This story is already almost a week old and it didn't have the staying power that other issues of sexual violence being perpetrated by athletes usually has; I'm thinking of Steubenville, Ray Rice, and so on. I am not at all surprised by this, however, as Canada is still trying to navigate systemic normalized violence and doing this when the perpetrator is of a certain kind of fame. Moreover, when the offenders happen to be involved in hockey that falls within the stream that sends players to the NHL, people are even less likely to stick with the situations or take a stance that doesn't involve victim blaming.
I found this particular article to be interesting and indicative of how much of society still isn't ready to have greater conversations about sexualized violence and really grasp the fact that the source for this violence is much more complex than they might think. This article is a perfect example of how the social minds in Canada are trying to reconcile the idea that sexualized violence is bad with the idea that offenders don't fit a "typical" mold.
When I employ the term "typical" here in reference to perceptions of who an offender might be I am referring to the notion of offenders who commit instances of sexualized violence being: older, mentally ill, unkempt or otherwise visually unappealing, preferring to jump from the shadows or bushes, attacking random women, and so on. The list here is not comprehensive and it is not all of these specific things all at once, more a combination of a few of these traits that comprises what people expect an offender to hold. Part of the desire to do this falls into a "keeping myself safe" mentality wherein if I can convince myself that offenders are easily identifiable then I can be on the lookout for them and, as a result, avoid experiencing sexualized violence.
The reality, unfortunately, is much less pleasant.
While there are certainly instances of sexualized violence occurring in situations where the offender is not known to the victim/survivor, the numbers coming from reported instances tell us that offenders are much more likely to be people we know and the sexualized violence is more likely to occur in spaces where we might feel safe (homes, schools, dorms, etc). Considering how unpleasant it is to sit with this fact I can hardly fault people for turning to methods or mindsets that help them feel safer without actually making them safer.
The young men that committed the acts of sexualized violence covered in this article are everything put the "monster" society has taught us to expect in situations like this. Hockey is a celebrated sport and past-time within Canadian culture to the point where many families build lives around the sport; playing professionally, raising their children in the sport, and so on. Fandom around professional teams also plays a significant role in Canadian culture as it plays out from things like defining friendships to being the justification for riots after a major loss.
The players themselves, often coming from places of social or financial privilege, gain a special social status within our culture for their abilities and this is not to say that the players don't sacrifice when it comes to pursuing the dream of a professional career. However, one cannot ignore the red flags of creating a special social status within Canadian Culture for people that are already accustomed to higher levels of privilege. Male privilege sets up men to develop a strong, harmful sense of entitlement when it comes to how they view other people. It is also important to point out that while they hold many different privileges, people who are not part of the "hockey community" fall outside of their scope in terms of who is valuable. Once again, this makes a lot of sense as they devote a major portion of their lives to the sport which does reduce one's scope anyway.
When you consider a few of these facts: (1) That people are not willing to accept that offenders who commit sexualized violence can be people we know and trust, (2) Society creates special privileges for Hockey players, (3) Male hockey players get a double helping of privilege and entitlement, and that (4) women are seen as sex objects that bestow sex on men, you can begin to see some red flags popping up.
For this article, we can see a few things playing out.
First, there's the hesitancy to want to get to the real issue for these players and so the subject matter experts turn to a familiar theme: young boys growing up away from their family. While this certainly plays a part in why these young men decided to commit sexualized violence it would be naive to think this was the be-all reason for their behavior. Many offenders grow up in stable families, which, again, goes against the myth that sexualized violence offenders can be easily identified in that offenders had some kind of troubled family life. In fact, rigid adherence to the gender binary and the subsequent gender roles that come from the binary are more likely to be a factor when it comes to people gaining a sense of entitlement around sex. Even in cases where one or more of the parents are not present or involved I would look to this being even more relevant; again, if I don't have a parent around me as I grow up I'm going to learn about that absent parent from other sources or I'm going to learn about my gender roles from society.
Another aspect emerging from this article is the cognitive dissonance between a league that "has policies in place" and the fact that this kind of thing keeps coming up. A major flaw in how we view sexualized violence revolves around a lack of knowledge when it comes to understanding the connection to, what we see as, every day behaviors and the legal definition of sexual assault. Most people, when asked directly, would say that sexual harassment and sexual assault is wrong; however, the same people probably couldn't identify incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault beyond very obvious, often sensationalized, incidents; I'm thinking specifically of the stranger assaults mass media usually runs with or the way in which sexualized violence is portrayed in popular media (Crime Dramas, Movies, etc). So, on one hand, people understand and agree that sexualized violence is wrong but, on the other, there is a lack of understanding when it comes to recognizing it in their daily lives. Moreover, many behaviors that would fall under the umbrella of sexualized violence have become so normalized we no longer really identify them; behavior that gets people to bring the "boys will be boys" sentiment into discussion is the kind of behavior I'm talking about.
And, finally, the way in which the Hockey Community "keeps things in the family," so-to-speak, is also very apparent in this article; the subject matter expert clearly states that when she did attempt a study, she was blocked from getting relevant data by the teams. It's hard to trust that a league is actually doing something to combat the issue of entitlement and sexualized violence when they don't allow for proper studies/investigations to be conducted that could identify ways to change the culture. There is a problem, but until the community itself is willing to recognize that they're not going to be able to solve it themselves we're not going to see a change. More importantly, until they realize that they are partially to blame for this kind of behavior we're not going to be able to implement policies and programs to make a difference.
To be clear, I'm not saying that people within the Hockey Community are of ill intent, maliciously resisting a culture change; however, by not being willing to ask the tough questions they are allowing sexualized violence to continue within their own community. One need only look at how many people we're involved in covering up Sandusky's child sexual abuse or the sexual assault that was committed by the two football players in Steubenville. In both cases, sexualized violence was allowed to continue, covered up, and a culture of victim blaming was encouraged; all to protect people that the community thought "couldn't do such a horrible thing because they were good people" and didn't fit the stereotype of a sexualized violence offender.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Power & Control
When this crime made it's way around the world a few years ago I had trouble processing the level of violence. Now, one of the offenders is being interviewed about that event and I am once again struck speechless as a different level of violence is being directed at the victim of the crime.
Make no mistake, victim blaming is an additional act of violence.
Advocates working to end violence against women often talk about sexual violence as not being about sex or desire, rather the crime comes out of the realm of a need for power and control as well as a sense of entitlement brought about by unearned social privilege. To commit the initial crime the men, in this case, would need to already have significantly harmful views of women, have justifications already formed in their minds, and only needed one additional factor to finally choose to commit such a violent crime. As it states in the interview these men believed their actions were justified because, in their view, she was violating a social norm being out past a time they, and society, had set for women to be home by.
The recently released interview further elaborates on how these men view their own actions, the views they have of women, and that they do not feel any degree of remorse for the violent crime that they committed.
"A decent girl won't roam around at nine o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy" - An attitude and/or belief about women.
"Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes. About 20% of girls are good." - Another example of their attitudes and beliefs regarding women.
"had a right to teach them a lesson" - A justification.
"She was beggar girl. Her life was of no value." - A justification.
Attitudes and beliefs informing justifications, which are then used to inform the actions or behaviors.
It is important to point out that these kinds of attitudes and beliefs do not just manifest randomly and it is even more important to point out that the attitudes and beliefs that became justifications for actions are common in every community. He very clearly draws a line between notions of "traditional" gender roles and the justifications he and the other men made for their actions. Not every person out there who is invested in "traditional" gender roles is on the path to commit acts of sexual violence; however, it is important to point out that had these men been raised differently they might have not done what they did.
