Mordant Belle

Image Credit: Media Rights

I have just learned about BookTV, a program on CSPAN. I am pretty much overjoyed about it.

And happily, you can watch a (crappy version, my apologies) in-depth interview with bell hooks. I’m still working on seeking out other authors within their horrible, horrible database…it seems I will have to do an individual search for each one instead of finding them based on other criteria (le sigh). Warning: You will need RealPlayer, which is free to download, but that’s a pain if you don’t already have it.

bell hooks is made of awesome. I already have listed one of her books, Feminism is for Everybody, as a great introductory text. I love her because she is not afraid to stand up and point out sexism or racism when she sees it (including pointing out sexism in anti-racist organizations or racism in anti-sexist and feminist organizations), but she does it in a way that make me, at least, want to take responsibility and make a change, compelling me to take responsibility for my mind, my self and my world, rather than putting me on the defensive.

Below the fold: Clip from The Media Education Foundation on her great documentary with them, Cultural Criticism & Transformation, as well as a clip of her interview on Charlie Rose and links to more great information on bell!

Read more

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

The Feminine Mystique
By Betty Friedan, 2001, W. W. Norton & Company Reprint edition, 512 pages
Mel’s Reading Status: READING

Commentary:
I have begun to read this a few times, and have read three individual chapters for various Women’s Studies classes, but I have never read this from cover to cover. There’s also a great intro the the edition by Anna Quindlen.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
Originally published in 1963, this book is credited with the birth of the contemporary women’s movement in the ’60s and ’70s, as it served as a “wake up call” for dissatisfied house wives. As Wikipedia notes, the main argument of this book was to refute the popular notion that women of that time could only find fulfillment through childbearing and homemaking. While the book is often (rightly) criticized as being primarily relevant to white, middle class women, it is still an important staple in the feminist cannon.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

Being “green”, environmentalism, and sustainability are all the rage these days, and I find it extremely annoying because of the blatant hypocrisy of it. It’s shameless.

It’s people standing around talking about changing their light bulbs or buying water bottles that use 30% less plastic or “organic” cotton shirts or using one of those crappy woven bags instead of the grocery store plastic ones.

When we’re still buying MILLIONS of dollars of water bottles in the first place. When instead of printing your “environmentally friendly” design on a brand new shirt, you could be buying old ones from the Salvation Army or Goodwill. When we drive instead of walk or bike, when we eat beyond our need and produce GALLONS of trash in one day and everything we do is just CONSUMING this planet. We are eating it alive, and we say we’re being helpful by changing our lightbulbs?!?!? Bulbs which we STILL don’t turn off when we leave the room?

Being green and sustainable and environmentally friendly is NOT about the collection of small details that do little to alter your overall lifestyle. That is the exact OPPOSITE of the point. In order to reverse the massive damage we’re doing, we have to completely uproot most of our current policies and practices, from state and federal laws to the way we run our businesses to the way we consume as individuals and families.

We’re talking reducing the number of cars on the road by 2/3rds at minimum. We’re talking forced electricity rations, walking/biking everywhere, reducing the amount of food we eat by half if not more, changing the packaging our food comes in so we don’t produce so much garbage, massively overhauling shipping so we don’t use so much fuel, and using things secondhand until they literally FALL APART. We’re talking BUYING LESS SHIT. Less of EVERYTHING. (This, THIS is the key: buying less less less of everything. It’s something none of us — including me — seems willing or able to do.) And America, land of instant self-gratification, the land of bloated overconsumption of everything from food to energy, is guilty of 25% of the harm done to this planet at least.

We are like millions of bug floating in the ocean on a piece of bread, and we just keep gnawing at it, and reproducing to make more mouths to gnaw at it, blissfully and willfully ignoring that it is the only thing keeping us afloat.

Is it possible to reverse the harm we’ve done? I think we could. Is it probable? I doubt it. We are too engorged with wealth, too used to living awash in plentiful resources ripped from so-called third world countries, too far removed from those countries and portions of society where frugality is not only a virtue but a necessity. And many of those portions of society are seeking to emulate the most overindulgent, because it seems so satisfying.

It’s not.

