[syndicated profile] thefword_feed

Posted by Lusana Taylor


Another week has been and gone and it's time again for our weekly round-up and open thread. We've found loads of interesting links this time around and hope you enjoy reading through them - as ever, if you have any thoughts to share on any of the articles, or if there's another article you've enjoyed reading this week that we haven't mentioned, please feel free to discuss in the comments section below.

Personal highlights for me this time include the fascinating essay on the artistic representation of Edo-period Japanese courtesans by Lisa Hill on Ms.blog, as well as Stavvers' piece on JK Rowling and her depiction of gay characters in the Harry Potter series. All the links listed are very deserving of a read though!

Please remember that linking does not automatically mean agreement/endorsement from The F-Word. Some of the links may also be triggering.

The biggest threat to feminism? It's not just the patriarchy (The Guardian CiF)
From the article: "The obvious threats to feminism today are the same as they have always been, the main ones being the existence of patriarchy and the backlash from that system when it hits out against any challenges to its continuation. However, there are more insidious and less obvious threats. These dangers hide in plain sight, and come partly in the form of a version of feminism known as 'choice feminism'."

FGM: New NHS rules mean women with genital piercings will be recorded as suffering female genital mutilation (The Independent)

Should it be illegal to pay for sex? Panel verdict (The Guardian)
A panel made up of Laura Lee, Julie Bindel, Margaret Corvid and Rahila Gupta discuss a new law passed in Northern Ireland that makes it illegal for consenting adults to pay for sex.

EDM Has a Problem with Women, and It's Getting Worse (Pitchfork)
From the article: "Skrillex keeps putting butts in my Twitter feed. One butt, actually - a woman's, clad in tight, fuchsia bikini bottoms."

Why Don't Men Read Books by Women? (Feministing)
From the article: "I made a pledge at the beginning of 2015. This year, I'm only reading books by women."

As migrants we leave home in search of a future, but we lose the past (The Guardian)
From the article: "Migration involves loss. Even when you're privileged, as I am, and move of your own free will, as I did, you feel it. Migrants, almost by definition, move with the future in mind. But their journeys inevitably involve excising part of their past."

Monica Lewinsky Is Back, but This Time It's on Her Terms (New York Times)

Who took the sex out of the sexual revolution? (The Guardian CiF)
Zoe Williams discusses feminism and monogamy in relation the Robin Rinaldi's new book, The Wild Oats Project, in which the author documents her trial of an 'open marriage'.

10 Queer Women Who Changed History
(She Wired)

Angelina Jolie Pitt: Diary of a Surgery (New York Times)
Angelina Jolie documents her surgery after the decision to have her ovaries removed as preventative cancer treatment.

Report finds 80 percent of anti-Muslim attacks in France are against women (Feministing)

Can we please stop giving JK Rowling cookies over Dumbledore (Another Angry Woman)
From the article: "Rowling has been in the media eating the plates of cookies handed to her over her dealing with a fan who said they couldn't see Dumbledore as gay. Her response? A variant on the old "gay people are just people" trope. While on the surface this is true, it's often a cop-out for hetero authors who completely failed to pull off writing a queer character."

The Unbearable Whiteness of Indie (Pitchfork)
From the article: "In indie rock, white is the norm. While indie rock and the DIY underground, historically, have been proud to disassociate themselves from popular culture, there is no divorcing a predominantly white scene from systemic ideals ingrained in white Western culture."

Women Making Choices Is Not a Threat to Feminism (Fat & Mad)
This a response piece to Finn Mackay's article on "choice feminism", which we have linked to above (first link that appears after introduction).

Feminist Books for Children (For Books' Sake)

An Open Letter to the Feminist Porn Awards (Kitty Stryker)
From the article: "I feel like mainstream porn is having a trickle down effect of moving towards more ethical values, so, accordingly, it's a perfect time for the Feminist Porn Awards to *raise* the bar on politics and porn, rather than withdraw."

Why does Jeremy Clarkson get me so angry? (Sturdy Blog)

Andreas Lubitz depression headlines add to stigma (BBC)
From the article: "Parts of the British media who have linked Lubitz's mental health problems to his actions are being accused of being 'overly simplistic'."

Sex and Suffering: The Tragic Life of the Japanese Courtesan (Ms.)
From the article: "Unfortunately, no true records of the Edo-Period prostitutes' personal thoughts and experiences exists - and with good reason. Publicizing the dark side of the pleasure district would have been bad for business."