There is a similar parallel in all sexual violence cases: attitudes and beliefs informing justifications, which guide action. Harmful views about women and gender roles established early on, reinforced in various ways as men and women grow up, and, if left unchallenged, can become justifications for actions later in life. This why we need to challenge unassuming aspects of rape culture; narratives like "boys will be boys," pieces of media that normalize violence against women, aspects of culture that enforce traditional gender roles, and so on.
I'm sorry to end on a note that isn't exactly positive, but I don't think it would be appropriate. In this case to sanitize the message avoids the issue. We have a problem in our society, we cannot dismiss it as a "one-off" random event. We need to face it head on.
Sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31698154
http://jezebel.com/delhi-bus-gang-rapist-mukesh-singh-blames-victim-for-fi-1688870998
Make no mistake, victim blaming is an additional act of violence.
Advocates working to end violence against women often talk about sexual violence as not being about sex or desire, rather the crime comes out of the realm of a need for power and control as well as a sense of entitlement brought about by unearned social privilege. To commit the initial crime the men, in this case, would need to already have significantly harmful views of women, have justifications already formed in their minds, and only needed one additional factor to finally choose to commit such a violent crime. As it states in the interview these men believed their actions were justified because, in their view, she was violating a social norm being out past a time they, and society, had set for women to be home by.
The recently released interview further elaborates on how these men view their own actions, the views they have of women, and that they do not feel any degree of remorse for the violent crime that they committed.
"A decent girl won't roam around at nine o'clock at night. A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy" - An attitude and/or belief about women.
"Housework and housekeeping is for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night doing wrong things, wearing wrong clothes. About 20% of girls are good." - Another example of their attitudes and beliefs regarding women.
"had a right to teach them a lesson" - A justification.
"She was beggar girl. Her life was of no value." - A justification.
Attitudes and beliefs informing justifications, which are then used to inform the actions or behaviors.
It is important to point out that these kinds of attitudes and beliefs do not just manifest randomly and it is even more important to point out that the attitudes and beliefs that became justifications for actions are common in every community. He very clearly draws a line between notions of "traditional" gender roles and the justifications he and the other men made for their actions. Not every person out there who is invested in "traditional" gender roles is on the path to commit acts of sexual violence; however, it is important to point out that had these men been raised differently they might have not done what they did.
There is a similar parallel in all sexual violence cases: attitudes and beliefs informing justifications, which guide action. Harmful views about women and gender roles established early on, reinforced in various ways as men and women grow up, and, if left unchallenged, can become justifications for actions later in life. This why we need to challenge unassuming aspects of rape culture; narratives like "boys will be boys," pieces of media that normalize violence against women, aspects of culture that enforce traditional gender roles, and so on.
I'm sorry to end on a note that isn't exactly positive, but I don't think it would be appropriate. In this case to sanitize the message avoids the issue. We have a problem in our society, we cannot dismiss it as a "one-off" random event. We need to face it head on.
Sources:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31698154
http://jezebel.com/delhi-bus-gang-rapist-mukesh-singh-blames-victim-for-fi-1688870998
Monday, March 2, 2015
Why this blog?
head things tend to get a little stale up in there. Ideas are important and it is good to get them down in more tangible forms to look back on or to share with others. I'm not sure what direction this blog is going to take but for now I'll be using it as a container for the various things that I get around to putting down on paper (so to speak).
I've brought over a few posts from a former blog to give whomever reads this a glimpse as to the kinds of things I talk about. The previous medium didn't really lend itself to long text posts and I kind of felt it was important to be a bit more deliberate with my writing. The other benefit of having a more appropriate venue for my writing is that I'll get some of this out my system so I stop writing essays into comment sections on various other social media...hopefully...
So, what else?
Do feel free to comment and/or ask questions. However, if you're of a particular group of people and feel an impulse to send "facts" about things "I might not have noticed before" so that I'll be able to "take the red pill and open my eyes" please don't bother. I've encountered that kind of "help" before and I am not at all interested.
I think that's all for now.
I've brought over a few posts from a former blog to give whomever reads this a glimpse as to the kinds of things I talk about. The previous medium didn't really lend itself to long text posts and I kind of felt it was important to be a bit more deliberate with my writing. The other benefit of having a more appropriate venue for my writing is that I'll get some of this out my system so I stop writing essays into comment sections on various other social media...hopefully...
So, what else?
Do feel free to comment and/or ask questions. However, if you're of a particular group of people and feel an impulse to send "facts" about things "I might not have noticed before" so that I'll be able to "take the red pill and open my eyes" please don't bother. I've encountered that kind of "help" before and I am not at all interested.
I think that's all for now.
Single Issue Politics
As the country in which I live gradually slides down a slope of
increasingly problematic systemic oppression, I can’t help but feel a
growing bitterness towards the democratic process and the current state
of it in this country.
With the recent passing of Bill C-36, the Canadian Government (aka The Harper Government, no narcissism there *eyeroll*) clearly stated to the entire country that the lives and safety of Sex Workers were not worth protecting. While the bill was presented as something that only criminalizes the people seeking the service Sex Workers provide, the reality is that it makes it impossible to conduct Sex Work in a safe manner. Sex Workers and their advocates repeatedly stated that the bill will create unsafe working conditions and constantly advocated for decriminalization, which would have given Sex Workers much more control over their own lives.
With that issue “settled” as far as the current government is concerned we are now seeing the rise of a new, equally oppressive bill just in time for a new election season. This new bill, being marketed as an “anti-terror” bill, seeks to provide government security forces with unprecedented latitude when it comes to “preemptively silencing terrorist acts.” However, initial details released about the bill are terrifyingly vague as to what qualifies as a “terrorist” act and horrifyingly versatile when it comes to which groups this bill could be applied to. Under this new legislation, any group could easily be labeled as engaging in terrorist acts where peaceful protests and merely disagreeing with the government are the acts that will be used as evidence. It as, in fact, already been applied before the bill has even been approved.
Now, as we approach election season, the media and politician’s respective propaganda machines are firing up and anointing Bill C-51 as this elections “hot issue.”
While I am moderately encouraged that at least one party is opposing the bill I am not at all enthused as to where I see us heading. Bill C-51 will be the major deciding factor in this years election, whomever can convince the largest demographic that their position is right can take a significant number of votes. This will happen because the media is already telling us that this is the most important issue for this coming election. The depressing upshot of this change in the winds means that other desperate social issues will take a back seat in the politicians platforms and in the public’s mind.
This will happen because we have a capitalistic democracy that sees the people they serve as demographics and works to secure the largest demographic with the best marketing campaign. An “Anti-Terror Bill” is as enticing as it is banal which acts as the perfect issue to guide how an election rolls out; it is something can always be used as a trump card for other issues because one can simply ask “don’t you care about the security of this country?” or “so you side with the terrorists then?” It is, and will be, presented as a black and white issue whereby politicians cannot ignore addressing it.
Other issues will fall to the wayside because the subtle evil of a banal label of “Anti-Terror” appeals to the privileged majority who have not had to consider the suffering and oppression of others. The need for an “Anti-Terror” bill is a completely manufactured fear that plays on the completely normal desire to remain unafraid, content, and comfortable that the privileged masses have become accustomed too. They have not been made aware of other social issues and, when pressed, have deliberately remained ignorant and uninterested. In addition to the apparent threat to privilege “terrorism” poses, this bill will also play on the latent racism, classism, and general bigotry that is lingering, just under the surface of the privileged masses. The white, affluent masses have been trained and conditioned to fear people who are not like them, so any opportunity to embrace that fear is one that they take with great enthusiasm; one need only look at the response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting as evidence of this impulse.