Who, among us, is satisfied? REALLY? Individually, collectively, and even scientifically speaking, only a fraction of us are really happy. When you search the depths of your soul, when you see what our economic policy and capitalist system has done to the only world we have — who among us has a clear conscience?

None. Me least of all, because I should know better.

I live in hope, but I also live in doubt. It is a strange, conflicting inner world, much like the outer one. I am not immune from hypocrisy myself; I, too, get distracted by the pretty designs, the colorful drinks, the promises of an easy answer and not a lot of bother.

But I know in my heart that’s not the way it works. How we can fix it, I don’t know. But the first step is destroying the illusion.

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity
By Robert Jensen, 2007, South End Press, 200 pages
Mel’s Reading Status: UNREAD

Commentary:
Robert Jensen is one of my favorite “modern” authors. He’s also written a couple of books on empire and whiteness, both of which are destined to get on this list some day. I am eagerly awaiting the ability to read this book (once I get through all the other ones, so in about three decades or so.) It sits patiently on my bookshelf, waiting for me. This powerful critique of pornography is supposed to be eye-opening.

The study of masculinity is, I think, crucial to feminism, because it is contemporary definitions of masculinity (or, really, masculinity at all) that we are struggling to overcome. Pornography is deeply tied to masculinity, in ways I think most people don’t really think about because our first thoughts when someone say “porn” usually involve visuals of a slutty plasticky woman. But porn makes a strong statement about masculinity and being a man, and what that supposedly looks like.

The more guys I talk to, the more clear it becomes that porn is the major source of most guys’ (especially young guys) sex education. Which explains a lot about how and why my generation is so fucked up in that department. That’s why side-by-side critiques of porn and masculinity — especially coming from a guy, who’s been there, done that — are so important.

Interview from MediaMouse.org about the book

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

When people think of “feminism”, they think of a specific media-generated image that usually involves “unseemly” body hair, bra burning, child- and man-hating, angry, masculine women, lesbians, and (weirdly) by turns promiscuous and prudes, depending on which end of the popular culture spectrum you’re coming from.

Thankfully, this feminism does not exist.

Many of these stereotypes are exaggerations (child- and man-hating), while others are specific to a certain subdivision of feminism (not shaving or wearing makeup). Some were simply made up to sell papers. (There was never any bra burning. Bras are expensive, hello. This was an exaggeration of an event where many feminists, in protesting a Miss America pageant in the ’60s, threw their bras into a trash can…unlit.) While a few have some basis in fact, in general, the popular perception of feminism is completely misconstrued.

Trying to define feminism in any strict way is similar to trying to define Christianity in any strict way. There is hardly anything on which there is not SOME form of disagreement. And while the movement as a whole does have commonalities, it’s important to understand the different particular strands which a given feminist can belong to.

Again, it’s like Christianity: do you know the difference between Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Latter Day Saints, and the Presbyterians? Some do, but odds are you don’t. Even when these denominations can agree on certain broad tenets, many believe that the others are STILL going to hell, for whatever doctrinal reason. It’s very important to notice the differences between the different types.

The following post was adapted from notes from my Sex, Power, and Politics Women’s Studies class.

Keep in mind that some of these types of feminism can and do overlap, and that individual women can subscribe to more than one of these feminisms.

Let’s begin, then:

Read more

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

Women, Race, and Class
by Angela Davis, 1983, Vintage, 288 pages
Mel’s Reading Status: UNREAD

Commentary:
Angela Davis is pretty much required reading, especially for feminists who care about understanding the impacts of race and class as they intersect with gender. A word of caution, however: the WOC blogs I read complain about us white folks thinking that reading and quoting Angela Davis (and other prominent WOC authors) at certain times makes us “un-racist”, or serves to address the concerns of minority women and poor women. It does not.

It certainly is a good starting point, though.

Summary, Description, and/or History:
Angela Davis is one of the most prominent multiracial feminists out there. This book was the first of it’s time to really explore the ties between the suffragettes and the abolitionist movement of the first wave. In many ways, the suffragettes (the first feminists, though they did not identify themselves as such; the term became more widely used later during the women’s liberation movement) were compelled to form a women’s rights movement in conjunction with abolition. In both the first and the second wave, women’s political consciousness was born fighting for rights for minorities, only to discover (in the case of the suffragettes) that they could not speak at rallies or appear in public because of stigmas about women (they were expected to stay behind a screen at public meetings). In another interpretation, working for civil rights for others made women more aware of the stigmas and restrictions placed against themselves. So in many ways, women’s liberation was born out of the fight for rights for African Americans.