Everyone's Trying Really Hard Not to Call the Germanwings Co-Pilot a Terrorist
From the article: "Disturbed? Yes. Mentally ill? Probably. A troubled outcast? Of course. But 'terrorist'? That term is reserved for a special type of person, someone with brown skin, a foreign-sounding name, roots in the Middle East or North Africa and a progressively anti-Western Internet history - probably typed in Arabic."

Guinea Pigs (The Honest Courtesan)
In this essay, Maggie McNeill discusses how sex workers are being used as 'guinea pigs' for another kind of oppression.

Remembering Sex Worker Magazine $pread a Decade Later (Animal)
From the article: "Tired of seeing sex workers spoken for and stigmatized in the media, $pread's mission, says former executive editor Eliyanna Kaiser, was to create a platform for sex workers to speak for themselves."

The photo is by Ben and is used under creative commons license. It depicts pink cherry blossom trees, beautifully in bloom and reaching up towards a very clear blue sky.

[syndicated profile] thefword_feed

Posted by D H Kelly

Lakeyboy_Silhouette.PNGThe Home Affairs Select Committee have proposed that those arrested for sexual offences should be granted anonymity until charged. This risks undoing much of the significant progress we've made towards increasing the reporting and conviction of rape and other sexually violent crimes.

Nobody can be in any doubt about the suffering of a person falsely accused of rape. We know all about this, because this situation is commonplace in books and films. Men are much more likely to be raped than face a rape allegation*, and yet many men seem to regard false allegation as a more realistic prospect. The idea of being a victim of injustice, of malice or misunderstanding, and having the opportunity to defend oneself with language and reason, is obviously the far more palatable threat. It certainly is for the Coalition government, who have pretty much shut down investigations into prison rape, where men make up the majority of victims.

Anonymity for rape suspects would be an obstacle to justice. It would be a direct obstacle in that it would greatly reduce the chances of multiple victims coming forward - something that can be vital in securing a conviction for historic sexual abuse. We know that the majority of rapes and sexual abuse are carried out by men who do the same thing again and again, even though victims often imagine their experience to be unique. Out of the list of famous sex offenders prosecuted in recent years, it is very likely some or most of these men would be walking free (and still on our screens and airways) if it hadn't been for publicity surrounding their initial arrests.

Anonymity for rape suspects would get in the way of justice less directly by enforcing the belief that people are more likely to lie about rape than other crimes, though there is no shred of evidence that this is the case.

This isn't how the Home Affairs Select Committee have framed their proposals; the idea is that allegations of sexual offences have an unique power to damage a person's reputation. Yet, this simply doesn't stand up; those arrested in connection with a murder where no other suspect is found or those detained on suspicion of terrorist offences may well find their employment and relationship prospects similarly destroyed. The suspicion of a fairly minor offence in someone in a position of trust and authority can have a devastating effect.

Operation Yewtree has given us a short list of very famous men who were arrested and investigated, but not charged, under the scrutiny of the national press, yet these circumstances are extraordinary. Few arrests for sexual violence cases would even lead to a photograph in a local newspaper. Meanwhile, the lasting damage is impossible to quantify; Ched Evans' rape conviction is yet to end a very lucrative and public career.

Anonymity for rape suspects would also set up a state of false equivalence between victims and suspects.

Rape victims are not granted anonymity in order to protect their reputations, but to protect from further violence. People who have already been raped or sexually abused are much more likely to be victimised again, especially if they have already reported a crime which didn't lead to a conviction. Following fans' attempts to publish the name of the woman that Ched Evans raped, she has had to move home five times. This is not so that she can get on with her career and have normal relationships with people who didn't know of her infamous experience. This is so she isn't at an ever-present risk of physical attack.

There is no justification for granting anonymity to people suspected of any particular crime, and doing so would stop victims coming forward, as well as further undermining the position of victims of sexual violence within the criminal justice system and society at large.

If you are interested in doing so Everyday Victim Blaming have an e-mail template you can send to your MP and other relevant politicians, objecting to these proposals.

* Depending on definitions, between 1 in 6 and 1 in 33 men are subject to rape during their lifetimes.

[The image is a black silhouette on a white background of a person's head and shoulders. The figure has short hair and a thick neck. This image was made by Wikimedia user Lakeyboy and is in the public domain.]

