Archive for Feminism

A little more about Juno

Apparently, Juno is all controversial. It’s unkind to people who were adopted as well as to birth mothers to create a comedy about adoption. There’s a lot of discussion about whether Juno is anti-choice.

Shut! Up!

This is where I part ways with many feminists and other activists; where they start criticizing or trying to restrict art based on content. It’s not better to object to a movie based on its supposed anti-choice values than it is to object to a movie based on its supposed liberal values. It all feels like Social Realism thinking to me. I get that a birth mother might not want to see Juno, and might find it painful. And I sympathize. But that doesn’t mean that the subject matter should be off-limits. There are definitely things I never want to see in movies, and movies I avoid as a result. Comedies that everyone loves that I’ve never seen because they feel like they would trigger some serious pain for me.

But that doesn’t mean those comedies shouldn’t be made, nor that they are “not funny” by some objective standard. There is no objectivity with humor.

The more touchy the subject, the harder to do it right. One of my problems with Waitress, which was basically very charming, was the attempt to have a humorous abusive husband. This wasn’t triggering for me; I’ve never been the victim of domestic violence, but it made me uncomfortable.

I didn’t come away from that movie thinking this subject should never be addressed in a comedy. I came away thinking that maybe it can’t be done well, and this movie definitely didn’t do it well. But who knows? If beautifully written and acted, maybe it could illuminate the characters without feeling way out of line. Maybe.

If so, some people will choose to skip that movie anyway, because it hurts too much, and it’s not funny for them. I get that. I just don’t feel like it should be censored in advance, and I don’t feel that people who do find it funny should be accused of being less enlightened or feminist or socially responsible than thou.

Blog for Choice: What Do We Choose?

Blog for Choice Day

Here’s a thing about “Blog for Choice:” It’s really important to ask what the choice is. What is being chosen?

I’m finally coming to terms with the notion that I’m aging. Like, getting older. Like, I had to see my gynecologist about perimenopause, because I was having some difficulties. The doctor ended up prescribing the Pill. And I said to him, “You know, I’m not going to be getting any of the ancillary benefits out of this thing. I’m not fertile.”

And he said, “There are so many benefits to the Pill, if it wasn’t birth control, everyone would take it.” (He probably didn’t mean everyone. He probably didn’t mean men. Or children. Or, I dunno, pregnant women.)

I’ve been thinking about that a lot, and then Blog for Choice day came around, and it all tied together.

Why does the Pill being birth control prevent it from being used more widely for other things? Okay, in some cases, it’s because someone is trying to get pregnant, but I’m sure that’s not what my doctor meant. It seems to me that it’s because there’s a stigma on birth control.

You would think that anti-abortion activists would be interested in doing the one thing that is statistically proven to reduce the number of abortions: Prevent unwanted pregnancy. And in doing the one thing that prevents unwanted pregnancy: Provide access to birth control and accurate information about preventing pregnancy. But in fact, anti-abortion activists repeatedly oppose these things. They spread misinformation about birth control, claim that Plan B is an abortifacient rather than birth control, promote abstinence-only education which has been repeatedly proven to be a failure, refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and in other ways prevent access to it…in fact, go out of their way to promote unwanted pregnancies, thereby ensuring the demand for abortion cannot decrease.

This is because these activists are not anti-abortion. They are anti-choice. And the choice they are against is sex. Specifically, women choosing to be sexual. They are anti-female-sexual-choice.

I don’t think the anti-choice movement can ever show its hand in a more horrifying way than in its opposition to the HPV vaccine. Folks, they’re against preventing cancer. Think of that the next time you hear the phrase “pro-life.” Because, you know, the only way to get HPV is to have sex, and we musn’t prevent people from dying of sex!

Anti-choice-to-have-sex. Anti-female-choice-to-have-sex.

Slut shaming. Abstinence-only “education.” Lying about Plan B. Anti-abortion propaganda. It all ties together. It’s all about preventing women from choosing sex.