Davis is an ubernerd in terms of education; she went to many colleges both in the U.S. and abroad, showing her deep love of learning. She was associated with both the Black Panther Party and the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee in the ’60s and ’70s. She is a socialist and was previously a political candidate in the Communist Party USA. She became famous after she was connected to the murder of a judge who was held hostage during a Black Panther prison escape attempt; she fled underground, and was eventually captured, arrested, tried, and acquitted in a famous trial. She is now a professor at the University of California and Presidential chair at UC Santa Cruz.

Additional Comments always welcome.

-

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

Active audience theory is used in media studies, for how viewers interpret media messages, especially in mass media like television.

Most theories about the interpretation of mass media messages and images can be boiled down to indoctrination in ignorance: audiences accept and interpret the messages that mass media (usually corporate businesses like Fox, CBS, NBA, and ABC) distribute like robots or sheep, exactly the way that the message makers want.

Active audience theory goes against all that, saying that the audience itself plays an active role in interpreting the messages using their own social contexts, and are capable of changing the messages themselves through collective action.

During my online discussion of this theory in my media studies class, one cynical commenter thought the theory was laughable. It’s important to notice that active audience theory is not only more important because it attributes power and agency to the audience, but it also takes into account that not everyone has spent their life submersed in the uncontested dominate messages of our culture. Below, his comment, my response.

“I find the definition of the active audience theory to be extremely ironic. A quote from the book says, “Because people are not as stupid, gullible, or easy to dominate as the media indoctrination perspective would have us believe.” I beg to differ, the current television landscape proves we are indeed just that. The current reality TV craze where they pump out as many variations as they can is an example of how gullible we are. I abhor that crap but numbers don’t lie, we watch them all. We have American Idol (a next generation Star Search Rip-off) to thank for starting it all. Other than reality TV your only option is some form of a cop show involving forensic evidence, which they also can’t stop duplicating.

The one aspect of the active audience theory that seemed to fit for me is the social context aspect. Using American Idol as an example, no other show in my memory has ever had people talking about it as much in a social context. These shows are the ultimate “water cooler talk” type programs. So, do others agree with me or is there holes in my reasoning?”

I think the most important thing to remember when it comes to the “active audience” theory is that television is NOT the only socialization tool the populace is subject to. Everyone brings a different “outside” context and lens to mass media, which they then use to interpret it, and this leads to multiple interpretations of the same content.

As a feminist, I will interpret messages from certain shows and ads differently than people who do not share my beliefs and perspectives. Other things that will inevitably affect an individual’s interpretation are: people who are affected by immigration, people who aren’t white, people who aren’t American, people who have different levels and focuses of education, and people of different religious backgrounds. Anyone belonging to these sub-groups, or combination of sub-groups, will interpret media messages differently and come to a variety of different, sometimes conflicting, conclusions - because they have different contexts and lenses through which to interpret the original message.

That’s the biggest point of the theory - people don’t come to mass media as blank slates. Audiences actively interpret the message based on their context and frame. So while the MAJORITY of the populace might agree on the DOMINATE message of a given mass media product, that’s hardly the only interpretation available. Seeking out other perspectives, contexts, and frames will enhance your understanding of the message.

What do you think? Are audiences numb sheeple, or active interpreters? Some combination? Are certain groups more prone to be accepting mass media messages without question?

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

It’s been 25 years since this documentary by PBS’ Frontline has been aired. “Abortion Clinic” is one of Frontline’s most powerful documentaries, showcasing the reality of abortion back in 1983.

“Abortion Clinic” was filmed in the small town of Chester, Pennsylvania. It shows the abortions experienced by two young white women, Helen and Barbara, along with their explanation of what got them there in the first place. At the time, Chester had a 30% unemployment rate.

It doesn’t hold anything back - parts of the footage are graphic. At the same time, it’s important to have a filming of this procedure, so mysterious and fearful, characterized as so malicious. When I watch it, I’m less afraid (even though I probably will never go through the procedure of having an abortion, a function of privilege, luck, and a great support system unavailable to most). What’s known is always less scary than what your mind dreams up out of fear and lack of information.

This film serves as a powerful reminder of why we need to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare.

Frontine: “Abortion Clinic”, 1983 (requires Windows Media Player…sucks, I know, fellow Mac users)

The introduction to Helen’s story (Chapter 2) begins with some footage of a man claiming to be a “doctor” who is going over his various methods for trying to convince women seeking an abortion to change their minds. (I suspect, like many of the theological establishment, he isn’t necessarily lying about being a doctor, but exaggerating and/or not telling the whole truth. Probably has a doctorate of theology or something, but the point is when you tell people you’re a doctor, they assume you mean a medical doctor - a physician - unless you clarify, because that’s the layman’s usage.) He pulls out a “standard textbook” and a plastic model of a fetus he says is just 10 weeks along (proof that the anti-abortion protesters have been lying for many many years…no WAY is that only 10 weeks along), which he also claims has a fully developed brain and can think and feel pain, both claims which have been refuted by more recent medical literature.

If nothing else, watch the film to see the protesters in action. It’s sad, but I wish that protesters today were so mild as these, whom I can respectfully disagree with, even if they are deceiving women. At least they approach the women as beseeching rather than accusatory, and aren’t likely to kill anyone. Compare that to today’s climate, as seen in THINKFilmNY’s 2007 documentary, Lake of Fire:

Ah, the good old days of bigoted signs and fake plastic fetuses. Who would have thought they’d be missed?

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.

For me, this shit has all been about community. I did not expressly state this in my original post. I was angry enough at the time that I really didn’t flesh out my ideas fully. Having since had the time to think things through more carefully and surf around several of the blogs that are talking about this—part of what I was trying to say was that feminists have a choice in deciding what community they belong to. And they are implicitly choosing to stay away from and otherwise distance themselves from communities that make them uncomfortable or worried for any reason. This has consequences for the communities that they refuse to work with. Most importantly, it has consequences because WOMEN belong to those communities that they refuse to work with.

~Brownfemipower, on her new, one-post-only blog

I heard of your work long ago, when I first dipped my toe into the pond of the feminist blogosphere, but never read more than a post or two. I am white, so it seemed so far removed from me. Now I am filled with regret…I wish, I wish, that I had had the wisdom to read your words before they were gone. I always thought I could come back and read them later.

When I read the first post on the subject by Feministe, I was shocked. I could not believe that Amanda, a feminist, had done such a thing — a feminist, who should understand better than most about the politics of appropriation, discrimination, and injustice.

The more I looked, the more heartbroken I became, because every bit of evidence I saw — even the posts by Hugo, a man I consider a friend and source of inspiration — pointed in the same direction. They were defensive. They were dismissive. They were playing to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit of a feminist community. It could only mean one thing. What you said was true, truer than they were willing to admit. Amanda had done something horrible, and more importantly, she refused to try and fix it, or even admit it was wrong.

Almost everyone I looked up to as a feminist mentor was suddenly perpetrating an amazingly outrageous level of discrimination. I never expected such people, self-identified progressives, to be tinged with such hate, to be clinging and spreading such injustice…and to seem so blind to what they were doing. Can they really be THAT ignorant? I am not sure that I want to know the answer, or what it would mean.

I don’t know where to go from here. I want to let you know that as a result of this I have started to reach out the the blogs of feminists and women of color who I previously thought did not apply to me. I start to see the tiny undercurrents of racism and classism in everyday life that were previously invisible to me, that are now glaring, screaming, and I wonder how in the world I managed to miss them before. I have ordered books on race and class. I tried to find the blogs of other white feminist who “get it”, to see what wisdom they can give.

For what it’s worth, this whole shitpile woke me up.

I don’t know what to do to help, but all I can think is to try, as hard as possible, to make “feminism” something that embraces women like you, something that gives you hope and courage in exchange for inspiration and a powerful voice. Most importantly, I want feminism to BE the community you’re talking about. Community is what it has always been about. I want to make my feminism, my community, one that welcomes a brownfemipower, a blackamazon, an angry black woman.

I’m mentally sending you hugs, tears, friendship, and regrets for my past indifference. I hope one day to be able to see your words, for the first time.

(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.