[syndicated profile] thefword_feed

Posted by Sasha Garwood


Sasha Garwood is our March guestblogger.

So, as I mentioned a few posts ago, I have a stepdaughter. She's a lovely kid, bright and charming and sweet, which is just as well because I haven't a maternal bone in my body (mutual adult caring is a DIFFERENT bone, okay?) and the fact that I genuinely appreciate her as a person means that our little odd semi-nuclear almost-family mostly ambles along quite happily. I only see her every other weekend, as she mostly lives with her mother on the other side of the country, and whilst she doesn't exactly see me as a proper adult (I'm 'like a teenager' because I'm 'too much fun', which I will totally take) we seem to get along pretty well. It's all good, mostly. The only apparent invertebrate in the overpriced facial unguent is the subsumed (or, sometimes, openly apparent, albeit mainly through the medium of passive aggressive texts to my fiancé) ideological clashes between my worldview and her mother's.

(I'm going to spend the rest of this blogpost studiously avoiding discussing my partner's perspective or his relationship with his ex, partly because Inappropriate and partly because there is an outside chance she might one day read this. Suffice it to say that he's kind, considerate, neurotic and predisposed to self-loathing, self-doubt and assuming his perspectives or decisions are of necessity wrong, and for various reasons of historical awfulness has not necessarily had much say in mutual decision-making about stepdaughter's ideological upbringing.)

Sometimes, this is fair enough. Or rather: I totally recognise someone's right to raise their child according to their values and preferences, and therefore am basically willing to follow the rules if I'm told what they are. This doesn't follow if said rules appear to be actively harmful, as in the recent 'Stop her from reading!' argument that had jaws dropping across my geeky and bookish social circles, but things like table manners and media consumption and hiding the news. The latter is pretty alien to me - my parents never edited, let alone curtailed, my reading or news consumption, and whilst I suspect it led to some pretty awkward conversations on their part and occasional upset and mystification on mine, it stood me in pretty good stead for living in the world. I also tended to self-limit - if I really didn't get something or found it upsetting, I'd leave well alone and/or come back to it later. But still, I (mostly) don't think it's appropriate for me to question or undermine stepdaughter's mother's authority or the stable-ish boundaries of her life and exposure to the world*.

Even with things like language, I mostly toe the line. Left to myself I swear frequently and fluently, as does her father, but I appreciate that for a 9-year-old at a C of E school perspectives like 'words have power, use them carefully, including the ones that shock or discomfort people' and 'if it's good enough for the Earl of Rochester, it's good enough for me' don't have much currency, and kids learn by example. I slip up occasionally, but it's basically okay**.

But. Rules or no rules, there are other aspects of life where my inability to communicate honestly bothers me. The facts of life, for example. As far as her dad knows, we're not meant to explain to her about sex, which has led to some particularly amusing* visits to farms and the like involving phrases like 'they're just playing/cuddling/fighting!' and some really awkward conversations about how or why I'm not going to have a baby. Stepdaughter hasn't hit puberty yet, so once again, I think it's not my place to interfere or undermine, but girls start menstruating pretty early these days, and I'm really hoping some day soon her mother feels it's time to have a quiet word.

Not unrelatedly: sexuality. I'm not allowed to be out as queer around her, for fear she mentions it to her mum and I'm suddenly deemed persona non grata. (Quite how this would play out given I'm marrying her father, I don't know, but I think it'd be horrendous for all parties. Needless to say, he hasn't discussed being bi with his daughter either!) I don't just mean I can't tell her I'm queer or initiate conversations on the subject - I wouldn't do that anyway. I mean I refrain from answering her questions honestly sometimes, from any mention of dating anyone who isn't male, the same way her father refrains from mentioning that he was briefly married very young before he met stepdaughter's mother. ('It's just not worth the hassle,' I quote.) Stepdaughter's a direct and curious child, she asks lots of questions, and I find it runs very much against the grain not to respond with similar directness.

I don't have any answers. I'm not even sure what the questions are. I do know that as stepdaughter grows up, and starts dealing with things like bodily changes and sexuality and all the cultural bullshit around adult femininity, I am going to be increasingly less inclined to accede to what feels to me like dishonesty. Not that I would ever force a topic or viewpoint on her. This isn't about my wanting to evangelise, even about things like consent culture I evangelise about pretty fiercely with adults. It's about me finding it really difficult to navigate between wanting to respect stepdaughter's mother's right to raise her child how she wants, my partner's right to have some significant emotional input into decisions made about his daughter's emotional and psychological wellbeing, and my desire to provide stepdaughter with support in the best way I know how - by being honest about the difficult things.

