Feminism and Oscar

I love the Oscars. LOVE. I laugh, I cry, I swoon. I start watching the red carpet hoopla at 7pm, the ceremony that runs until midnight, and Jimmy Kimmel's Oscar special after. Not to mention whatever I can find about it the next day. LOVE. I love hearing all the acceptance speeches, from Actor in a Leading Role to Costume Design to Documentary Short... I love it all. I love movies, and I love seeing them honored as an art form. Having spent some time myself working on a couple of films, I know how much work and how many people's time, energy, hearts and souls go into making even a short film. When I go to the movies, I sit through all the credits, long after the rest of the audience has left, out of respect for all the people who contributed to the work of art I just experienced.

Now you know my love of film and all things Oscar related. And if you've ever read this blog before, or if you've read the description, you already know about my feminism and that I filter pretty much everything through a feminist lens. I've been reading lots of the articles flying around this past week about what a misogynist Seth MacFarlane showed himself to be, or how sexist the Oscars are, etc., and so of course I am weighing in.

My take? I'm sick to death of all the MacFarlane bashing. I'm tired of reading diatribes by people who don't seem to understand nuance or satire or sarcasm, who take everything literally, and at times distort what actually happened to fit their need for everything to be oppressive and wrong. Here's an example: MacFarlane made a dig at George Clooney and his increasingly inappropriate (in some people's opinions) propensity for younger women by saying in reference to 9 year-old Quvenzhane Wallis, "To give you an idea of how young she is, it'll be 16 years until she's too old for Clooney." Some very twisted and fatigued minds out there turned this into MacFarlane sexualizing a child. A writer for Vulture twisted it into being a joke about how "someday Quvenzhané Wallis will be old enough to date George Clooney — because that's what's important about her." Seriously? They're looking so hard for what they think they should see that they're missing what's right in front of their faces. Perspective--George Clooney is only 5 years younger than my father and he's dating a woman the same age as my little sister. So, whether you have an opinion or not about Clooney dating younger women, I get the ick-factor, and I get the fucking joke.

The boob song. Oh.My.GOD. The entire feminist blog-o-sphere seems to be up in arms about 'I Saw Your Boobs.' Did they watch it in context? It was part of a whole shtick with Captain Kirk coming back from the future to warn MacFarlane not to be an ass and ruin the Oscars, showing him a video of what he does in poor taste that makes everyone hate him. I saw it as MacFarlane openly acknowledging the kind of crass humor people expect from him. More importantly, it seemed to me that he was making fun of himself, which I think is always a good thing. And for fuck sake--it was funny!

BostonClem commented on the Jezebel post and said it much better and less offensively than I have:

"Here's the problem with Seth Macfarlane: he's critiquing society in a highly ironic, sarcastic way, but most people don't get it-- and those people who don't get it range from misogynists who find his jokes affirming, and feminists who find his jokes infuriating. I genuinely believe he is a man trying to critique sexism (among many other of society's ills) through humor. I don't think every joke he's ever done is acceptable... but you know what? As a feminist and someone who puts a lot of time and effort into analyzing/fighting racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, and classism in Am. culture, I also don't think every comment I've ever made is acceptable. He's critiquing society through jokes, pushing boundaries, and probing sore spots in the American (historical) psyche. And good for him for being willing to take that risk, even if it sometimes backfires. I'm glad there are feminists who will hold him accountable, but I don't think he should be silenced just because many feminists don't appreciate his deeply sarcastic humor. He ain't perfect, but he's a million percent better than most of the guys I know (especially comedians), and I'll take it-- especially if he's willing to listen to feminist (and other) critiques of his work and take a close look to make sure they're mocking the right thing."

Now, in my opinion, a much bigger problem with the Oscars--and the movie industry, and American culture, and British culture, etc. etc.--is the fact that there was a whole segment of the Oscars dedicated to 50 years of James Bond movies, movies which continue to blatantly perpetuate objectification and hyper-sexualization of women and overt misogyny. (Did you see Skyfall? Bond helps himself to a shower and a fuck with/to a woman he acknowledges has been living as a sex slave for years. WTF?) I haven't seen this mentioned in any of the blogs proclaiming the awfulness of the sexist Seth MacFarlane as Oscar host. Oh, but you like James Bond? Daniel Craig is sexy? James Bond is based on a character written a long time ago, so it's okay? Whatever.

I get that a lot of shit is seriously wrong in the world. I do. I get that there's a lot to seriously be pissed off about. But I also get that people--even good and well intentioned ones--are flawed. I get (although some may disagree whether I do) that not everyone sees the world the same way I do, and that doesn't make them bad. And I get that laughter is good, art is important, and that we have to learn not to always take ourselves so seriously. Choose your battles wisely, people.

You probably either love me or hate me right about now, and that's okay. I really don't have anything else to say except... Argo fuck yourself. ;)

"When they quit killing babies they can have every chicken I've got."

Recently, a Republican in the Georgia House of Representatives made a speech outlining his support for a state-wide abortion ban at 20 weeks (despite the high-risk status of most of these pregnancies). He proceeded to explain how he has helped deliver farm animals, and that it 'broke his heart' to see the ones that didn't make it. He goes on to tell his audience of fellow legislators that a man who opposed a law against cock-fighting once told him, "You tell those folks down there, when they quit killing babies they can have every chicken I've got." Rep. England referred to this man who fights roosters for sport as "salt of the earth people."

There is SO much wrong in this minute-and-a-half little verbal diarrhea episode that I hardly know where to begin. How someone with this little brain power and ability to think with any semblance of clarity or rationality could be elected to public office is astounding. Here are the problems with what this man said, as I see them...

The business of animal 'agriculture' is rooted in the same kind of mentality of domination and objectification that has allowed men to dominate and oppress women for thousands of years. I guarantee you that this man whose 'heart breaks' when a newborn calf doesn't make it has no problem eating the flesh of cows, pigs, or other animals on a daily basis. He may feel something in that moment of connection through participating in the birth of the animal, but ultimately is more driven by his desire for certain tastes and his belief that he is superior to and justified in using and killing other species for his purposes. He marvels at the birth of a calf--likely the product of his or her mother's forced pregnancy at the hands of humans--only to send it later to a life of servitude as a dairy cow, or slaughter for beef/veal. This doesn't sound a whole lot different from the way Republican politicians want to force women into pregnancy by limiting access to birth control and comprehensive sex education, restricting or banning safe, legal abortion, all while preaching about the sanctity of life... and then eliminating programs and assistance to these children once they're born. It's all connected. It makes sense that Rep. England thinks he has the right to determine what women can and cannot do with their bodies, since he thinks he has that same right over the females of every other species.

What saddens me most is that feminists without an understanding of interconnected oppressions, who themselves participate in the oppression of other species, rather than connecting the dots for themselves, more often than not will be driven to separate themselves even more from non-human animals. "I'm not a barnyard animal!" they yell. "Women are not cattle!" And in their attempts to elevate their own status, these women participate in belittling the status of their fellow creatures, creatures who are also sisters, daughters, mothers whose bodies are used and abused and seen as property, who experience physical and emotional pain, desire to live their lives peacefully and to seek pleasure.

But I digress. In what universe does helping a cow give birth in a barn qualify you to make decisions about what a woman can do with her own body? How does it make you more qualified than a personal medical physician to determine whether a high-risk pregnancy should be carried to term?

Let's move on to this "salt of the earth" man who told Rep. England that, "when they quit killing babies they can have every chicken I've got." First of all, anyone who abuses animals for sport is in no way "salt of the earth." Enough said. But this kind of twisted thinking in no way resembles logic. He forces animals to fight each other for sport and profit. This has nothing to do with his personal freedom and liberty. He is a profiteering sadist. It takes some sick and twisted thinking to equate a man like this with a woman making her personal decision about her own body and what's best for her and her family.

When I am challenged on my pro-choice position by those who find it inconsistent with my veganism (as one woman put it, "How come you think it's not okay to kill pigs, but you think it's okay to kill babies?!") My answer is simple: Nobody said anything about killing babies. Pigs, when they are slaughtered, have the intelligence and understanding of a human toddler. Nobody's talking about killing toddlers either. An unborn human fetus does not have its own independent life, or a developed brain capable of understanding its own life or experiences. A pig does. A cow does. Even a chicken does. I don't believe humans have a right to imprison female cows, impregnate them, take away their babies, and steal their milk anymore than I think men have a right to force human women to be pregnant against their will--or against sound medical advice. This seems consistent to me. When the debate is about whether or not we kill human 3-year-olds, if I say that's okay, then you can call my bullshit.

"No woman can call herself free who does not own and control her own body. No woman can call herself free until she can choose consciously whether she will or will not be a mother." ~Margaret Sanger, 1920

Sarah Palin Is No Feminist

As I've been surfing the net, looking at news and blogs and the buzz about the newest lady on the scene, Sarah Palin, I'm hearing things like, "Sarah Palin represents the new feminism," or that she is part of feminism's "next wave." Let's get one thing clear: SARAH PALIN IS NOT A FEMINIST! Not 2nd wave, not 3rd wave, not any wave.

There seems to be a lot of ignorant rhetoric flying around conservative circles concerning what feminism is and exactly who is a feminist. Being a working mom, as a few conservatives have asserted, does not make someone a feminist. Evangelist Mike Azinger believes that the Republican party has, "join[ed] the Democrats in their acceptance of full-throated feminism." Don't worry, Mike, your anti-feminist/anti-woman views are still being fully supported by your party, and even by Sarah Palin herself, even though she is a working mom, spitting in the face of God's perfect plan for men and women. The Republicans are lying to you (or at the very least are very confused and deeply ignorant) when they tell you Sarah Palin is a feminist.

Feminists have fought long and hard for women to be full citizens in this society, and more than mere chatel to be owned and guarded by men. This began with the 1st wave feminists fighting for over 70 years for women to have the right to vote. Without that, women were not citizens at all, but property of their fathers or husbands. Their bodies were not their own. We now have the right to vote, but men (and patriarchy-supporting women) are still fighting us for ownership of our bodies. How many people still believe that a husband can't rape his wife? Laws are slowly changing, but the way they are enforced and the deep-seated beliefs that are held about them are following at a much slower pace.

The right to choose what happens to our bodies with regard to reproduction is only one piece (albeit a rather large one) in the struggle for freedom for women. This not only includes the right to safe and legal abortions, but also access to comprehensive sex education, birth control and child care. Sarah Palin wants to take all choices away from us. She thinks that she and those who share her beliefs are better equipped to make the decision for us. According to Sarah Palin, women should not have the option of abortion, even if they are raped or if their life is in danger. According to Sarah Palin, our daughters and sons should be indoctrinated with abstinence-only-until-marriage teachings and should not have access to information regarding birth control and safer sex practices. We all know how well that worked out for her teenage daughter. If left up to Sarah Palin and the Republicans, we will be stripped of ownership of our own bodies. Our bodies will become property of the government, mere containers for reproduction.

Sarah Palin calls herself a "Feminist for Life." She is neither a feminist, nor is she "for life." How exactly can one be pro-life and be pro-war, pro-guns, pro-death penalty, pro-killing of endangered wildlife? Sarah Palin is not pro-life, she is anti-choice. In fact, she is pro-death. When abortion is criminalized, WOMEN DIE. A feminist who is for life believes in and works for affordable health care for all, access to affordable child care, comprehensive sexuality education, peace in the world, protection of our natural resources and wildlife, and responsible gun laws. Hey--it looks like I'm a feminist for life!

Do not be fooled. Joe Biden may not have been my first pick for VP, but when it comes to the issues that I care about, he's light years ahead of what we're looking at on the Republican ticket. Despite his flaws, he did champion the Violence Against Women Act; he will, to an extent, protect our right to choose; he has a pretty favorable voting record on environmental issues (Biden and Obama both score 67% this year with the League of Conservation voters, compared with McCain's 0%). Yes, Hillary Clinton would have been my first choice. But to think that Sarah Palin makes a good second choice is simply not to think at all.

Exploring the "F" Word

With Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton coming in a close second for the Democratic nomination for presidential candidate, and now Gov. Sarah Palin receiving the VP nomination from the Republicans, the great "F" word--Feminism--has made a comeback into the American vocabulary. The word can be found all over the internet and on TV and in newspapers and magazines. It has been used in so many different ways to describe vastly different people and views. It seems that there is no general consensus as to what that word actually means, other than that it has something to do with women. I read articles that make me believe feminism is alive and well. Then I read pages of comments on those articles that make me believe that the average woman (and certainly, man) have such a completely ignorant and distorted misunderstanding of feminism that I am almost frightened for us. The words "feminist" and "feminism" have been so co-opted and misused that they are on the verge of becoming meaningless. For these reasons, before I launch into any commentaries on anything that is happening politically or socially, or even spiritually in this country, the very first thing I feel has to happen is a discussion of this powerful yet elusive word.

A Feminist is a person who 1. acknowledges the oppression, suppression and repression of women under patriarchy and 2. actively works to bring it to an end. This is my working definition of a feminist. Yes, this is a different definition than you'll find in most dictionaries, which tend to be true, but oversimplified. Most of us know that dictionary definitions are not the place to look for true meaning and deeper understanding. A Feminist may be any race, any gender, any sexual orientation, and from any socio-economic status or religion. Feminism is about 1. awareness and 2. action. Feminism is not simply about achieving the power and status typically held by men. It's about protecting and supporting the rights of women of all classes, races, cultures, and beliefs. (Blog edited 9/12 to add these last two sentences. A great definition of feminism--less philosophical, more tangible.)

Are all women feminists?
A vagina does not a feminist make. Many women are completely oblivious to their own oppression and to the oppression of other women. Many women take actions that are not in the best interests of women. Perhaps they have worked hard to better themselves, but feminism is not about elevating the status of one with disregard for the many. It is about elevating the class of women as a group. Many are not feminists, or may actually be anti-feminists.

Can a man be a feminist?
Yes he can! If he acknowleges the oppression, suppression and repression of women in patriarchal societies (like ours) and takes actions in his life that do not perpetuate, or even help correct said oppression, repression and suppression, then a man is a feminist.

Do feminists hate men?
Not as a rule. Many feminists are women married to men, or are even men themselves. Of course, many feminists are lesbians--women who love women--but loving women does not mean hating men.

Isn't it true that feminists are just a bunch of privileged white women?
Not even remotely. As mentioned above, many men are feminists. All white women are not privileged and many poor white women are feminists. Many women of all races and levels of economic privilege are feminists. Sojourner Truth, a former slave, was one of the first feminists on the scene, delivering her "Ain't I a Woman" speech at the Women's Convention in Akron, Ohio in 1851. During the Women's Liberation Movement (2nd Wave Feminism) in the 1960's and 70's, black feminism developed along with white (read Angry Notes From a Black Feminist by Doris Wright, 1970). Historic and modern feminists include bell hooks, Gloria Anzaldua, Michelle Tea, Angela Davis, Gloria Steinem, me, Margaret Cho, my husband, ... black, white, Asian, poor, wealthy, Latina, lesbian, mothers, married, single, man, woman, Christian, artist, philosopher, atheist, young, old... we are people from all walks of life. We are aware of the oppression, repression and suppression of women and seek to change it.

Where feminists often differ is in theory and approach. There are a wide range of theories and explanations for women's oppression, suppression and repression under patriarchy, and a variety of prescribed actions to remedy these conditions. Different people bring different perspectives to the table. A chicana lesbian from Brooklyn with a degree in Women's Studies will have a somewhat different perspective from a white married woman from the rural Midwest and a technical degree from a community college. Both have valid perspectives and meaningful life experiences, but very different ones. Feminists differ on which linked oppressions, other than sexism-if any-they focus on in their views and activism. This includes racism, classism, homophobia, environmental oppression, and more. Feminists tend to be humanitarian and broad in their desire to end oppression on all levels. Many feminists are involved in efforts for world peace, environmental sustainability, children's rights, and animal welfare.

Not all feminists make feminist choices at all times. Sometimes we fall prey to internalized oppression or peer pressure or are confused by sexist traditions masquerading as tradition. Sometimes we are selfish. But our overall intent and sum of our actions is that of acknowledging sexism/patriarchy and seeking to end it. As we examine our country's leaders--what they stand for, the actions they have taken, etc.--let's remember that a vagina does not a feminist make. Do they 1. acknowledge sexism and patriarchy at work in our society and 2. take actions to correct the problem? Are they in it for themselves, or are they in it for all of us? Are they protecting and supporting the rights of women of all classes, races, cultures, and beliefs, or are they (if they are women) just seeking to achieve the power and status typically held by men? (Last sentence added 9/12.)