I cannot help but see our current state of democracy as broken and until there is a radical shift in the public’s view and understanding of what a democratic government is supposed to look like, I do not see a change coming.
With the recent passing of Bill C-36, the Canadian Government (aka The Harper Government, no narcissism there *eyeroll*) clearly stated to the entire country that the lives and safety of Sex Workers were not worth protecting. While the bill was presented as something that only criminalizes the people seeking the service Sex Workers provide, the reality is that it makes it impossible to conduct Sex Work in a safe manner. Sex Workers and their advocates repeatedly stated that the bill will create unsafe working conditions and constantly advocated for decriminalization, which would have given Sex Workers much more control over their own lives.
With that issue “settled” as far as the current government is concerned we are now seeing the rise of a new, equally oppressive bill just in time for a new election season. This new bill, being marketed as an “anti-terror” bill, seeks to provide government security forces with unprecedented latitude when it comes to “preemptively silencing terrorist acts.” However, initial details released about the bill are terrifyingly vague as to what qualifies as a “terrorist” act and horrifyingly versatile when it comes to which groups this bill could be applied to. Under this new legislation, any group could easily be labeled as engaging in terrorist acts where peaceful protests and merely disagreeing with the government are the acts that will be used as evidence. It as, in fact, already been applied before the bill has even been approved.
Now, as we approach election season, the media and politician’s respective propaganda machines are firing up and anointing Bill C-51 as this elections “hot issue.”
While I am moderately encouraged that at least one party is opposing the bill I am not at all enthused as to where I see us heading. Bill C-51 will be the major deciding factor in this years election, whomever can convince the largest demographic that their position is right can take a significant number of votes. This will happen because the media is already telling us that this is the most important issue for this coming election. The depressing upshot of this change in the winds means that other desperate social issues will take a back seat in the politicians platforms and in the public’s mind.
This will happen because we have a capitalistic democracy that sees the people they serve as demographics and works to secure the largest demographic with the best marketing campaign. An “Anti-Terror Bill” is as enticing as it is banal which acts as the perfect issue to guide how an election rolls out; it is something can always be used as a trump card for other issues because one can simply ask “don’t you care about the security of this country?” or “so you side with the terrorists then?” It is, and will be, presented as a black and white issue whereby politicians cannot ignore addressing it.
Other issues will fall to the wayside because the subtle evil of a banal label of “Anti-Terror” appeals to the privileged majority who have not had to consider the suffering and oppression of others. The need for an “Anti-Terror” bill is a completely manufactured fear that plays on the completely normal desire to remain unafraid, content, and comfortable that the privileged masses have become accustomed too. They have not been made aware of other social issues and, when pressed, have deliberately remained ignorant and uninterested. In addition to the apparent threat to privilege “terrorism” poses, this bill will also play on the latent racism, classism, and general bigotry that is lingering, just under the surface of the privileged masses. The white, affluent masses have been trained and conditioned to fear people who are not like them, so any opportunity to embrace that fear is one that they take with great enthusiasm; one need only look at the response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting as evidence of this impulse.
I cannot help but see our current state of democracy as broken and until there is a radical shift in the public’s view and understanding of what a democratic government is supposed to look like, I do not see a change coming.
Star Trek: Deep Space 9 - Far Beyond the Stars & Whitewashing
Captain Sisko: “What if this, all of this, is the illusion?”
Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”
I’m not sure Star Trek: Deep Space 9 ever really got the praise it should have considering it’s poignant social commentary that seemed to crop up periodically throughout the series. This time around I was watching the series having seen what went down in Ferguson as well as all the unfortunate events that dotted the timeline that was 2014. When it came to the end of the episode and the scene with Sisko and his father I couldn’t help but cry-laugh at the irony of the scene.
The episode involves Sisko being given visions of 1950s America and he experiences the world as Benny Russell, an African-American speculative fiction writer who must be absent on picture days because it would hurt the publication he wrote for if the public found out that he was a person of color. Taken as a standalone short film, critiqued in a vacuum, it is poignant all by itself, but when you consider the broader cultural context, current and historical contexts, and the nature of metafiction, this episode stands out as a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling.
The fact that Star Trek is fiction and they are lamenting the past or, rather, recognizing how terrifying it would be to live in a period of time when systemic racism was so prevalent really stands out because the time in which we live is not so far removed from the 1950s reality presented in this episode. Direct, overt, acts of racism like not showing up for staff photo day or rewriting your main character (as Benny isasked told to do) are not as
wide spread, but the systemic racism in pop culture is still just as
prevalent as it was in 1950s, it only manifests in much more subtle
ways. Consider the outrage that came out of white critics when
Quvenzhané Wallis was cast as Annie in the 2014 remake of the film of
the same name or the conservative nail-biting that popped up around the
holidays when an example of a black santa claus was brought up. What
about the panic
that was induced in white people when a rumor made it through the
internet that Idris Elba was being considered as the next actor to play
James Bond.
Meanwhile, Exodus: Gods and Kings is cast with principle characters all being Caucasian and the director of said film fervently defending his choice because he felt he couldn’t market a film that starred people of color. Avatar: the Last Airbender, a beloved show that featured, and was celebrated for, a multi-racial cast of characters was rereleased as a feature length film with Caucasian actors being cast in all the main roles. Finally, in recent weeks we’ve got word that Scarlett Johansson has signed on to star in a Hollywood version of Ghost in the Shell; a Japanese Anime/Manga that takes place in Japan, features a group of people who are all Japanese, and has critical political commentary on the United States (they are presented as the American Empire in the story).
Furthermore, you have to consider the fact that when it comes to POC telling their own stories they must be stories that match up to the current stereotypical views of POC; look no further than The Help and 12 Years a Slave. If POC are to tell their own stories they must do so in a way that does not make white people feel uncomfortable, guilty, or upset.
In each of the three examples of movies I’ve mentioned in this post there was a plethora of social commentary as fans of each story listed the various people of color that could have starred in each of the movies. The critiques also explored why whitewashing was so damaging to the people who enjoyed the source material as well as why representation is so important.
Again, the racism presented in “Far Beyond the Stars” doesn’t manifest so bluntly in our modern times, but it is no less present and no less harmful. Our only notions of a world without violence come from a fictional universe, this is how much work is ahead of us.
Captain Sisko: “What if this, all of this, is the illusion?”
Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”
It is the illusion, Captain, and it is a very scary thought Mr. Sisko.
Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”
I’m not sure Star Trek: Deep Space 9 ever really got the praise it should have considering it’s poignant social commentary that seemed to crop up periodically throughout the series. This time around I was watching the series having seen what went down in Ferguson as well as all the unfortunate events that dotted the timeline that was 2014. When it came to the end of the episode and the scene with Sisko and his father I couldn’t help but cry-laugh at the irony of the scene.
The episode involves Sisko being given visions of 1950s America and he experiences the world as Benny Russell, an African-American speculative fiction writer who must be absent on picture days because it would hurt the publication he wrote for if the public found out that he was a person of color. Taken as a standalone short film, critiqued in a vacuum, it is poignant all by itself, but when you consider the broader cultural context, current and historical contexts, and the nature of metafiction, this episode stands out as a fantastic piece of writing and storytelling.
The fact that Star Trek is fiction and they are lamenting the past or, rather, recognizing how terrifying it would be to live in a period of time when systemic racism was so prevalent really stands out because the time in which we live is not so far removed from the 1950s reality presented in this episode. Direct, overt, acts of racism like not showing up for staff photo day or rewriting your main character (as Benny is
Meanwhile, Exodus: Gods and Kings is cast with principle characters all being Caucasian and the director of said film fervently defending his choice because he felt he couldn’t market a film that starred people of color. Avatar: the Last Airbender, a beloved show that featured, and was celebrated for, a multi-racial cast of characters was rereleased as a feature length film with Caucasian actors being cast in all the main roles. Finally, in recent weeks we’ve got word that Scarlett Johansson has signed on to star in a Hollywood version of Ghost in the Shell; a Japanese Anime/Manga that takes place in Japan, features a group of people who are all Japanese, and has critical political commentary on the United States (they are presented as the American Empire in the story).