The Pill can help regulate perimenopausal changes. It can help with menorrhagia and dysfunctional uterine bleeding. It can help clear up adolescent acne. But access to the Pill for these things is problematic because the pill allows women to choose sex.

Beware the word “consequences” in this context. They want to say that the pill allows “sex without consequences,” but what they mean is “sex without punishment.” They want abortion to be inaccessible and HPV vaccines to be off the table, because unwanted pregnancy and cancer are just desserts for sluts who choose to get laid.

It’s so important to remember this. It’s so important to remember that only pro-choice candidates are actually interested in doing things that prevent abortion: Provide real access to preventing unwanted pregnancy through education and birth control.

Monday Movie Review: Two Movies About Women

This week, I saw two movies that satisfy Bechdel’s Rule. It is remarkable to see women who seem real in the movies, and then again remarkable that it is so remarkable, if you know what I mean. The movies are a true-life drama (A Mighty Heart) and a ditzy, sexy romantic comedy (The Truth About Cats & Dogs). They share a deep feminist sensibility without ever doing that “I’m talking about feminism” thing (see: Something’s Gotta Give).

A Mighty Heart (2007) 8/10
When Daniel Pearl (Dan Futterman) is kidnapped in Pakistan, his wife Marianne (Angelina Jolie) and his colleague Asra Nomani (Archie Panjabi) work with the authorities to try to find and rescue him.

Asra Nomani has written that she is unhappy with the way A Mighty Heart is not about Danny Pearl; she felt betrayed by that. But the movie feels to me like it isn’t meant to be about Danny, who is, after all, off-stage for the drama being shown. Indeed, his story might be told, and told beautifully, but this is a different story.

I struggled with the chaos of the movie; a legitimate portrayal of what it felt like to be in that situation, or needlessly chaotic film techniques?

But in the center of the chaos are two remarkable women, and as I watched, I was struck by how not-movie these women were; they seemed like women I might know. They were smart, thoughtful, aggressive, angry, needy, analytical, focused, and compassionate. They were simply human. They were never “the women” cast in a movie to add a little color and costume and tits. There was nothing cliché about them. This was particularly striking for Marianne Pearl, who was never reduced to “the wife,” or “the pregnant wife,” and with that growing belly, that had to be a challenge to the filmmakers. Because yes, she was a pregnant wife, but also a journalist and, well, a human being.

And again, I reflected that this shouldn’t be so striking. That human women shouldn’t be such an oddity.

The Truth About Cats and Dogs (1996) 8/10
Dr. Abby Barnes (Janeane Garofalo) is a veterinarian with a pet advice radio show. When an attractive caller (Ben Chaplin) wants to meet her, she convinces him that she looks like her gorgeous neighbor Noelle (Uma Thurman). Complications ensue.

People kept telling me to see this movie, but the identity-switch plot made me cringe. I finally broke down, and yeah, there’s a couple of cringes, but it’s somehow nothing like the description sounds. First, because the self-consciousness of the cringey switch is a reflection of Abby’s own self-consciousness. Second, because there’s a crucial scene on the phone between Abby and Brian (Chaplin) that is so warm and lovely that it legitimizes the ensuing shenanigans, and finally, because the friendship that develops between Noelle and Abby as they weave their ridiculous lies is lovely and rare.

Seriously. Two women thrown together. Attracted to the same man. And…choosing friendship as a priority? Did you see that coming? And not necessarily, y’know, being martyrs, but recognizing the value of it. Considering it. Exactly as if they were human.

Because they are. Human women. In a script, get this, written by a woman. That includes female masturbation (and someday soon I’m writing a whole post on that subject).

Seeing these movies made me a little sadder about movies in general, because I shouldn’t be writing this post. It shouldn’t be, hey I saw movies in which women were actually friends. And human. And thoughtful. Two of them! Made only eleven years apart!

Monday Movie Review: The Namesake

The Namesake (2006) 6/10
Ashoke Ganguli (Irfan Khan), a Bengali professor living in New York, marries Ashima (Tabu) and brings her to the United States in 1974. Their American-born son Gogol (Kal Penn) struggles between his family’s traditionalism and his desire to assimilate. Directed by Mira Nair.