*Obviously enough, a lot of this has its roots in family norms. My family are expressive, argumentative, open, prone to discussing Big Things and not shying away from conflict. This does not equate to seeking it, by the way - I really don't like arguing with people, particularly in emotionally loaded situations, and my boyfriend and I deal with pretty much everything by discussion and explanation and requests to stop if one of us is getting upset, and that works as well as these things can. But I also know how to deal with conflict, and am accustomed to expressing myself under emotional pressure. Boyfriend's family have been very nice and very welcoming to me, but certainly don't discuss or communicate in the same way mine do, which is occasionally odd, as I ask questions as a matter of course without realising that it's actually quite a Big Deal to talk about things. Stepdaughter's mother's family - who seem very nice and friendly whenever I've encountered them - apparently adhere to strict and occasionally arcane rules, which is probably, and legitimately, where all this comes from.

** My perspective on swearing is another blogpost in itself - it's context-dependent, but I am generally all in favour of using words that are direct, expressive, multivalent and capable of making people pay attention. Often these are swearwords. I also think Stephen Fry - occasionally problematic as he is - has some pretty good points here. Worth mentioning that unlike the reading thing, my parents got very upset about 'bad language' when I was a child - we each take of our parents' lessons what we like and transform the rest, I suppose, which will make revisiting these subjects with stepdaughter as an adult very interesting.

The image above is of orange graffiti on a grey wall. The image is of a woman with octopus tentacles for hair and a triangle to represent her third eye. She is smiling pleasantly. Thanks Mara Patrick for the photo.

[syndicated profile] thefword_feed

Posted by Holly Combe

Iona Sharma revels in the feminist joy of Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries.

miss-fisher (music CD).jpg

Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries is a lush confection: an Australian detective drama set in 1920s Melbourne, with meticulously envisaged period detail and glorious outfits.

It stars Essie Davis as the Honourable Phryne Fisher, "lady detective", together with an ensemble cast, including Miriam Margolyes, playing her self-assembled household and some long-suffering members of the Melbourne police force.

With their assistance, Phryne (rhymes with tiny) runs around the city, chasing criminals with a pearl-handled pistol. She is magnificently dressed at all times, even when pursuing murderers across rooftops or inspecting bodies in the morgue.

The resulting show is a delight; the murders themselves are solidly predictable affairs, taken seriously but not overly gritty or dark, while the dialogue is sharp and funny. Plus, there is a certain pleasure in taking in Phryne's fabulous lifestyle, making it perfectly possible to simply sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.

So why not just leave it there? Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries is lovely, easy-to-watch fun and, amid the bright colours and rollicking adventures in its 26 episodes across two seasons, I don't believe anyone ever uses the word 'feminist' or anything close to it. However, I would say this is still the most feminist television show I've seen in years, possibly even more so for its light, deceptively simple approach.

First of all, Miss Fisher's larger-than-life personality is a lot more complicated than it at first seems.

She grew up in poverty -- her current wealth and title arose as a result of most of her family being wiped out in the First World War -- and, overshadowing that difficult childhood is the fact her sister was abducted by a known kidnapper and murderer who continues to protest his innocence. (This is reminiscent of the backstories of protagonists like Batman and Fox Mulder -- the tragic past that is usually bestowed on male characters.)

Despite this, the show resists the temptation of taking Phryne's subsequent lifelong quest to find out what happened to her sister, along with her wartime experiences as a nurse on the front lines, and using it as the explanation for her worldview...

Click here to read the rest of Iona's review and comment

Image description:

Miss Fisher leans on her arms on her front on a furry rug on a bed, holding up a golden pistol in her right hand. She wears 1920s get-up: a jewelled head band, red lipstick, thin white scarf, black dress and just visible black high heels (that can be seen from a backwards angle in the background, as her legs are bent at the knees).

This is adapted from the cover for the DVD for series one of Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries and can also be seen on the cover of the accompanying CD soundtrack. Shared under fair dealing.

[syndicated profile] thefword_feed

Posted by Lusana Taylor


Hello and welcome to another weekly round-up and open thread. Please read, absorb and enjoy this collection of interesting links from the past week and feel free to discuss in the comments section, or add your own link suggestions.

Every article linked to is well worth a read but particular favourites of mine this week include the fascinating discussion piece on China File regarding the deplorable criminal detention of five feminist activists in China, as well as the lovely article on The Guardian about "godmother of rock'n'roll" Sister Rosetta Tharpe - I will definitely be setting aside some time to watch the BBC Four documentary about her life later on (and if you're interested, you'll find the link to it alongside the article below).

Please remember that linking does not automatically mean endorsement/agreement and some links may be triggering.

This App Makes Your Phone Buzz When You Approach Places Where Women Made History (GOOD Magazine)

Laura Bates: 'Anti-feminists don't get irony'
(The Guardian)
From the article: "Society has an incredible knack for making people who face inequality feel alone. Women who speak up about sexism are told they need to get a sense of humour. Women who protest about workplace discrimination are accused of rocking the boat. Women who've been sexually assaulted are told they must have been asking for it. The past few years have shown me how many people experience injustice in silence, each made to feel they don't have the right to speak up. But the more women speak out and stand up, the harder it is to silence us."

'Schoolboys should tell girls their idea of a perfect woman,' says expert (The Telegraph)
You can read a response to this article by D H Kelly on The F-Word blog here.

How Do You Feel When You See Yourself in a Photo? (Bitch Magazine)
From the article: "For over 20 years, artist Jennifer Bermon has been getting women to look at themselves. Since 1993, Bermon has taken black-and-white photos of women and asked them to write about the way they look in the photo."

Dark Days for Women in China? (China File)
A response 'conversation' to China's recent criminal detention of five feminist activists.

How to be a bad girl (Hint: All you need is boobs) (Bust)
From the article: "In India victim blaming is often the norm, and a woman's behavior is frequently considered the cause of assaults against her. To defend against sex crimes, women have been encouraged by Indian politicians and religious leaders to avoid skirts, dating, porn, and talent shows."

10 Badass Sikh Women in History (Ms.)

Ashley Judd on the misogynistic harassment she received for tweeting about sports (Feministing)
From the article: "This past weekend, Ashley Judd, actress, feminist, and Kentucky basketball fan, made a comment on Twitter about how her team's opponent was "playing dirty & can kiss my team's free throw making a--." For this minor bit of shit-talking, hardly out of the norm within the craze of March Madness, she was - surprise, surprise - inundated with a barrage of misogynistic tweets."

Sister Rosetta Tharpe: the godmother of rock'n'roll (The Guardian)
From the article: "She could outplay Chuck. She could outsing Aretha. And she influenced everyone from Elvis to Rod." You can check out the BBC Four documentary The Godmother of Rock & Roll here.

Should Batgirl Be Cured? An in-depth look at how pop culture deals with disabilities - and how literature, comics, and film could definitely do better
(Bitch Magazine)

As a Muslim woman, I see the veil as a rejection of progressive values
(The Guardian CiF)
From the article: "This article will divide people. Women I respect and like wear hijabs and jilbabs to articulate their faith and identity. Others do so to follow their dreams, to go into higher education or jobs. And an increasing number are making a political statement. I am not assuming that the coverings all represent simple oppression. What I am saying is that many women who take up the veil, in any of its forms, do so without delving fully into its implications, significance or history."

The picture is by Romuald Bokej and is used under a creative commons licence. It depicts a black "stick figure" woman with long hair reaching towards a red sun. The sun is giving off beams which appear as red circles radiating out towards the woman's outstretched hand.

[syndicated profile] thefword_feed

Posted by Sasha Garwood


Sasha Garwood is our guest blogger for March.

I have a massive soft spot for Neil Gaiman. Like, really massive. I won an award for an essay about him when I was 17. I grew up on Sandman, and then he was my first ever professional interview and we hung out in an absurdly expensive London hotel and drank tea and talked about the Earl of Rochester and our fictional crushes. He was genuinely lovely, including when I collapsed and ended up in hospital a year later. I am genuinely impressed and appreciative of the time and effort he puts into meeting and bonding with his fans across the world, and of his general willingness to engage on an apparently genuine warm and human level with conversations and issues ranging from the experiences of Syrian refugees to access to reading and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. I live roughly according to the principles laid out in his famous Make Good Art speech. I consider myself pretty irrevocably on Team Neil.

And yet.

Trigger Warning, his latest volume of short stories - a form at which he generally excels - recently came out, and has been showered with praise by everyone from the New York Times to the New Statesman. People are writing serious State of the Art Form pieces about it. I'll be reviewing it myself, for the Marylebone Journal, and probably saying a lot of nice things, because the stories are good shading to brilliant and after all that's the point, right?

But. I can't get past the title. I can't enjoy the bloody book because it's bothering me so much. I've been agonising over whether to write this essay for weeks, but nobody else seems to have done it and it itches inside my head worse than little bugses. It bothers me because yes, I know what he's getting at - all the stories are intended on some level to trouble or disturb or unsettle - and I can see how if you didn't spend a huge amount of time in the world of feminist discourse you might, just might, think 'oh, this thing that people use to signify potentially upsetting content would be a great way to allude to the fact that all my stories have potentially upsetting content, which is a specialism of the short story form, and make a contemporary cultural debate reference at the same time!' But even if Gaiman had that excuse - and his friendships with notable feminists like Laurie Penny and Roz Kaveney don't quite convince me that he does - that doesn't actually make the title's effect any less trivialising and, well, appropriative.

The irony of all this is that I'm not really much of a fan of trigger warnings. As my good friend CN Lester points out, triggers are many and varied and unpredictable and differ vastly from individual to individual, and when it comes down to it, you can't trigger warn for life. As an ex-anorexic, for example, although never a PTSD or OCD sufferer, I have had to learn to live in a world where diet advice is everywhere and the equivalence of 'losing weight' with 'being yourself, only better' is so culturally pervasive that I've got into stand-up fights with people for fat shaming online and off, all the more aggressively since as a genetically tiny person I've been handed a pass by the universe on that one. You absolutely can't trigger warn for life, and these days I tend to use content notes to signal references to obviously, commonly traumatising subjects like rape and sexual assault and eating disorders and fatphobia, and otherwise basically get by on the fact that most people with triggers large or small are adept at managing their engagement with the world and mostly my audiences have some idea what my writing is likely to contain. But the fact remains that trigger warnings emerged as a concept to enable people with serious histories of trauma to navigate online spaces, as a gesture of respect towards the suffering and the psychological aftereffects of physical and emotional abuse and violation, and to repurpose it to indicate the universally troubling if individually experienced depths of the human psyche - as Gaiman's introduction makes it clear he does - is kind of disrespectful.

It's disrespectful of the fact that there are actually lots of people for whom trigger warnings mean being able to avoid a panic attack or flashbacks. It's disrespectful of realities of PTSD or the psychological aftermath of sustained abuse or significant psychological or physical trauma. These things aren't like, as Gaiman describes, encountering fearful things as an adult or as a child that 'teach [you] things, and open [your] eyes, and if they hurt, they hurt in ways that make you think and grow and change.' We all encounter those, and he's right, these encounters are sometimes disturbing and horrible and echo through the years in ways that make you shudder*. But being triggered into reliving trauma, though, is a very different thing. In a way, being 'triggered' into a flashback or a panic attack is the very opposite - it stops you from thinking and growing and changing, it traps you in a mental and sometimes physical place you have often struggled for years to emerge from, and to equate the two displays a lack of understanding of the psychological realities that I found...deeply sad.

I don't know whether Gaiman has a history of rape or trauma or PTSD. It might change my feeling somewhat if I knew he did.

For what it's worth, I also agree with him that fiction isn't and shouldn't be a safe place. Fiction is where I and he and many millions of others go to explore the world and human nature and the dark depths of ourselves and what in Powers of Horror Julia Kristeva calls the abject. But that's not the same as trauma triggers, it's not a specific psycho-physiological response that shuts down normal functioning.

I think maybe the thing that bothers me the most is that calling the book Trigger Warning says to people who feel they need trigger warnings or are triggerable that this book isn't for you, it's for people who don't share your psychological experiences, who can use the concept of trigger warnings as an abstract concept or an allusion or a metaphor for the horrors of the human unconscious because they don't live with the risk of being forced back into agony and terror and physical collapse. It says to people with histories of trauma that maybe they - we? - don't belong in the club, because we think trigger warnings are to be taken seriously and literally and aren't necessarily metaphorical. Even if there aren't many such people on the scale of things, because most of us have evolved means of coping, it's still important to respect the possibility that for some people trigger warnings actually mean something real.

Calling the book Trigger Warning feels uncomfortably close to punching down the privilege axis, rather than up - a rich, successful, able-bodied white man appropriating the language of oppression and trauma for his own cultural ends - and surely, surely, a writer of Gaiman's calibre could have come up with something better?

Ps. I still love you Neil. Sorry.

*I am still haunted by a rape scene at the end of a book about Japanese sex workers during WW2 despite the fact that I've forgotten everything but that scene and the cover.

Thanks Peter Samow for the photo called "Parts of a Woman". The photo is of a painting divided up in triangles with different parts of a woman. The main triangle shows her face.

[syndicated profile] fanhackers_feed

Posted by fanhackers

As fans create, then, they not only create for a public but also create a public; that is, in producing for such a community, they call one into existence. (…) Fan creative production like fiction and vidding is produced for an imagined audience of people who know not only the source text or texts but also—more importantly—people who understand what these forms are as a genre. This can be seen from the ways in which fan creators tend not to do the work of explaining how to interpret these things. When fans create, they do so with the understanding that the people who ultimately consume their work will understand that they are reworking popular cultural texts within a set of conventions of both authorship and ownership. Through addressing an imagined public with those specifications, that text performatively produces one. Fandom is defined as the group of people who understand what is being done in the fan text; “the circularity is essential to the phenomenon” (Warner 2005, 67). The public of fandom—or, to use Warner’s terminology (since fandom is a minoritized position), the counterpublic of fandom—is produced through an ongoing circulation of these texts binding people together.

Mel Stanfill – Fandom, public, commons ift.tt/1DBM315

Tags: , , ,
[syndicated profile] thefword_feed

Posted by D H Kelly

Miss_War_Worker_Beauty_Contest_1942_contestants_grouped_by_employer.jpgPsychologist Dr Aric Sigman has an idea for how to combat poor body image in teenage girls. The Telegraph reports:

To fight a "neurosis" amongst school girls on body fat, teachers should get boys to tell girls what they find attractive, including other qualities beyond pure looks, said Aric Sigman, author of "The Body Wars: why body dissatisfaction is at epidemic proportions".[...]

"Boys don't have in any way near as rigid a view on what an attractive figure should be and they value many other physical qualities, including eyes, hair, and body language."

I'm sure Dr Sigman's intentions are good, but he misses a fundamental point. Girls are taught that their value lies in their attractiveness to boys. Not merely that they would be more desired if their bodies were different, but that how much they are desired is pivotal to their worth as human beings. Bestowing the power and responsibility on boys to lecture girls on what is desirable reinforces everything that we're trying to break down.

Teenage girls already know that men have varying tastes in women, because there are plenty who are not too shy or "politically correct" to speak openly their sexual and romantic tastes. Groups of boys and men like to discuss their tastes between themselves (not always honestly; they're under pressure too). But many boys and men also love telling girls and women all about what is and isn't attractive. It is a tremendous exercise of power.

This is our problem. Women have fought long and hard against the idea that our purpose on Earth is to provide decoration and comfort to men. Yet the vast majority of advertising and most roles that women play in television and on film very much promote the opposite worldview. And, as Jem Bloomfield says in his excellent post on the subject, there's little "rigid" about the ideals a girl must aspire to:

"Women aren't all given a single standard and rewarded by how far they live up to it. They are subjected to contrasting and contradictory standards, ensuring that they can never be "in the right". Be slim, but don't be skinny. Take care of your looks, but don't be vain. Remake yourself in the image we want, but don't look "fake" or "artificial". Wear makeup so you can look "natural". Be sexually available, but don't be slutty. Be caring but don't be mumsy. Be quirky but don't be a freak."

Every male opinion about what makes a girl attractive represents a new pressure to be something not all of us can be. Dr Sigman falls into this trap himself:

"An increase in fat on hips, thighs and bottoms is not only natural but good for girls because it is appealing to males," said Dr Sigman. "It's protects girls from heart disease and diabetes and the great news is that men like that body fat on women."

The really great news is that when it comes to most sources of happiness and fulfillment available to a women, the size of her bottom doesn't matter. It won't help her have good friendships or a happy family. It won't help her pass exams or get a great job. It won't help her contribute to her communities. It won't help her work hard and feel good about what she has achieved. It may help just everso slightly in the bedroom if her partners, of either gender, happen to like her particular kind of butt. However, Sir Mixalot aside, most people are fairly easy going.

We need to persuade girls that their looks are not that important, not because they are not all that matters to boys, but because they are not all that matters.