Furthermore, you have to consider the fact that when it comes to POC telling their own stories they must be stories that match up to the current stereotypical views of POC; look no further than The Help and 12 Years a Slave. If POC are to tell their own stories they must do so in a way that does not make white people feel uncomfortable, guilty, or upset.
In each of the three examples of movies I’ve mentioned in this post there was a plethora of social commentary as fans of each story listed the various people of color that could have starred in each of the movies. The critiques also explored why whitewashing was so damaging to the people who enjoyed the source material as well as why representation is so important.
Again, the racism presented in “Far Beyond the Stars” doesn’t manifest so bluntly in our modern times, but it is no less present and no less harmful. Our only notions of a world without violence come from a fictional universe, this is how much work is ahead of us.
Captain Sisko: “What if this, all of this, is the illusion?”
Mr. Sisko: “That’s a scary thought.”
It is the illusion, Captain, and it is a very scary thought Mr. Sisko.
Thoughts on Ghomeshi
(Edit: Wrote this several days ago)
Alright, I just have to get my bit in as this story is breaking and I’m already starting to see a bunch of victim blaming narratives develop, especially in the comment section of Jian Ghomeshi’s facebook post. While we don’t yet have all the information I would implore people to consider any survivors that might be involved in this particular story. Considering our current culture of putting survivors of sexual violence on trial, I would remind everyone that there is nothing to gain by disclosing instances of abuse apart from those in question beginning their own healing journeys.
I take issue with the story presented to us mainly because of the language used in said post because it raises several red flags for me. Narratives around “jilted ex-girlfriends” have been used, too often, as a justification and/or an excuse for abuse (something we see a lot with revenge porn and sharing of explicit photos) and as justification and/or an excuse for dismissal of claims. The narrative of “a campaign of vengeance” has also been used to dismiss legitimate feelings of survivors when it comes to having been violated. And finally, bringing in a novel such as “Fifty Shades of Grey” to defend one’s behavior is a very troubling decision as the book has been heavily criticized for it’s portrayal of the BDSM community and it’s contribution to the normalization and eroticization of sexual violence.
For those in the BDSM community, consent and communication regarding sex acts is paramount. Straying from agreed upon acts between consenting parties is a violation of the rules of consent. Continuing agreed upon sex acts when consent has been revoked is a violation of the rules of consent. Consent can be revoked and consent must be ongoing to be valid. The notion of “we agreed to do this” is not a defense when the other party revokes consent, for whatever reason.
Too often, society turns on the survivors, faster than normal, when there is a person of fame involved as it is less likely that people will believe they are capable of such a crime. The myth of the easily identifiable offender is too prevalent in society and it acts as a barrier to survivors recognizing that their own experience as sexual violence if their offender did not fit the socially accepted description of an offender. The greater the fame, the less likely it is that people will believe the survivor.
We lose nothing by supporting survivors in cases like this.
Alright, I just have to get my bit in as this story is breaking and I’m already starting to see a bunch of victim blaming narratives develop, especially in the comment section of Jian Ghomeshi’s facebook post. While we don’t yet have all the information I would implore people to consider any survivors that might be involved in this particular story. Considering our current culture of putting survivors of sexual violence on trial, I would remind everyone that there is nothing to gain by disclosing instances of abuse apart from those in question beginning their own healing journeys.
I take issue with the story presented to us mainly because of the language used in said post because it raises several red flags for me. Narratives around “jilted ex-girlfriends” have been used, too often, as a justification and/or an excuse for abuse (something we see a lot with revenge porn and sharing of explicit photos) and as justification and/or an excuse for dismissal of claims. The narrative of “a campaign of vengeance” has also been used to dismiss legitimate feelings of survivors when it comes to having been violated. And finally, bringing in a novel such as “Fifty Shades of Grey” to defend one’s behavior is a very troubling decision as the book has been heavily criticized for it’s portrayal of the BDSM community and it’s contribution to the normalization and eroticization of sexual violence.
For those in the BDSM community, consent and communication regarding sex acts is paramount. Straying from agreed upon acts between consenting parties is a violation of the rules of consent. Continuing agreed upon sex acts when consent has been revoked is a violation of the rules of consent. Consent can be revoked and consent must be ongoing to be valid. The notion of “we agreed to do this” is not a defense when the other party revokes consent, for whatever reason.
Too often, society turns on the survivors, faster than normal, when there is a person of fame involved as it is less likely that people will believe they are capable of such a crime. The myth of the easily identifiable offender is too prevalent in society and it acts as a barrier to survivors recognizing that their own experience as sexual violence if their offender did not fit the socially accepted description of an offender. The greater the fame, the less likely it is that people will believe the survivor.
We lose nothing by supporting survivors in cases like this.
Business Hours
So I watched Cosmopolis. Decent enough film.
Cronenberg films always sort of resonate me well beyond the viewing,
which I think is a indication of the skill at play. There was a portion
of it where the lead character is having a conversation with someone and
she’s talking about the commodification or tracking of time; dividing
it up into measurable portions so that we can assign meaning or measure
things with it. Since the movie revolves around the nature of business
and unimaginable wealth the conversation got me thinking about the whole
notion of “Business Hours” and how that’s a product of the capitalistic
structure of our society. The hours in question have been deemed
“valuable” because they are the hours within which money can, and
should, be made; a holdover from our days of working with the earth,
can’t harvest in darkness. This has long since become irrelevant as the
world has gradually become smaller and smaller; we have “Business Hours”
in our own little pockets of the world, but it’s the people with the
power that have found a way to manage the entirety of time and commodify
all of it.
I’ll get to the people in power in a bit.
For now, I’m thinking about the nature of marking part of our day as “Business Hours.” It interests me because that is the part of the day that we’ve assigned meaning to and it is because that is the time of the day that money can be made. Hours outside of this, also known as “off hours” or “free time,” is not valuable because money isn’t necessarily made and tracked during this time. Yes, we buy things after we’re done work (groceries, medicine, alcohol, “entertainment”) but it is not tracked until the following “Business day” where people are paid to categorize, measure, and log what money changed hands and with whom. During our “valuable” time we must contribute to some greater goal in some form or another, it can be in large ways or small ways but we must “make good use of our time” after all, we’re being paid for it. Money makes things worth while. Money makes meaning. Money is meaning. Thus is capitalism.
Then there’s the notion of ideals. We’re supposed to find work that fits with our ideals, work towards some greater purpose as our own individuals minds determine that purpose; my mind likes numbers and money so accounting would give me purpose, for instance. We seek jobs and financial validation for whatever it is that our mind and who we are has identified as “important.” It’s all no more or no less important, there’s no inherent ranking, but in a world driven by money the ideals that lead to the most money are the ideals that our society holds as a priority. Our ideals drive our work, work must happen during “Business Hours” to count, our hours are commodified so our ideals have been commodified. Our ideals have a price tag. Our ideals have a bottom line. Some people seek validation and in our society that validation comes from financial sources; the best product gets the most financial support and financial validation. Many people aren’t looking for this top level validation and those at the top are fine with this because what fun is it to have “the most” if there are no others who you can see that you have more than. Having said that I think that a lot of people would like to have “the most” or receive more validation than they’re currently receiving; however, to get that “top level” one needs political maneuverings and that requires a personality type that is rather rare. We may have the ability to move, but if this movement does not result in greater financial gain for someone that they are not movements that count towards anything. Most are left wanting.
