Post explores this issue. Steven Blair, scientist and CEO of the Cooper Intitute in Dallas, states that focusing on ideal weights and BMIs is ridiculous. According to him, "Even with optimal diet and physical conditioning, there is a vast variation in weight." He published a shocking report which showed that level of fitness plays a much higher role in health and lifespan than weight does. Of the women in his study who were considered obese by current standards, it turned out that about half could be considered fit. Others claim that it is dangerous to send out the message that overweight can be healthy. I disagree with this because the fact is, there are plenty of people considered overweight who eat healthy diets and exercise regularly. What's wrong with sending out a true message? I don't hear it being said that weight doesn't matter at all and that morbidly obese individuals aren't at a serious health risk. What I hear being said is that our current standards for a healthy weight don't take into account the fact that everyone has a different natural body shape, and that for some individuals, being stick thin is not feasible nor is it within their "healthy" range.

One might even argue that it is more dangerous to equate a thin body with healthiness. Because our society does equate thinness with health, the focus seems to be completely on losing weight -- no matter how it may be done. Women are told to eat nothing but "Special K" cereal for two weeks straight to lose 10 lbs -- reality weight-loss shows make a competition out of becoming the most thin. After one of these shows ended, a contestant immediately gained back something like 15 pounds just from drinking water. Clearly whatever they were doing to lose weight could not be considered healthy. Many thin people walking around today are probably not very healthy either because rarely are nutritional diets or healthy lifestyles ever promoted. If we were just to promote healthy (and I mean, actual healthy and balanced diets) eating and moderate levels of fitness and uncoupled it from weight, things would be much better. First of all, one could no longer look at someone and assume that they were either healthy or unhealthy based on their weight. Secondly, setting up a healthy lifestyle as the ideal would target everyone and would take pressure off of those who are overweight -- pressure that might cause one to take no action at all. After all, eating healthy and exercising regularly would naturally result in weight loss for many, but it wouldn't set anyone up for failure. Adopting a lifestyle change as opposed to working towards a possibly unattainable goal is better for morale. America has such a dysfunctional view of healthy. It would be great if we could see that change! Maybe then we wouldn't have girls as young as 8 worrying about their bodies and facing plummeting self-esteem upon puberty.

Some parts of the media are actually beginning to contribute, as I've said. Back in the late 90s, The Body Shop started a campaign to "activate self-esteem." It developed the character "Ruby" for an ad campaign to promote healthy body image.

More recently, Nike has begun an ad campaign which promotes a more healthy view of women's bodies.


In the world of celebrities we have also been seeing more full-figured women. This past year we saw Jennifer Hudson win an Oscar for her role in Dreamgirls while America Ferrera has been honored several times for her role in the show Ugly Betty. Queen Latifah is one of the new faces of Cover Girl, Tyra Banks featured two plus-sized models in the last cycle of the popular America's Next Top Model and Sara Ramirez of Grey's Anatomy is featured in this new Milk ad, which celebrates her curves:

And Dove brand has begun what it calls its "Campaign for Real Beauty." Dove's campaign focuses on the self-esteem of girls, the promotion of healthy body images, and the celebration of aging bodies. Dove-sponsored workshops for girls ages 8-12 focus on beauty, self-image and self-esteem. This campaign ad was featured during the Super Bowl:



Here's another short Dove film about self-esteem:



Dove also put out a film for their Real Beauty campaign which shows what they call "The Evolution of Beauty."



Finally, Dove's pro-age ads show that women do not stop being beautiful once they pass the age of 40. This ad was banned in the U.S. because it supposedly showed too much skin. Nevertheless, the print ads can be found in magazines across the country:



It certainly would be nice to see more corporations following Dove's lead and sponsoring issues such as these. I'm so happy to see this actually being discussed and talked about. It's time for women to take pride in their bodies. Only then can they really find the motivation to care for them and keep them healthy.

Do you know what bothers me?

People who say that feminists bother them and that they should just "get over it already." Get over what already? Equality? Working against systemic oppression and the objectification of ourselves and bodies? God, equality is so overrated.