[Image is a black and white photograph of a long line of women in industrial clothing, stretching out into the distance. This is apparently the Miss War Worker Beauty Contest of 1942 at the Canadian National Exhibition Grandstand. This image can be found on Wikimedia and is the public domain.]

[syndicated profile] thefword_feed

Posted by Sasha Garwood

Sasha Garwood is our march guest blogger.

A close friend of mine hates being called pretty. (So I try not to, and apologise when it slips out because I'm not thinking - this isn't going to be a post about how my gender-political convictions trump somebody else's right to boundaries.) He (genderqueer, uses male pronouns for convenience) cites this brilliant Katie Makkai poem as explanation, which is absolutely fair enough. But it interests and on some level troubles me, because I suspect I experience both that poem and 'pretty' as a word as profoundly gendered.

On some level, 'pretty' is culturally feminised. The OED is paywalled, but it appears it's not just me: oxfordictionaries.com defines 'pretty' as '(of a person, especially a woman or child) attractive in a delicate way without being truly beautiful'; merriamwebster.com as 'pleasing by delicacy or grace, having conventionally accepted elements of beauty'. Both have secondary, objectifying meanings too: 'an attractive thing, especially a trinket'; 'appearing or sounding pleasant or nice but lacking strength, force, manliness, purpose, or intensity.' That last definition - 'lacking strength, force, manliness, purpose' - cuts to the heart of much of this. 'Pretty' is weakened and trivialised - and yet it is also the cultural standard to which women are socialised to aspire. Or more insidious yet, expected to provide as a matter of course: burlesque performer Emily Armstrong's Pretty is a Set of Skills and Erin McKean's You Don't Have to be Pretty both discuss (and resist) this from differently incisive and defiant angles. But the fact remains that for women specifically, 'pretty' and our erasure through inhabiting it or our dismissal through failing to achieve it dogs our steps through culture.

There's a distressing normality to the spectrum of benevolent sexists shading to misogynists who seriously use phrases like 'you're too pretty to look so sad' or 'you'd be so pretty if you smiled'. We're encouraged to be 'pretty' as opposed to having feelings or personalities or thoughts. 'Pretty' feels very much like a thing I've been failing at all my life, often through possession of the same, despite being on the, uh, face of it not a million miles away from its culturally dictated norms- small, slim, long hair, delicate features. Meeting a friend's new baby (very cute, assigned female at birth) recently, I cooed 'you so pretty', and quickly followed it up with 'and you clever and going to take over the world,' because somehow it felt much more damaging to me to induct a female baby into 'pretty' as a term of praise. Had said baby been assigned male, I probably wouldn't have worried so much - on some level I guess it feels (legitimately or otherwise) that calling a male baby 'pretty' is somehow an act of resistance.

This is complicated somewhat by the fact that my personal aesthetic preferences run to the androgynous and soulful, and so 'pretty' is often a fairly accurate description of those of all genders I find attractive. I'm frequently tempted to use it as a compliment, and that's fine with people who are either indifferent or share my pleasure in going against the cultural grain. My boyfriend is certainly 'pretty' - big eyes, small mouth, cheekbones - and fortunately he's down with being labelled thus. ('I disagree, but I don't mind', he pointed out as I cleared this with him, 'If I did, you would've heard about it before now. About 100 times a week.')

When I describe someone or something as pretty - particularly when it's not someone young and female, which is mostly the case - it feels in some way like a fuck you, a reclamation and repurposing of a word that has dogged me and my gender my whole life. Both because of and despite that, I use it a lot - it's my go-to term of aesthetic approval in everyday conversation, less intense and soulful than 'beautiful', less determinedly sexual than 'hot', less problematically masculinised than 'handsome'. It feels like some small attempt to redress the balance, to reinvent 'pretty' as a universally applicable term of approbation, to bring feminisation into aspiration instead of disparagement. I like its slightly offhand, flippant tone, which completely fails to disguise how heartfelt it really is. I'd be the first to point out that none of this constitutes the right to use it of anyone made uncomfortable by it - but I would also rather live in a world where feminisation and aestheticism wasn't used to reduce or control or belittle, and reclaiming 'pretty' is my (inadequate and imperfect) attempt to build that world.

The image above shows a white wall with a spray-painted picture of a woman. Thanks Transformer18 for the photo.


quinara: Sheep on a hillside with a smiley face. (Default)

March 2015

29 3031    


Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Style Credit