But capitalism has an answer for this.
Funny enough, the answer for people that are left wanting is the very notion of wanting itself. The best way to get people to buy something is to make them think that they want it and to make them think that it’ll be a solution. Much of our suffering revolves around the notion that we feel incomplete and we feel incomplete because we haven’t spent enough time figuring out what it is exactly we need out of life. Capitalism tells us that we need movie tickets, a car, or the latest “Thing X” and gets us to buy into the cycle of wanting. This distracts us from the greater, and more messy, practice of self-exploration to discover our own needs; incidentally it is also much hard to market to a person searching for their own needs. Want is simple. Want is profitable. As long as people are wanting things they’ll be too distracted to figure out what it is that they are needing. We spend a great portion of our life time wanting and lusting after different things and we’re always certain that whatever it is that we want, it is going to be the thing that fixes us. We don’t know what’s broken because we haven’t spent time looking at what’s going on; I would posit that there’s nothing wrong with us in the first place, humans are beautifully and wonderfully complex. Capitalism needs problems it can sell solutions to, so it reframes beautiful and wonderful human complexity as a simple problem with a simple solution. Oh, and the solution comes in the color of your choice. To reflect your “individuality.” We’re all special, unique individuals buying the same lies one way or another.
I mean just think. I know I “need” money because it will allow me to buy the things I “need” and the things I “want.” I know I need food, for instance, so I know that I need a job. But I also know that having food is not enough, I am presented with so many examples of people who are much happier than I am because they have “Thing X” so I, in turn, begin to want “Thing X.” As the days go on and I am being constantly exposed to all the people who are happier than I am, the want turns to need and I begin to work the financial considerations for “Thing X” into my personal budget. I no longer know or care about why I feel I need “Thing X” all I know is that the want feels very real. Acquiring “Thing X” solves nothing because the need for it wasn’t real in the first place, but because we’re inundated with the cycle of need we don’t notice. All that ends up happening is that I realize that “Thing X” wasn’t what I needed, it must be “Thing Y” over there because those people who have it are much happier. I avoid the scary, ugly truth: I am unhappy. So long as I’m pursuing a “solution” I don’t have to stop and think and sit with the fact that I am unhappy. We’re told on a regular basis that we should not every be unhappy, even though I would argue that being unhappy is a very healthy, human experience.
But again, in a world of “Business Hours” sitting with a feeling for a moment takes us out of the cycle of consumption; takes us off the easily traceable path that has been laid out for us by capitalism: buy toys until college, by college until “real world,” in the real world we must by a house and car, eventually we get married and have kids. All the while we must be spending money along the way. Sitting with ourselves and our thoughts is not easily traceable and trackable, so it is not in our best interest to do so. Days must be productive and meaningful, they are only meaningful and productive if we’ve made money.
I think this is all rather incoherent but I needed to get the thoughts down somewhere. Maybe I’ll write more later…
I’ll get to the people in power in a bit.
For now, I’m thinking about the nature of marking part of our day as “Business Hours.” It interests me because that is the part of the day that we’ve assigned meaning to and it is because that is the time of the day that money can be made. Hours outside of this, also known as “off hours” or “free time,” is not valuable because money isn’t necessarily made and tracked during this time. Yes, we buy things after we’re done work (groceries, medicine, alcohol, “entertainment”) but it is not tracked until the following “Business day” where people are paid to categorize, measure, and log what money changed hands and with whom. During our “valuable” time we must contribute to some greater goal in some form or another, it can be in large ways or small ways but we must “make good use of our time” after all, we’re being paid for it. Money makes things worth while. Money makes meaning. Money is meaning. Thus is capitalism.
Then there’s the notion of ideals. We’re supposed to find work that fits with our ideals, work towards some greater purpose as our own individuals minds determine that purpose; my mind likes numbers and money so accounting would give me purpose, for instance. We seek jobs and financial validation for whatever it is that our mind and who we are has identified as “important.” It’s all no more or no less important, there’s no inherent ranking, but in a world driven by money the ideals that lead to the most money are the ideals that our society holds as a priority. Our ideals drive our work, work must happen during “Business Hours” to count, our hours are commodified so our ideals have been commodified. Our ideals have a price tag. Our ideals have a bottom line. Some people seek validation and in our society that validation comes from financial sources; the best product gets the most financial support and financial validation. Many people aren’t looking for this top level validation and those at the top are fine with this because what fun is it to have “the most” if there are no others who you can see that you have more than. Having said that I think that a lot of people would like to have “the most” or receive more validation than they’re currently receiving; however, to get that “top level” one needs political maneuverings and that requires a personality type that is rather rare. We may have the ability to move, but if this movement does not result in greater financial gain for someone that they are not movements that count towards anything. Most are left wanting.
But capitalism has an answer for this.
Funny enough, the answer for people that are left wanting is the very notion of wanting itself. The best way to get people to buy something is to make them think that they want it and to make them think that it’ll be a solution. Much of our suffering revolves around the notion that we feel incomplete and we feel incomplete because we haven’t spent enough time figuring out what it is exactly we need out of life. Capitalism tells us that we need movie tickets, a car, or the latest “Thing X” and gets us to buy into the cycle of wanting. This distracts us from the greater, and more messy, practice of self-exploration to discover our own needs; incidentally it is also much hard to market to a person searching for their own needs. Want is simple. Want is profitable. As long as people are wanting things they’ll be too distracted to figure out what it is that they are needing. We spend a great portion of our life time wanting and lusting after different things and we’re always certain that whatever it is that we want, it is going to be the thing that fixes us. We don’t know what’s broken because we haven’t spent time looking at what’s going on; I would posit that there’s nothing wrong with us in the first place, humans are beautifully and wonderfully complex. Capitalism needs problems it can sell solutions to, so it reframes beautiful and wonderful human complexity as a simple problem with a simple solution. Oh, and the solution comes in the color of your choice. To reflect your “individuality.” We’re all special, unique individuals buying the same lies one way or another.
I mean just think. I know I “need” money because it will allow me to buy the things I “need” and the things I “want.” I know I need food, for instance, so I know that I need a job. But I also know that having food is not enough, I am presented with so many examples of people who are much happier than I am because they have “Thing X” so I, in turn, begin to want “Thing X.” As the days go on and I am being constantly exposed to all the people who are happier than I am, the want turns to need and I begin to work the financial considerations for “Thing X” into my personal budget. I no longer know or care about why I feel I need “Thing X” all I know is that the want feels very real. Acquiring “Thing X” solves nothing because the need for it wasn’t real in the first place, but because we’re inundated with the cycle of need we don’t notice. All that ends up happening is that I realize that “Thing X” wasn’t what I needed, it must be “Thing Y” over there because those people who have it are much happier. I avoid the scary, ugly truth: I am unhappy. So long as I’m pursuing a “solution” I don’t have to stop and think and sit with the fact that I am unhappy. We’re told on a regular basis that we should not every be unhappy, even though I would argue that being unhappy is a very healthy, human experience.
But again, in a world of “Business Hours” sitting with a feeling for a moment takes us out of the cycle of consumption; takes us off the easily traceable path that has been laid out for us by capitalism: buy toys until college, by college until “real world,” in the real world we must by a house and car, eventually we get married and have kids. All the while we must be spending money along the way. Sitting with ourselves and our thoughts is not easily traceable and trackable, so it is not in our best interest to do so. Days must be productive and meaningful, they are only meaningful and productive if we’ve made money.
I think this is all rather incoherent but I needed to get the thoughts down somewhere. Maybe I’ll write more later…
"Man of the People" - Star Trek: TNG, Season 6 Ep. 03
Some thoughts as I watch.
This isn’t the first time the show has crafted an episode around Deanna Troi and in most of the narratives she is at the mercy of the storyline; an otherworldly being uses her to experience the human life cycle (Anita Sarkeesian has a breakdown of this trope here), an episode involving an arranged marriage, and, in this episode, an empath exploits her own empathic abilities for his own purposes. There are more examples and I realize the show was coming out of a different era (late 80s, early 90s) but there is a troubling treatment of Deanna Troi’s character and she is rarely given an opportunity to explore her own storyline on her own terms. Even in “Face of the Enemy” where she plays a critical role in infiltrating the Romulan Empire and aiding some defectors, she is still kidnapped and forced into the role.
But ultimately, I’m not writing this to discuss the treatment of Deanna Troi’s character in the show. As I watch “Man of the People,” I am noticing a aspect of the narrative where Troi experiences a kind of hyper-sexuality which ultimately turns into jealousy towards the empath who has exploited her ability for his own purposes. What I noticed is that the apparent “hyper-sexuality” of Troi is used to portray a negative symptom of the psychological invasion; ultimately painting the narrative as: “there is something wrong with Troi because she is hyper-sexual and jealous.” When I consider other speculative fiction, whether it’s historical, contemporary, or futuristic, I can think of other instances where a female character is shown to be “not right” by behaving in a way that is being show to us as “hyper-sexual.” However, the way they show this is by having the character initiate romantic encounters, have visible sexual attraction to whomever the character is attracted to, and have a character who is only interested in the sexual gratification of the encounter (in most narratives they “use” men and “discard” them afterward).
Meanwhile, the same behavior for male characters is usually seen as par-for-the-course and never amounts to anything beyond defining an aspect of that character: James T. Kirk and William T. Riker behave in similar ways but it’s never defined as a negative trait, nearly every Sitcom has a male character who’s promiscuity is used as a running joke, and for a lot of stories involving adolescent males have “getting laid” as a core narrative. Within the Star Trek universe, the Vulcan’s are given a biological condition known as Pon Farr. While it effects both male and female Vulcans, it is typically portrayed in different ways. When Tuvoc and Spock experience the condition the narrative revolves around how does the crew of their respective ships save their lives; ultimately going down a road of treating it as a medical condition with respect and seriousness. For T’Pol and Torres, the narrative moves more towards a hyper-sexualization (T’Pol) and gives an excuse for sexualization of the particular character or the narrative moves down the road of the “animalistic” portrayal (Torres).
Ultimately, the Pon Farr is a source of concern and is taken seriously if the characters are male, while the Pon Farr is an opportunity to sexualize female characters who experience the condition.
Regardless of the situation, a female character taking control of her sexuality and initiating sexual/romantic encounters is seen as a point of concern, whereas male characters easily incorporate such behavior and it is never a focal point for a narrative. I haven’t really given it voice until now and I know others have noticed this in mainstream media, but it is extremely apparent in “Man of the People” and I would suggest this is one of the subtle ways in which Gender Roles, the Gender Binary, and Gender Binary Sexual Scripts are reinforced in our society.
This isn’t the first time the show has crafted an episode around Deanna Troi and in most of the narratives she is at the mercy of the storyline; an otherworldly being uses her to experience the human life cycle (Anita Sarkeesian has a breakdown of this trope here), an episode involving an arranged marriage, and, in this episode, an empath exploits her own empathic abilities for his own purposes. There are more examples and I realize the show was coming out of a different era (late 80s, early 90s) but there is a troubling treatment of Deanna Troi’s character and she is rarely given an opportunity to explore her own storyline on her own terms. Even in “Face of the Enemy” where she plays a critical role in infiltrating the Romulan Empire and aiding some defectors, she is still kidnapped and forced into the role.
But ultimately, I’m not writing this to discuss the treatment of Deanna Troi’s character in the show. As I watch “Man of the People,” I am noticing a aspect of the narrative where Troi experiences a kind of hyper-sexuality which ultimately turns into jealousy towards the empath who has exploited her ability for his own purposes. What I noticed is that the apparent “hyper-sexuality” of Troi is used to portray a negative symptom of the psychological invasion; ultimately painting the narrative as: “there is something wrong with Troi because she is hyper-sexual and jealous.” When I consider other speculative fiction, whether it’s historical, contemporary, or futuristic, I can think of other instances where a female character is shown to be “not right” by behaving in a way that is being show to us as “hyper-sexual.” However, the way they show this is by having the character initiate romantic encounters, have visible sexual attraction to whomever the character is attracted to, and have a character who is only interested in the sexual gratification of the encounter (in most narratives they “use” men and “discard” them afterward).
Meanwhile, the same behavior for male characters is usually seen as par-for-the-course and never amounts to anything beyond defining an aspect of that character: James T. Kirk and William T. Riker behave in similar ways but it’s never defined as a negative trait, nearly every Sitcom has a male character who’s promiscuity is used as a running joke, and for a lot of stories involving adolescent males have “getting laid” as a core narrative. Within the Star Trek universe, the Vulcan’s are given a biological condition known as Pon Farr. While it effects both male and female Vulcans, it is typically portrayed in different ways. When Tuvoc and Spock experience the condition the narrative revolves around how does the crew of their respective ships save their lives; ultimately going down a road of treating it as a medical condition with respect and seriousness. For T’Pol and Torres, the narrative moves more towards a hyper-sexualization (T’Pol) and gives an excuse for sexualization of the particular character or the narrative moves down the road of the “animalistic” portrayal (Torres).
Ultimately, the Pon Farr is a source of concern and is taken seriously if the characters are male, while the Pon Farr is an opportunity to sexualize female characters who experience the condition.
Regardless of the situation, a female character taking control of her sexuality and initiating sexual/romantic encounters is seen as a point of concern, whereas male characters easily incorporate such behavior and it is never a focal point for a narrative. I haven’t really given it voice until now and I know others have noticed this in mainstream media, but it is extremely apparent in “Man of the People” and I would suggest this is one of the subtle ways in which Gender Roles, the Gender Binary, and Gender Binary Sexual Scripts are reinforced in our society.
The Power of Social Media
More often than not when people in position of power (cops, politicians, celebrities, etc) exercise their privilege over another it winds up on social media and many thousands of people immediately point out how shitty what they did was. Then, said person of privilege claims what they’ve experienced is unfair and unjust, that the people calling them out are ignoring the great tenant of: “innocent until proven guilty.”
Mainstream media usually comes swooping in to remind us all that “there are two sides to every story” and that the people that are angry are playing the [race/gender/orientation/etc] card in an attempt to make the issue about “something it’s not.” They continue to push this “two-sides” thing until people, who have their own lives to live and other things to take care of (feeding families, meeting ends-meat, etc), begin to quiet down.
It is a truly corrupt system that allows certain people to hurt and oppress people that are already oppressed and then claim that we were wrong to hold them accountable for their actions. All the while they are demanding we hold ourselves accountable for our “irrational” and “overly PC” response to legitimate oppression with the claim: “we can’t have a dialog until you all calm down.” Then they’ll dismiss the outrage even further by saying this got “blown out of proportion” all because social media allows people to “react before thinking.”
In the last few weeks we’ve seen a major coming together of people who are pissed off about blatant displays of oppression and who have had enough with the lies and dismissal of mainstream media. Social media allows the collective outrage of people who won’t stand for oppression, of any kind, to be a visible force that cannot be ignored. The trolls and bigots will always be there, but thankfully they’re pretty skilled at making themselves look like idiots and they ultimately galvanize the resolve of all those social justice warriors out there.
And leave it to the privileged people to try and make “social justice warrior” into a derogatory statement; to try and frame the ability to recognize oppression, the courage to speak out against it, and actively practicing empathy as traits that are somehow shameful.
Never underestimate the power of the simple act of sharing, reblogging, or retweeting. For each time you do it contributes to the greater social consciousness and contributes to the strong social morality that does not tolerate oppression of any kind.
On famous people, women against feminism, and intersectionality
Alrighty, I have some work to do but the
computer I need for that work is old and currently updating so I thought
I should get some thoughts down. Been having them for the last few days
ever since I encountered a rather enjoyable discussion on someone’s
facebook feed in the comment section of an article by Roxane Gay. In the
article Gay voiced some frustrations around the fact that Emma Watson’s
speech was widely lauded by the mainstream media and branded “Emma
Watson’s Feminism.” This is part of a larger presentation of “new”
feminism that the mainstream media thinks is so vastly different from
the “man-hating” feminism of old. The problem is that the feminism they
deemed as unacceptable was never really real in any strict sense and was
actually the by-product of mainstream media writers of old not
understanding what feminism was all about. At any rate, mainstream media
has a shitty track record of talking about feminism.
Gay was approached by someone who asked about making feminism more accessible to men to which her response was that she didn’t care for making feminism more accessible to anyone. Gay’s criticism centered around the fact that celebrity endorsements of feminism go a lot further, faster than any work done by any feminist activist.
I’m not going to talk about the article here. It’s here for your consideration.
The long and short of my view, for what it’s worth, is that it is very frustrating that it takes star-power endorsement for some people to pay attention, but I also can see the value in the fact that now there’s a new crop of people interested that were not before the star-power influence.
Why I’m bringing it up is that it sparked a nice little discussion in the comment section about intersectionality, policing (or not) feminism, and what the movement is all about. One of the responses got me thinking about resistance to feminism, which is something I’m dealing with when it comes to engaging men, and why/how that sort of thing comes about. Before I knew it my response was 4 paragraphs long and not at all related to the topic in question. So I ‘Liked’ the comment and decided to write something separate in my fancy new writing space about what I was thinking about.
Good god that was a lot of background info, hope ya’ll are still with me.
I think that there’s an element of ‘forest through the trees’ that develops for people that are deeply involved in any particular movement. It’s not a failing by any stretch but I think it plays a factor in people’s resistance to getting involved, especially if the media is pushing an inaccurate, harmful definition of the movement in question.
People involved in feminism have, or will develop, a good handle on who they’re fighting for with the lived experiences of that particular group in mind. Whereas people on the outside are generally looking for a quick summary from someone they can easily identify as a ‘leader’ of the movement. I don’t quite know what to call this but it would be something along the lines of knowledge/context/arguing from silos disconnect?
Perhaps: Context disconnect?
I dunno.
Anyway.
People on the outside of feminism are invested in the practice of anointing leaders because it creates an easy focal point for discussion and knowledge searching; IE, if I have a leader in mind, I can easily look them up which speeds up the time and reduces the mental energy required to self-educate. For the mainstream media, who have a vested interest in presenting a so-called “neutral” stance, an easily identifiable leader is even more important because it streamlines the narrative that they can present and allows them to avoid as few nuances as possible; IE, Leader X says this, so we’ll run with that and anyone who disagrees with Leader X we’ll pose as an opponent. Finally, the more people want to stay out of a discussion the more they’ll rely on the words of an easily identifiable leader because it allows them to read, evaluate, and get out of the discussion as quickly as possible.
Recently, I watched a talk between Gloria Steinem and bell hooks and when they did the introduction for Steinem the presenter made a comment about “you became a leader for a movement that wasn’t supposed to have any leaders” (that’s not verbatim, just how I remember it). It was brought up later in the discussion about how feminism is, and was supposed to be, a movement-without-leaders as a major emphasis for feminism was allowing various people to bring their stories and experiences to the table. People within feminism can grasp the concept of a movement-without-leaders, but to people on the outside all they see is infighting and disorganization.
Moreover, the feminist movement, recently, has put a large emphasis on intersectionality which further complicates the movement-without-leaders concept. This may lead media to lean more heavily on their stardom bias and people outside the movement to recoil (just look at the #womenagainstfeminism hashtag on twitter); after all, a movement that’s intersectional means recognizing that privilege is intersectional and that’s always an initial barrier because doing so is usually uncomfortable.
I get that uncomfortable discussions around intersectional privilege might be a barrier to people getting involved in the movement, but I would argue that I don’t see that as a problem. I’m reminded of a bit of advice from bell hooks when asked about accessibility with regards to feminism: it was something to the effect of “if feminism is everything to everybody, then what is it?”
Barriers and boundaries are important for maintaining integrity. There are complex factors that feminism is working against and it is important that people within the movement do their best to get a handle on those complexities in play. People within feminism are navigating an ever evolving movement as more and more voices join the chorus, this is not ‘in-fighting’ it is growth.
Whew, there. That’s a lot. If you made it this far, thanks!
That’s all for now…I’ll write more later…
Gay was approached by someone who asked about making feminism more accessible to men to which her response was that she didn’t care for making feminism more accessible to anyone. Gay’s criticism centered around the fact that celebrity endorsements of feminism go a lot further, faster than any work done by any feminist activist.
I’m not going to talk about the article here. It’s here for your consideration.
The long and short of my view, for what it’s worth, is that it is very frustrating that it takes star-power endorsement for some people to pay attention, but I also can see the value in the fact that now there’s a new crop of people interested that were not before the star-power influence.
Why I’m bringing it up is that it sparked a nice little discussion in the comment section about intersectionality, policing (or not) feminism, and what the movement is all about. One of the responses got me thinking about resistance to feminism, which is something I’m dealing with when it comes to engaging men, and why/how that sort of thing comes about. Before I knew it my response was 4 paragraphs long and not at all related to the topic in question. So I ‘Liked’ the comment and decided to write something separate in my fancy new writing space about what I was thinking about.
Good god that was a lot of background info, hope ya’ll are still with me.
I think that there’s an element of ‘forest through the trees’ that develops for people that are deeply involved in any particular movement. It’s not a failing by any stretch but I think it plays a factor in people’s resistance to getting involved, especially if the media is pushing an inaccurate, harmful definition of the movement in question.
People involved in feminism have, or will develop, a good handle on who they’re fighting for with the lived experiences of that particular group in mind. Whereas people on the outside are generally looking for a quick summary from someone they can easily identify as a ‘leader’ of the movement. I don’t quite know what to call this but it would be something along the lines of knowledge/context/arguing from silos disconnect?
Perhaps: Context disconnect?
I dunno.
Anyway.
People on the outside of feminism are invested in the practice of anointing leaders because it creates an easy focal point for discussion and knowledge searching; IE, if I have a leader in mind, I can easily look them up which speeds up the time and reduces the mental energy required to self-educate. For the mainstream media, who have a vested interest in presenting a so-called “neutral” stance, an easily identifiable leader is even more important because it streamlines the narrative that they can present and allows them to avoid as few nuances as possible; IE, Leader X says this, so we’ll run with that and anyone who disagrees with Leader X we’ll pose as an opponent. Finally, the more people want to stay out of a discussion the more they’ll rely on the words of an easily identifiable leader because it allows them to read, evaluate, and get out of the discussion as quickly as possible.
Recently, I watched a talk between Gloria Steinem and bell hooks and when they did the introduction for Steinem the presenter made a comment about “you became a leader for a movement that wasn’t supposed to have any leaders” (that’s not verbatim, just how I remember it). It was brought up later in the discussion about how feminism is, and was supposed to be, a movement-without-leaders as a major emphasis for feminism was allowing various people to bring their stories and experiences to the table. People within feminism can grasp the concept of a movement-without-leaders, but to people on the outside all they see is infighting and disorganization.
Moreover, the feminist movement, recently, has put a large emphasis on intersectionality which further complicates the movement-without-leaders concept. This may lead media to lean more heavily on their stardom bias and people outside the movement to recoil (just look at the #womenagainstfeminism hashtag on twitter); after all, a movement that’s intersectional means recognizing that privilege is intersectional and that’s always an initial barrier because doing so is usually uncomfortable.
I get that uncomfortable discussions around intersectional privilege might be a barrier to people getting involved in the movement, but I would argue that I don’t see that as a problem. I’m reminded of a bit of advice from bell hooks when asked about accessibility with regards to feminism: it was something to the effect of “if feminism is everything to everybody, then what is it?”
Barriers and boundaries are important for maintaining integrity. There are complex factors that feminism is working against and it is important that people within the movement do their best to get a handle on those complexities in play. People within feminism are navigating an ever evolving movement as more and more voices join the chorus, this is not ‘in-fighting’ it is growth.
Whew, there. That’s a lot. If you made it this far, thanks!
That’s all for now…I’ll write more later…
Cease to Exist
Suicide Silence released a lyric video for a song off of their new album titled ‘Cease to Exist’ and after experiencing the epicness of ‘The Black Crown’ I was all ready for a new experience. I came to be aware of Suicide Silence via a 10-cd grab bag that I purchased from CMdistro and had no idea what they were all about. It was a pretty solid album when I started out, then I found ‘Fuck Everything’ and was just in awe. I found it to be a very inspiring one, more on the catharsis side, and it became an inner mantra for a while; still is to a certain extent. A few months later I found out that the lead singer, Mitch Lucker, had died in an accident. I didn’t have enough time to get to know the band that well, but I was still a little bit affected by this as ‘The Black Crown’ had rapidly become one of my favorite albums.
If you’re a metal head, you know this. If you’re not a metal head, you don’t really care.
I put all this down because I wanted to illustrate a bit about how I connected to the album and, that I later found out, to Mitch Lucker himself; he was quoted as saying that is album was “my head cracked open and poured onto the paper…” I connected with nearly everything in this album in varying ways; ‘Fuck Everything’ for facing my fears, ‘You Only Live Once’ for doing my best to not waste my time on stuff that doesn’t matter to me, ‘The Only Thing That Sets Us Apart’ for obvious reasons, you get the idea. There was a lot to like and I identified with a lot of his words. I bring this up because there is a lot about the metal community that I don’t exactly identify with.
Oh, did I mention I’m a feminist as well? No? Okay, I’m a feminist. A feminist metal-head.
So anyway, there is a lot about the metal community that I don’t exactly identify with but, the good thing is that, as far as I interpret the essence of the metal culture, I don’t have to perform to some standard of ‘metal-head.’ I haven’t known many who shared my taste in music, but I still haven’t really encountered any ‘well a true metal-head does____’ most people just want to know if there’s any common bands that you share. It is easily understood that if you say ‘band _____ doesn’t appeal to me’ most people will take at as it is and move on; some may politely suggest that it may take some time to get used to ‘Band _____’ and recommend an album. That said, there are genre’s of metal that tend to be on the extreme side of the extreme side of metal.
For those that don’t know, there is a massive web of metal genres that intersect and inspire others and break apart and pioneer, and it is ALWAYS changing. The metal I tend to like is Melodic Death Metal (MDM) and Folk/Viking Metal (FVM), but I like various bands that represent other genre’s as well; liking the band, not necessarily the genre they represent. MDM and FVM technically fall in the ‘Extreme Metal’ branch of the web (or tree? I’m mixing metaphors now) which is also home to bands like Cannibal Corpse. Now, I can respect violent imagery and I can respect the catharsis that it may bring to fans of the genre, however, as a feminist (and as someone who works at an anti-violence, anti-oppression, sexual assault centre) this material does not sit well with me.
Let me be clear on this. It does not sit well with me, so I don’t listen to it. I don’t really care that it’s out there because I can understand that within the context of that genre, cathartic rage is part of the music. I know most metal-heads who are fans of the genre have no intention of acting on the messaging contained within; some may even be insulted at the implication.
But I do need to say that as a feminist metal-head who works within the field of sexual violence I know that much of the imagery contained within metal could be VERY triggering and terrifying for a survivor of sexual violence. While the metal community is tightly knit and tends to be an acquired taste, especially in North America, it’s very hard to accidentally stumble on some music that is explicitly detailing very violence sexual assault. That all said, within a tightly knit community group think does develop and people can lose their ability to see things from other points of view.
Now, back to Suicide Silence.
Mitch is gone, but the latest album is his words and it is his legacy. I know he was dealing with addiction and, like all metal-heads, anger and rage was very much a part of his life. But upon seeing the lyric video for ‘Cease to Exist’ I am very troubled in the direction the band seems to be headed.
You can look it up on youtube if you like (TRIGGER WARNING: Violence Against Women): SUICIDE SILENCE - Cease To Exist (LYRIC VIDEO)
You’ll notice I put a trigger warning in there; consider this a TW for the following paragraph as I will describe some of what is in the video.
The video starts with a man carrying what looks to be a dead/unconscious woman wrapped in plastic over his shoulder. Immediately I was put off by this as the lyrics of the song are: ‘I would drag myself through a mile of broken glass Just to watch you cease to exist’ so this was NOT a good start considering my lens. I watched the whole video hoping for a twist that would redeem the imagery that was accompanying the lyrics. No such luck. The man throws her in the trunk of his car, drives into the middle of the desert, locks her in the trunk, puts a tube from the exhaust pipe into the car, gets back in the car, and starts the engine. Essentially, this man is killing himself and leaving the woman to die a slow death via heat exhaustion and suffocation.
I don’t know the context Mitch had in mind when he wrote these words. Taking the words alone, there are elements of them that I can appreciate/see where someone may be coming from. I had hoped that the song was written from her perspective as there is a degree of catharsis in a survivor getting the better of her captor/offender. There are other problems with that narrative that I can discuss later if anyone is interested. Anger and rage is part of metal, a fan of the music is very much in tune with these emotions, and most metal-heads are dealing with some kind of oppression or hardship that only the music can address.
However, linking this type of imagery to the lyrics of this song is horrific to me. The video is not imaginary, thousands of women are killed by men in similar ways each year and in mostly all of those instances, it is about male entitlement and male privilege. This video depicts violence against women as catharsis and as something that people can identify with. Considering the view points and actions of Elliot Rodgers on May 23, 2014 this video is especially horrific as it is so similar to the context established by the combination of the lyrics and imagery of the video.
Masculinity is linked directly with violence and media does not exist in a vacuum. Video’s like ‘Cease to Exist’ glorify this type of violence and it plays a part in establishing a culture that sees violence against women as normal. I doubt Mitch had his daughter Kenadee in mind when he wrote these words.
Will ‘Cease to Exist’ directly cause more men like Elliot Rodgers to kill women, no.
Will ‘Cease to Exist’ contribute to a larger culture that maintains attitudes and beliefs that can be used as justification for violence against women, yes.
Will men like Elliot Rodgers get validation from videos like ‘Cease to Exist,’ definitely.
Metal, to me, is about emotional and intellectual honesty of self and if I’m honest with myself I cannot condone video’s like this nor can I remain silent.
That’s all I got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)