Super hardcore Christians bother me as well. I'm all about the tolerance, but what really overrated is this whole notion of being super tolerant of those who are intolerant and ignorant. Really, why should this continue to be acceptable? My friends Mira and Maria and I went to go see a lecture by the Dalai Lama this past Friday here in Madison. As we were walking up to the Kohl Center, there was this woman holding a sign that said JESUS SAVES. Then there was a guy literally standing on a soapbox (okay, some kind of box) and preaching about Jesus, etc. Okay, really? Who in their right mind would be protesting the Dalai Lama? He's one of the most peaceful, spiritual people in the world! His lecture was called "Compassion: The Source of Happiness." Boy, that sure sounds heathenistic to me. Actually, ironically he spoke a lot about the basic human values of kindness, compassion and love that he believes transcend any type of formal religion, so that non-secularism and "good values" do not necessarily go hand in hand. One can be purportedly religious and not practice these values (which, by the way, I think can definitely be classified as "Christian values") and one can be secular and be an extremely good person. It's all about how you live your life. Those extreme Christians treat other people badly. They "protest" whatever is different, without even understanding. I bet they don't even know anything about the Dalai Lama or Buddhism besides that it isn't Christianity and doesn't have to do with Jesus. Except that in a way it does, because the way that the Dalai Lama lives his life is so similar to the way that Jesus lived. The values that he promotes are very much in line with those of the New Testament. It just frustrates me to see people so ignorant. In his lecture, he spoke about how he is optimistic that through the human values of kindness, compassion and forgiveness we can have a better and less violent future. But without those values we will continue to be divided, and that division and lack of understanding leads to violence. It's so nice to see Christians standing in the way of coexistence and peace. (That was sarcasm, by the way). Here is an article about a Christian response to a visit by the Dalai Lama to Minnesota last year. It's interesting how Buddhism has been around since about the 5th century BCE, yet Christians seem to equate it with New Ageism. Oh brother.

Finally, the way in which our society deals with gender drives me crazy. I was at Target today buying birthday gifts for my little sister, who turns six later this month. I bought her some classic games, such as Connect Four, Checkers and Jenga because she already has enough My Little Ponies, Barbies and other useless toys that she plays with only once or twice a year. Anyway, I was over by the card aisle picking out a birthday card for her. I went to the "Kid's Birthday" section and it is so annoying how there is the "Girl" section and the "Boy" section and one section is seriously completely pink and purple and the other is blue and green. The cards are so gendered, it is unbelievable. Well, I got fed up and decided that I didn't want to get her a card with a little cat wearing a frilly dress or a princess or a My Little Pony. So I went to the "Boy" section where there were some much more amusing cards. There was one with an adorable little alien on it, underneath was written some goofy "alien" sounds. But then inside it was like "For an out of this world boy" or something like that. Then I saw a dinosaur card. Emily loves dinosaurs, so I thought "Awesome!" But no, it said "For a dinorific birthday boy." Why can't a little girl get a card with a dinosaur or an alien on it? And on the flip side, why couldn't a little boy get a card with a cat or a pony on it? Why couldn't they just have them all in one section and leave off the gender specific pronouns? So many people talk about how there are all these really innate differences between boys and girls, but if they are being indoctrinated into one gender from literally the time they are born, how can you really separate what is innate and what is taught? There has been plenty of research that shows that from birth, baby boys and baby girls are treated differently. The way they are described, the amount of affection they are given, the way they are held ... it is consistently different. And as I have learned, challenging gender norms is hard to do. You can't even get a gender neutral birthday card for crying out loud!

A Homegrown Delight!

This past Saturday night, in celebration of my 22nd birthday, a couple friends and I went to Cafe Montmartre here in Madison to see this fantastic artist perform. I first discovered Martha Berner on Mspace (which is the best way to discover musicians as it turns out) about a year ago. She has been to Madison a couple of times since then, but for some reason I always missed her. I was thrilled to finally get the opportunity, and it was well worth the wait! She is amazingly talented, and the best thing is she is a Wisconsin native! She hails from the town of William's Bay on Lake Geneva, which just so happens to be the town in which my grandma grew up! The style of music is very indie folk and enjoyable. While performing, she switched it up between the acoustic guitar, tambourine, harmonica and even trumpet! (I don't know why I'm so impressed by the trumpet, but I am). She has been getting great reviews from all across the country. I won't be surprised if we hear more about her very soon! You can get her CD ... this side of yesterday or her EP Ten Tiny Little Pieces on iTunes.

So go! Listen! Go now!

Intolerance

I was just forwarded this e-mail tonight from the UW Social Work LGBT Student group:

Dear LGBT Social Work/Welfare Group ,

As you may be aware, April 18th is the national Day of Silence in support of GLBT community. The Day Of Silence is meant to bring attention to anti-GLBY harassment, discrimination, etc. in schools. In its 11th year, it is one of the largest and most wide spread student lead actions in the United States.

A group of my friends and I, some of us bisexual, some straight, some questioning, all decided to participate in the Day of Silence. It just so happened that April 18th was also the day that our school was scheduled to go to a local play, Anne Frank.

Well, as soon as the teachers found out that we were taking part in this national day of GLBT support, they immediately told us that it was "stupid", and that we should "just give up now" because there was no way that we would be able to do it. Undaunted, we stuck to it, refusing to speak. All was well until our science teacher, Mr. Rohl, heard that we were planning to remain silent for the whole day. Mr. Rohl told my friend Holly that she was to get everyone that was choosing to participate in the Day of Silence and report to the office. So me and two of my friends went to the office like we were supposed to, only to be shoved aside while Mr. Rohl and the principal, Mr. Johnson, left for the Anne Frank play with the rest of the students.