The Namesake is a movie struggling to find itself. Although I haven’t read the novel, and so have no idea how close it is to its source, it feels like a movie trying to slavishly follow a novel’s plot and pacing. It has a novels way of rising and falling around events, without a clear flow of character or narrative arc. I wanted to take it apart, shake off the loose pieces, and put it back together with a more sound structure. Almost everything about the movie is appealing except its inability to tell a story.

This is the sort of movie I see all the time and don’t bother to write a full review of. (After all, most weeks I see two or three movies and only review one here.) But it has some very good qualities that are worth discussing. First, of course, is the modern immigrant experience; arriving not on Ellis Island but at JFK International Airport, treated symbolically (if clumsily) in the movie as a sort of waystation; each time the Ganguli family passes through JFK they pass between worlds; between states of being. Ashoke and Ashima are always aliens in their adopted country, their traditions don’t fit in. And looking at it, you can certainly see how most of our traditions didn’t fit in at one point, and how the first generation born here struggled with a foot in each world.

There’s a fascinating anti-feminist feminist component about The Namesake. I realize that sounds contradictory, so hang in there.

In the course of the movie, there are two women in Gogol’s life. They are incredibly poorly-written characters, stereotypes of Evil Feminists or Evil Modernism or something else Evil and Female. Their evils are variously independence, informality, premarital sex, wearing short skirts, and disrespecting tradition. The feeling at the end of the movie, when the family comes to a particular sort of resolution but the Evil Women are cast aside, is of misogyny.

Rethinking my position involves spoilers about the end. Continue at your own risk.

» Read more..

A board member of the NH Libertarian Party writes an open letter to Ron Paul

I am personally acquainted with this person, as are my parents. That’s how I found this.

Most of the letter is of interest chiefly to Libertarians, but one part of it struck me as worth repeating:

On the topic of the Constitutionality of abortion rights, I could cite a right to privacy, which I do believe in, as a Libertarian. I think the government needs to stay out of our homes, our bedrooms, and our doctor’s visits. Yet, you support government violating the most sacred of trusts, the most intimate of issues. One that should remain between a woman, her doctor, her partner and her conscience.

If privacy isn’t enough, the Constitution contains a second support of a woman’s right to choose. You see, the thirteenth amendment of our great Constitution is the amendment against slavery. In 1865 our Congress ratified an amendment that said that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

If a woman has not consented to sex, the possible result of that rape is, simply put, enslavement. However, a woman who consents to sex yet not to pregnancy, is still enslaved as long as she is involuntary bound to harbouring the body and developing life of something she did not consent to creating in the first place.

Her other objections are well-put and also may be of interest to more Left-leaning readers.  You can read the full letter here.

To prevent abortions, prevent unwanted pregnancy

This is really Amanda‘s hobby horse, but hello to being proven right. Here’s what greeted me when I turned on the computer this morning (emphasis added):

LONDON – Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe

“The legal status of abortion has never dissuaded women and couples, who, for whatever reason, seek to end pregnancy,” Beth Fredrick of the International Women’s Health Coalition in the U.S. said in an accompanying commentary.

Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.

“The continuing high incidence of unsafe abortion in developing countries represents a public health crisis and a human rights atrocity,” Fredrick wrote.

So, if you think that abortion itself is morally wrong, then obviously you want to prevent it, right? And legal obstacles don’t prevent abortion. So you’ll obviously want to work to make birth control accessible and affordable, right? And to inform women about it?

And if you’re pro-life, then the high rate of death from illegal abortion concerns you. Obviously. So keeping abortion safe and hygienic is vital, and keeping it legal helps ensure that.

This sounds like sarcasm, but as snide as my tone is, I’m not being sarcastic. It is absolutely true that if you want to prevent abortion and preserve life, then safe, legal abortion combined with safe, legal, accessible, inexpensive birth control is the way to make that happen. The fact that the “pro-life” (snort) movement doesn’t favor any of those things doesn’t mean it’s not true. It means they’re not pro-life. No matter what a “pro-life” person says, if they don’t support policies which are proven to reduce abortion rates and preserve the lives of women, then they have a different agenda.

I understand they are changing their name to the “Punish Slutty Women” movement. Okay, that was sarcasm.

Gay rights are religious rights

Today is National Coming Out Day. Last year, I wrote about gay rights as relational rights. This year, I’d like to talk about how gay rights are religious rights.

Gay rights, yes, are civil rights, and are amply justified in the Constitution under “equal protection,” not to mention “pursuit of happiness.” But we tend to bury the fact that religious liberty is also at stake.

The entire notion that there’s something wrong with being gay, something unacceptable, is a religious one. It’s based in the Bible or the Koran or some other bookish thingy. So why should those who do not follow those books be bound by their laws?

There is lots of room for gay people, and indeed for gay marriage, in most Pagan religions. As a Wiccan Priestess, I would be happy to perform a handfasting (marriage) ceremony for a gay couple. But while I can perform such a ceremony for a straight couple and have it legally recognized, the same-sex handfasting cannot be recognized. Since they are equal in the eyes of my religion, isn’t that State interference with religion?

You’ll see them say it. You’ll see them say marriage is “sacred.” If it’s sacred, it belongs to religion and religion alone; keep the State out of it. If it’s not sacred, if it’s civil, then everyone should have an equal shot at it.

Preventative lunch

They have this website where you can put money into an account and your kid can use it towards school lunch. And Arthur wanted me to sign up. And I said “I want you packing your own lunch.” And he said “I will, this is just in case.”

And I opened my mouth to say something and then stopped, and he said “What?” And I said “I was about to say that I didn’t want to put money in this, because it might encourage you to blow off packing lunch. But that’s kind of like not giving kids condoms because it might encourage them to have promiscuous sex, right?”

“Right.”

So I set up Arthur’s account.

But it got me thinking about the no-condoms, no-sex ed, no-HPV vaccine crowd. When you’re a parent, you grow a lot of “no” under your skin. You say it a lot. You want to say it a lot, because pretty quickly you learn how much there is that needs restricting, and how enormous a child’s capacity for stupid is. And yes, you want to say “yes” a lot too. But I want to acknowledge the tightness in the heart, the “I can’t allow that” feeling. Which is sometimes protective, and sometimes (as in the case of lunch money) “Don’t fuck with me, kid.”

What we parents struggle with is the knowledge that kids won’t always listen to “no,” and won’t always do what they’re told, and will sometimes make mistakes, and will sometimes get in trouble that is in no way their own fault. These are all truths that a parent might suffer over, but once we acknowledge these truths, we can move on to the understanding that we want to protect our kids anyway.

Internet makes nice girls have sex

I picked up a newspaper to read over lunch, and I come across this on the front page:

Mom’s sleuthing snares sex suspect

Investigators credit a cyber-savvy Ramsey mom with helping nab a 42-year-old Pennsylvania man who they said had sex with her 15-year-old daughter after they met on a social networking site.

The entire article is like a confluence of social anxieties, being equal parts sexism, slut-shaming, and fear of technology.

“It’s a complete shock,” said the woman…, “She hasn’t dated much. She doesn’t wear makeup. She’s not one of these ‘hot’ kids, strutting all over the place.

“It shows how scary the Internet can be.”

That’s right. There are sluts who wear makeup, and nice girls who don’t date (much), but Teh Scary Internets can make nice girls have consensual sex.

As you read the article, outlining how the 15 year-old girl met the 42 year-old man for sex at a hotel twice, you come to understand that this girl was definitely making a choice. Now, the man is clearly a sick motherfucker, but the girl? Chose to have sex. Despite the fact that she doesn’t wear makeup.

Her mother is clearly confused. Only painted strumpets have sex. Therefore, some other explanation for her daughter’s abberation must be sought, and fortunately, it’s right there on the desk: The computer. The computer made her do it! If it weren’t for “social networking sites” her daughter would still be a virgin—because that’s exactly the truth about unpainted girls in the pre-Internet days. They were all virgins. And still are.

Inside [the suspect’s] truck [the police] found a laptop with broadband access and a global positioning device that Maloney used to guide him on the more than 100-mile trip from his Pennsylvania home, said Joseph Macellaro, acting chief of detectives for the Prosecutor’s Office.

“This was a pretty determined individual,” Macellaro said. “Obviously, this person is somebody who would be considered dangerous.”

OHNOEZ! Only determined perverts have laptops! And GPS units!

Sgt. Andrew Donofrio, who heads the prosecutor’s Computer Crimes Unit, said credit is due to such mothers – however nosy – who relentlessly investigate potential indecencies on their children’s computers.

“She took a proactive step,” Donofrio said.

The mother said it simply seemed the right thing to do.

“I guess all the warnings that you read about as a parent are true — that you do have to monitor them non-stop,” she said.

I’m tempted to just leave this part without comment. Because obviously, non-stop monitoring helped so much here. I mean, yes, it stopped this pervert. And one less free-roaming pervert, yay. But in what way is that parenting? The girl isn’t even in the equation, is she? Non-stop spying monitoring isn’t helping this girl make good choices, or even working towards understanding what choices she actually made.

The mother also took the computer away. So now I suppose the girl will have to wear makeup.

Monday Movie Review: Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (1965) 7/10
Three women embark on a haphazard crime spree after killing a young man and taking his girlfriend prisoner. Directed by Russ Meyer.

I saw this movie several weeks ago, but I have to say, I’m at a loss as to how to review it. Certainly the rating is a shot in the dark, because it’s impossible to choose a standard by which to judge. The acting is sometimes so bad that I burst out laughing. On the other hand, the movie is suffused with a raw vitality that is thrilling to watch. As Varla, Tura Satana is bursting at the seams; literally, in her painted-on clothes, and figuratively, too bombastic an actress, but also too angry, to hyper-energized a character. She is utterly evil, but also fully alive; a kind of oversexed, murderous, Übermensch. Her only motivations seem to be to keep moving, keep fighting, keep grabbing, keep controlling, and keep fucking. Her companions are not happy when she turns them into a gang of killers; Rosie (Haji) is interested only in her lover Varla, while Billie (Lori Williams) wants to fuck, get drunk, fuck, party, fuck, dance, and fuck.

So these characters are repulsive and yet compelling, and their opposition, a vile old man and his two passive sons, are never given the opportunity to gain our sympathy. Ultimately, Arthur and I found we were rooting for the “pussycats” despite ourselves, even with (or especially with) the annoyingly innocent Gidget-esque Linda (Susan Bernard) as their victim.

Arthur had this idea when we sat down to watch it that this would be a great movie to blog, kind of figuring with the title and the theme I could really sink my feminist chops into it. But that didn’t turn out to be the case. You could twist yourself into a pretzel arguing that the pussycats are empowered, or that they’re exploited. Clearly their cleavage is exploited. But if this movie has a theme, it is (on the positive side) vitality and life force, and (on the negative side) power and the abuse of power. As vital women, the pussycats are sexual and sexualized, but because they are all tall and busty and forceful, they don’t seem objectified. Their gaze is direct and outward, not meek and askance, and their presence dominates the scene and the screen. They keep thrusting themselves forward and taking the lead in every experience. And it is definitely true that Meyers is interested in making sure this is “symbolized” shall we say, by their enormous breasts in tight outfits and all that. But these women have both agency and power, especially Varla, who is excited by abusing her power.

The most stereotypical woman is Rosie, who is going along with a lover who pushes her into situations with which she is unhappy. She is basically silent in the face of abuse and disloyalty; a lesbian battered partner. Her presence seems mostly designed to point to Varla’s negativity; lest we enjoy her wildness too much, we are reminded that her own lover in her own gang is hurt by it.

I was surprised how much I enjoyed this, not just for its camp value, but for the waves of imagery and energy, the cleanly-constructed story, and the smart use of low budget to make minimalistic sets and locations really count.