Eventually, Mr. Danke, our vice principal, called me into his office. He told me that I was "working against the school" in my actions, that he "didn't support the cause", and ended by telling me that I was going to be given in school suspension (ISS) of the rest of the day, seeing as to how I was refusing to speak. He also said that it was my choice to skip the play, though no one ever asked me if I was wanted to go or not. I am not expected to reimburse Mr. Rohl for the money he spent on the tickets for the play, because of my "bad choices".

My friends all got the same treatment, and when we tried to communicate with Mr. Danke through writing, he refused to listen to us unless we were willing to break the silence and speak.

The irony of the situation wasn't lost on my friends and me, either. The rest of our class was going to see a play based on promoing tolerance, which we were being forced to miss because of a very intolerant teacher.

Even after the Day of Silence, teachers are still making fun of us, telling us that it was stupid and that we had made a bad choice.

So pretty much my friends and I are being persecuted for standing up for what we believe in. Our rights are being infringed upon-the first amendment-the right to speak, or not speak, as we choose.

Anything you could do would be greatly appreciated. Even if you could just email the teachers that were involved, i would be very happy. Mr. Danke's email address is grdank@rfsd.k12.wi.us, and Mr. Rohl's email address is herohl@rfsd.k12.wi.us.

Sincerely,

Maggie Tuveson

8 Blue, Meyer Middle School

River Falls, WI

While the actions of the vice-principal and the teacher did not necessarily surprise me, I still couldn't help but be appalled. It is especially ironic to me, as the young woman writing the e-mail pointed out, that they were going to see a play that very day about the extreme effects of intolerance, oppression and silencing of minority voices. Obviously I know that there is still plenty of intolerance throughout the country, but it is still upsetting to me each time I hear about it. It is especially upsetting in school settings, where I think teachers and administrators are exercising an extreme abuse of power when they allow their own moral viewpoints to guide them in their disciplinary actions. No matter what the teacher's view on homosexuality was, he has an obligation to keep the school a safe space for all students. I'm all for freedom of speech and difference of opinions, but a classroom is a place where no student should feel threatened or silenced because of some type of innate aspect of their identity. I think that people who are close-minded and intolerant have no business being educators.

That's all for now. Just wanted to share. Anyone else who feels upset about this is welcome to use the information provided.

Again with the fantasy thing...

In my last post I talked about the show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and how it seems that science fiction and fantasy is rarely taken seriously in America. Quite frankly I'm shocked that Lord of the Rings won the 2003 Oscar for Best Picture. Anyway, I was just thinking about this subject again after seeing the film Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto del Fauno) for the second time. This film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Lanugage Film, but lost out to the German feature The Lives of Others. So I haven't seen The Lives of Others, and I probably should before I go and rant about any injustice. But after seeing Pan's Labyrinth two times in the theatre, I have to say that I just cannot imagine another film being better than this one. Of all the films I have seen in the past few years -- foreign language and English language included -- this one tops them all. It was incredible. The cinematography, the storyline, the acting, the score, everything was beyond compare. It really says something about a film when you leave the theater for the second time feeling just as touched and exhilarated as you felt the first time.

My feeling is that a fantasy film just does not have as good of a chance against a regular old drama about a war or something like that. Fantasy is equated with children and that is not something that can be taken as seriously. Unless it is a film done by some big Hollywood name, it probably won't get the recognition it deserves. Many adults are afraid to appreciate or enjoy fantasy films because they think it makes them seem less mature. I think that says something about the imaginations and creative brains of "grown ups." As I mentioned in my last post, fantasy often serves as a metaphor or an allegory for real situations or issues. Most of us are obsessed with realism -- we don't like having this artistic dimension put onto something. But isn't it more exciting and more challenging to see the world through different eyes?

The plot of Pan's Labyrinth is a little girl named Ofelia and her mother move to the rural army base of her stepfather, who is a sadistic military Captain for the Spanish Army. This takes place in 1944 in Spain, when Franco is in power. Out in the woods a group of revolutionaries is fighting against the fascist dictatorship. In the meantime, Ofelia tries to escape into her fairytales. One night she wanders into a labyrinth that is on the outskirts of the army base. There she meets the faun, who tells her that she is really the reincarnated daughter of the King of the Underworld. She must complete three tasks to prove that she has not become too "mortal." As Ofelia completes the tasks, there is a lot of other stuff going on with the army and guerilla fighters, etc. Ofelia's fantastical world serves as a metaphor for the world that she has seen disappear. It is her way of surviving the terrible and gruesome reality that surrounds her.

I would obviously recommend that everyone go and see this movie. As a warning, it is pretty tragic and there is also a lot of violence. And it is rated R. It's promotes as a "fairytale for adults", so don't let your little kids watch it!

Here is the trailer for the film and also the beginning sequence: