Today, I had one of those shocks when you realize that, even though you thought that you'd achieved that new level of being a consciousness where you are above all of the things that used to hold you down, you're really just where you started. All of the old insecurities still have a hold of you, and you haven't really been as dedicated as you thought to becoming that new, better, more whole version of you. I have been single for almost two years now, and my original intent was to become comfortable with myself, because I saw that something in the way I dealt with others wasn't healthy. Everyone kept telling me that I had to love myself before I loved someone else, and yet I just kept plowing forward with men's attraction and interest in me creating the foundation for my self-worth. Well, thank goodness, I realized this was unhealthy and needed to end. Thus began my challenge to love myself and get to a place where I wasn't looking for a relationship to complete me and give meaning to my life. I've made a lot of guy friends, which I'd never done before, and I thought that I was finally in that place that I'd been looking for. I wasn't trying to date every new guy I met, and I was really getting to know the guys in my life instead of construing them to be The One instead of themselves. Then I kind of fell head over heels for someone that is now one of my best friends. That was one of the hardest things that has ever happened to me, because I had never before been interested in someone that I actually knew and spent time with who didn't want to date me. It was actually a good thing, because now he's one of my close friends, and I value our friendship so much more than I would have if we'd dated and burned out. The fall out between the crush and the friendship was brutal and heart breaking, and had me questioning everything I was doing. I started to wonder what was wrong with me, even as I was making better and deeper friendships with men and women and starting to live an honest, and therefore more fulfilling, life. Then, tonight, I found myself across the table from another southern gentleman who had, until that point, seemed like someone I could want to date. Then, when I dropped him off, he patted me on the shoulder... and I knew what that was. The last crush debacle had taught me to heed the warning signs and to recognize when I was firmly seen as a friend. On the way home, I proceeded to cry and to listen to angsty, melancholy Hanson songs. I started wondering when I had gone from the girlfriend to the best friend in the eyes of all of these awesome guys, and started to wonder if it was worth it. "It," of course, referring to my newfound feminist way of being. Turns out it's a lot harder to date everyone you meet when you're more firmly grounded in who you are and no longer able to mold yourself to fit the men around you. I realized, then, that I'm still not comfortable enough to be myself. I am still scared to death of being undateable, for reasons that are completely at odds with everything that I say I believe in. How can a person say they believe in breaking the gender norms when they're completely consumed with being attractive to the opposite sex? When this other guy, who seems like excellent friend material, came across as not interested in dating me, I immediately wondered why I wasn't attractive enough instead of thinking that he just wasn't the right person. Obviously, I still have a long way to go. Until then I'll just listen to Hanson and hang out with my best (girl and guy) friends and try to face down my insecurities as a strong, feminist woman. Hopefully, when I'm ready, I'll find a man who can handle that.
"I'm cookie dough. I'm not done baking. I'm not finished becoming who ever the hell it is I'm gonna turn out to be. I make it through this, and the next thing, and the next thing, and maybe one day, I turn around and realize I'm ready. I'm cookies. And then, you know, if I want someone to eat m- or enjoy warm, delicious, cookie me, then that's fine. That'll be then. When I'm done."
-Buffy, "Chosen"
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
thinkin 'bout something
I meant to go to bed at midnight. An hour and fifteen short minutes later, I am still awake grooving to Hanson's new CD, Shout It Out. Though the album does not come out in physical CD form (or in the downloadable form, for those of you tech-savvy ifolk) until June 8th, AOL has kindly provided all the tracks online. Yay! This is bad for my sleeping habits, but good for my Hanson devotion, as I feel that they only continue to improve with age. I'm only on their fourth track so far, so here is my incomplete assessment of the newest CD: It isn't nearly as activism-driven as their last release, The Walk. Of course this is slightly disappointing for me, but good lord I could listen to their bluesy harmonies all day long whether they're urging me to pay attention to the fire on the mountain or some weird ass dude from Milwaukee. This album is so much... fun! That's the exact word that I would use to describe it. I'm now on the fifth song, and every single one has had me shimmying around and tapping my feet to the beat. So it isn't as deep and existential as when they were dying to be alive and looking for a song to sing. Who cares? Not this girl.
In other non-related news (although seeing as my life has been lived to a Hanson soundtrack since 1996, maybe it's all more related than we know) I now have a job rolling burritos and getting food to the masses near my house. I will not mention the name of my new employer, not because I'm afraid I'll say anything bad or that they'd be upset, but because in my Service in Women's Studies class everyone seemed to agree that mentioning the name of the company you work for on a blog was a big no-no. I guess unless you work for the government, decide to cook your way through Julia Child's cookbook, and eventually get a book and movie deal. Then it's OK. Anywho, this is my new occupation. It's weird. I somehow expected this summer to be different, but it's exactly the same. I'm still at a minimum wage job that requires little to no analytical brain power and a lot of chipper excitement about activities that seem otherwise unexciting. I do hope that Cat was right, and that these experiences will one day provide a chapter of hilariosity in my memoir. This chapter will most likely be called: 1-2-3...shoot me. If you worked where I work, you would get it.
Man, this Hanson CD rocks. I can't wait to buy it on June 8th. I am so serious. It isn't just because I'm a huge, huge, monstrous fan. It's because this is the perfect summer CD to listen to with the windows down and bright yellow sunglasses on. It is also the perfect CD to dance around a new NYC apartment in, and I can't wait! It will also be sweet to be able to say I have 8 Hanson CDs. Yup. Cannot wait!
I feel like I had all of these profound commentaries I wanted to make, but the upbeat tracks are completely distracting from all the feminist angst that was previously building up. I feel like one thing I did want to discuss is that new commercial for tampons that claims to be revolutionizing the way we talk about periods by revolutionizing the tampon. So, I googled "tampon commercial" and it turns out I'm not the only one trying to figure out the point of this new marketing ploy. I'll be the first to admit that my gut reaction was pretty predictable: how can continuing to use tampons, which treat your period like something you don't want to touch and need to dispose of while putting you at risk for TSS and polluting the planet, be revolutionary? Once I found the site responsible, I was pleasantly surprised by the 'cause.' Of course, I'd rather all of the girls taking kotex's pledge to be real about their periods and bodies and to develop a more healthy relationship with their bodies and their cycles get a diva cup instead of neon tampons. But anyone who wants to normalize periods is fine with me. I just like Vinnie's way better. I'm always a little wary of a big, established corporation that claims to have women's best interests at heart. But, if their 'campaign' convinces just one girl to think that her period isn't gross, I approve.
I'm going to tear myself away from the last four tracks of Shout it Out (or maybe just fall asleep listening to them) and go to sleep. I have off work tomorrow (yay!) and will get to go do friend things. That's what the summer is about anyways, right?
Until later, I am yours in sisterly solidarity and would like to leave this song from SATC 2 (which will, hopefully, be the focus of an upcoming post) as a parting gift.
In other non-related news (although seeing as my life has been lived to a Hanson soundtrack since 1996, maybe it's all more related than we know) I now have a job rolling burritos and getting food to the masses near my house. I will not mention the name of my new employer, not because I'm afraid I'll say anything bad or that they'd be upset, but because in my Service in Women's Studies class everyone seemed to agree that mentioning the name of the company you work for on a blog was a big no-no. I guess unless you work for the government, decide to cook your way through Julia Child's cookbook, and eventually get a book and movie deal. Then it's OK. Anywho, this is my new occupation. It's weird. I somehow expected this summer to be different, but it's exactly the same. I'm still at a minimum wage job that requires little to no analytical brain power and a lot of chipper excitement about activities that seem otherwise unexciting. I do hope that Cat was right, and that these experiences will one day provide a chapter of hilariosity in my memoir. This chapter will most likely be called: 1-2-3...shoot me. If you worked where I work, you would get it.
Man, this Hanson CD rocks. I can't wait to buy it on June 8th. I am so serious. It isn't just because I'm a huge, huge, monstrous fan. It's because this is the perfect summer CD to listen to with the windows down and bright yellow sunglasses on. It is also the perfect CD to dance around a new NYC apartment in, and I can't wait! It will also be sweet to be able to say I have 8 Hanson CDs. Yup. Cannot wait!
I feel like I had all of these profound commentaries I wanted to make, but the upbeat tracks are completely distracting from all the feminist angst that was previously building up. I feel like one thing I did want to discuss is that new commercial for tampons that claims to be revolutionizing the way we talk about periods by revolutionizing the tampon. So, I googled "tampon commercial" and it turns out I'm not the only one trying to figure out the point of this new marketing ploy. I'll be the first to admit that my gut reaction was pretty predictable: how can continuing to use tampons, which treat your period like something you don't want to touch and need to dispose of while putting you at risk for TSS and polluting the planet, be revolutionary? Once I found the site responsible, I was pleasantly surprised by the 'cause.' Of course, I'd rather all of the girls taking kotex's pledge to be real about their periods and bodies and to develop a more healthy relationship with their bodies and their cycles get a diva cup instead of neon tampons. But anyone who wants to normalize periods is fine with me. I just like Vinnie's way better. I'm always a little wary of a big, established corporation that claims to have women's best interests at heart. But, if their 'campaign' convinces just one girl to think that her period isn't gross, I approve.
I'm going to tear myself away from the last four tracks of Shout it Out (or maybe just fall asleep listening to them) and go to sleep. I have off work tomorrow (yay!) and will get to go do friend things. That's what the summer is about anyways, right?
Until later, I am yours in sisterly solidarity and would like to leave this song from SATC 2 (which will, hopefully, be the focus of an upcoming post) as a parting gift.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
I biked to the store today: the life of a college graduate
Yup. That's right. Today, I biked to the store. It's only fifteen minutes away by bike, so don't worry, I didn't risk death by humidity asphyxiation. I needed yogurt to go with my grapefruit breakfasts, and I didn't have time to make it to the gym, so I thought riding my bike to the store would do for today.
It was surprisingly enjoyable! I am one of the remaining U.S. citizens without i technology, so I had to go the whole 30 minutes there and back without groovy tunes. I was impressed with how nice it is just to listen to neighborhood noise. I noticed that I could tell when a car was coming, and if it turned behind me I could tell which way. That may sound really unexciting, but I realized today that I hadn't gone for a bike ride or a run without some kind of bud in my ears in a very long time. So, I rode around looking like a total hipster in cut-off jeans and toms and smiled at the ability of my ears, most likely putting everyone around me on their guard. People in Houston aren't used to happy hipster bikers.
I have been going to the gym every weekday since I got home, and I find that books are actually a better distraction from the fact that I'm sweating than music. I have started checking out a ridiculous number of books from the library and taking them with me for my 45 minute cross country bike trip through the YMCA workout room. One book that I have finished while sweating is Janet Evanovich's first Stephanie Plum novel, One for the Money. A friend recommended the series when I told her I was looking for something fun to read this summer. She said they were hilarious, because they're about a bounty hunter (Stephanie Plum) who is really bad at her job. She also said that I would probably like how Evanovich uses different kinds of characters to save Plum's ass, from a hott male fugitive to a grandmother, because she thought it would appeal to my feminist ideals. With about 16:00 minutes and one hundred pages left, a scene with a character called Benito Ramirez upset me so much I had to concentrate on moving my legs and not breaking down in the gym.
I know it's a crime novel. I get it. But does that mean that sick, sadistic, psychotic rapists have to be characters? No, I don't think it does. I finished the novel, because I wanted him to get what was coming to him (don't worry, he does)but I'm a little torn now about whether I should check out the second book, Two for the Dough. Can you boycott a series of crime novels because they had a bad guy who was a rapist? I mean, the tone of the novel was obvious: this character was someone who was supposed to make you angry and uncomfortable. He was a completely bad guy. No redeeming qualities. The author wrote him that way. But, I am not entirely sure that he was a necessary choice. Or, is it good that the author chose to show such an awful part of our culture that often goes unnoticed? Could this character's presence cause people who otherwise don't spend much time thinking about the issues of rape and domestic violence to give it some thought, and to be moved? If someone doesn't have a close friend or relative who has survived rape, could the violence of this character against Plum and other female characters in the book push them to care? Or is it just more violence porn in the worst sense of the phrase?
I don't know, but I do know that this particular scene was so awful it made me want to go out and buy a handgun, take lessons, and get a license to carry and conceal. Not only that, I wanted to go all Kickass on the faces of all the rapists in the world, just instead of beating them up in a green jumpsuit, I'd shoot them in the dick. I'm just saying. Wouldn't it be nice?
It was surprisingly enjoyable! I am one of the remaining U.S. citizens without i technology, so I had to go the whole 30 minutes there and back without groovy tunes. I was impressed with how nice it is just to listen to neighborhood noise. I noticed that I could tell when a car was coming, and if it turned behind me I could tell which way. That may sound really unexciting, but I realized today that I hadn't gone for a bike ride or a run without some kind of bud in my ears in a very long time. So, I rode around looking like a total hipster in cut-off jeans and toms and smiled at the ability of my ears, most likely putting everyone around me on their guard. People in Houston aren't used to happy hipster bikers.
I have been going to the gym every weekday since I got home, and I find that books are actually a better distraction from the fact that I'm sweating than music. I have started checking out a ridiculous number of books from the library and taking them with me for my 45 minute cross country bike trip through the YMCA workout room. One book that I have finished while sweating is Janet Evanovich's first Stephanie Plum novel, One for the Money. A friend recommended the series when I told her I was looking for something fun to read this summer. She said they were hilarious, because they're about a bounty hunter (Stephanie Plum) who is really bad at her job. She also said that I would probably like how Evanovich uses different kinds of characters to save Plum's ass, from a hott male fugitive to a grandmother, because she thought it would appeal to my feminist ideals. With about 16:00 minutes and one hundred pages left, a scene with a character called Benito Ramirez upset me so much I had to concentrate on moving my legs and not breaking down in the gym.
I know it's a crime novel. I get it. But does that mean that sick, sadistic, psychotic rapists have to be characters? No, I don't think it does. I finished the novel, because I wanted him to get what was coming to him (don't worry, he does)but I'm a little torn now about whether I should check out the second book, Two for the Dough. Can you boycott a series of crime novels because they had a bad guy who was a rapist? I mean, the tone of the novel was obvious: this character was someone who was supposed to make you angry and uncomfortable. He was a completely bad guy. No redeeming qualities. The author wrote him that way. But, I am not entirely sure that he was a necessary choice. Or, is it good that the author chose to show such an awful part of our culture that often goes unnoticed? Could this character's presence cause people who otherwise don't spend much time thinking about the issues of rape and domestic violence to give it some thought, and to be moved? If someone doesn't have a close friend or relative who has survived rape, could the violence of this character against Plum and other female characters in the book push them to care? Or is it just more violence porn in the worst sense of the phrase?
I don't know, but I do know that this particular scene was so awful it made me want to go out and buy a handgun, take lessons, and get a license to carry and conceal. Not only that, I wanted to go all Kickass on the faces of all the rapists in the world, just instead of beating them up in a green jumpsuit, I'd shoot them in the dick. I'm just saying. Wouldn't it be nice?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Skippin class... because I am NOT going to watch another Star Wars is Realism clip.
So, for me this was all "epiphany!" ish, but other people may already be on the bandwagon and will probably think, "seriously... how did you not get this already?" but I was doing... something... I think I was at a talk at UT about sex education and worry, and it was like my head suddenly expanded, or something, to accommodate this thought:
All of the feminist causes I care about come down to the same basic thing. Violence against women, FGM, inequalities in wages, the glass ceiling, the oppression of female sexuality, the objectification of women, even sex education in public schools, they all come down to one basic thing. It doesn't matter what people tell you about how women have moved forward and have made so many gains. It doesn't matter that now a minority of people call those who have been raped or experienced domestic abuse survivors instead of victims. You want to know why? Because women are still experiencing job inequality, still being raped, and all together still being held down. If we look at all of these different issues as different, then we may fall into a trap of thinking of them as unrelated. If you focus on one issue at a time, they can become separated in your mind. It is hard to look at the big picture when each different campaign is a different issue, with different articles, protests, and campaigns around them. But when my mind expanded, I was able to see for the first time how they are all connected, because they are all springing from the same point: society must still devalue women, because if it didn't, these issues would not exist. You might say, "No, Genevieve, that's not true. Society just moves in baby steps." To which I would reply: "If people really respected and valued women, there would be nowhere to take those baby steps to!" Women are given less value in society, and the presence of all of these issues is the proof. My question is: WHY?
What is it about women that has allowed all different groups and peoples to devalue them? From women on Native American reservations to the comfort women of WWII, societies across the world have adopted this idea of women as less, as the slightly less complete version of man. If this is the reality at the core of all of our issues, how do we deal with this? How can we stop this? I seriously wish I had the answer.
All of the feminist causes I care about come down to the same basic thing. Violence against women, FGM, inequalities in wages, the glass ceiling, the oppression of female sexuality, the objectification of women, even sex education in public schools, they all come down to one basic thing. It doesn't matter what people tell you about how women have moved forward and have made so many gains. It doesn't matter that now a minority of people call those who have been raped or experienced domestic abuse survivors instead of victims. You want to know why? Because women are still experiencing job inequality, still being raped, and all together still being held down. If we look at all of these different issues as different, then we may fall into a trap of thinking of them as unrelated. If you focus on one issue at a time, they can become separated in your mind. It is hard to look at the big picture when each different campaign is a different issue, with different articles, protests, and campaigns around them. But when my mind expanded, I was able to see for the first time how they are all connected, because they are all springing from the same point: society must still devalue women, because if it didn't, these issues would not exist. You might say, "No, Genevieve, that's not true. Society just moves in baby steps." To which I would reply: "If people really respected and valued women, there would be nowhere to take those baby steps to!" Women are given less value in society, and the presence of all of these issues is the proof. My question is: WHY?
What is it about women that has allowed all different groups and peoples to devalue them? From women on Native American reservations to the comfort women of WWII, societies across the world have adopted this idea of women as less, as the slightly less complete version of man. If this is the reality at the core of all of our issues, how do we deal with this? How can we stop this? I seriously wish I had the answer.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Day One
OK, now there's a new assignment for this blog: keeping track of my internship for service in women's studies. For my internship, I'm going to be a feminist activist on a catholic campus. Yeah. I'm supposed to count all of the hours that i spend working on the group, which includes research for meetings, writing emails, and, I guess, doing this. Today I woke up thinking about everything I needed to do for the meeting... so, does that count?
I thought it would be good to set some goals:
1. Create sustainability through a solid leadership structure
2. Fundraise enough money to guarantee that at least two girls will get to go to feminist winter term next year, without university help.
3. Teach and learn.
4. STIR THE TURD!!
So... today's time log:
11:00-11:15 [planning for Vagina Monologues at UT, on the 20th]
3:30-5:30 [planning discussion for tonight: "what is feminism?", creating powerpoint to breeze through important school things: topper cup classic sign up?, group fundraiser sign up?, collegiate link training sign up?, bake sale sign up? creat event for next week's meeting on collegiate link]
5:30-6:30 [meeting]
I thought it would be good to set some goals:
1. Create sustainability through a solid leadership structure
2. Fundraise enough money to guarantee that at least two girls will get to go to feminist winter term next year, without university help.
3. Teach and learn.
4. STIR THE TURD!!
So... today's time log:
11:00-11:15 [planning for Vagina Monologues at UT, on the 20th]
3:30-5:30 [planning discussion for tonight: "what is feminism?", creating powerpoint to breeze through important school things: topper cup classic sign up?, group fundraiser sign up?, collegiate link training sign up?, bake sale sign up? creat event for next week's meeting on collegiate link]
5:30-6:30 [meeting]
Monday, December 28, 2009
Genny the Patriarchy Slayer
Firstly, let me just say that this is going to have some Buffy the Vampire Slayer major spoilers (but only from the first two and a half seasons, because that's as far as I've gotten) and also a little bit about Avatar (but that you've probably seen).
We'll go with Avatar first, since I feel like that will be a slightly shorter tangent. I totally loved it (with the exception of... why couldn't the blue girl princess character be the one who rode the orange flying beast? That would have been too legit), but it definitely got me thinking (as I often do) about what was drawing people to this movie. I mean, obviously, you have the massive budget that everyone keeps talking about, new breakthrough animation methods, and James Cameron. These are things that certainly had something to do with it, as most of the buzz I heard in my hometown circles focused on how it was the most expensive movie ever made, and how James Cameron had been working on it "since Titanic." I already wanted to see it, because it seemed a very "indigenous people good, army people bad" kind of movie and those are just my type. As I was sitting there in my Tinseltown seat, I suddenly had a thought: What is suddenly attracting the general populace to a movie whose theme normally only the fringers like me and Hodgens from Bones really thrive on? But then I again realized that this isn't anything new. Since the times of Children of Men and V for Vendetta, filmakers have been calling out the crazy evil government in one way or another and making tons of money with it. I think this was surprising because it was a continuation of what I assumed to be a Bush trend, but what I realize now is just a trend of disillusionment, similar to what happened during Vietnam. I just wonder if anything other than movie plots will come from it.
OK. Now on to Buffy, my new favorite TV show. First, who doesn't love that the Chosen One is always a girl? This isn't just any Chosen One, this is the one in charge of facing the greatest evil (i.e. vampires, demons, and other powers of darkness) and saving humanity. And she is always, always, always, the proud owner of two X chromosomes. They had me at hello. Second, I absolutely love that Buffy is strong, independent, and fun. I think she reminds me a lot of a Jessica Valenti feminist: their independence and self-awareness are coupled with the choice to be how they like and to push back against the feminist stereotype. Not that there's anything wrong with being the feminist stereotype, and not like I'm unaware of how many teenage boys probably tuned in because of the hot girl in the hot clothes, but I still like this other face of feminism. The other characters are great, too, challenging certain stereotypes about popular girls and "geeks" at the same time, and the plot of each episode is always tons of fun. Did I mention that it has both tacky nineties vampires and the beauty of nineties clothing? Like I said, a true gem.
Now to focus on one of the most feminist, and most frustrating, parts of the show so far. That is the Buffy/Angel relationship, and believe me it has caused me quite a bit of distress. In the efforts of saving time (and assuming that I'll be writing more about them later), I'll just address what happened in the last episode I watched today, which was the eighth episode of season 3. In it, Buffy and Angel are totally called out by Spike, the crazy but somehow lovable english punk vampire, who tells them that they can never be friends because they love each other. And, by the way, that love will kill them both. Yikes. This is kind of the (for now, unless they keep them apart for the rest of the season in which case it will be forever) culmination of two and a half series' worth of relationship problems, which can be explained quite quickly by this:
Slayer meets Boy. Slayer falls for Boy. Slayer realized Boy is Vampire with a tortured soul. Angsty desire, longing witty banter, and intermittent kissing ensue. Inevitably, Boy and Slayer fall in love and do the dirty... which causes Boy to lose his soul and become angry murderous torturing pre-soul vampire. Yikes. Enter season 2. Slayer gets over it. Slayer must kill Boy. Boy gets soul back when it's too late. Slayer kills Boy. Season three: Slayer goes emo. Slayer gets over it. Boy magically reappears with soul intact.
Which brings us to today. Buffy and Angel totally love each other, but there's the problem of pure happiness banishing his soul, and that Buffy is the one source of that true happiness. They keep trying to play friends (and accidentally kissing) until Buffy, in true Slayer fashion, calls bluff on the situation. This is the part that totally kills me, because as a Buffy fan and a girl who wants to be kissed I want her to be all lovey with Angel, but also the part where I realized how cool this show really is. Buffy, a seventeen year old girl who can't quite pass all of her classes but who constantly tries to save the world (which she didn't choose as a vocation, by the way, but was chosen for it) also has the self-awareness to say enough is enough. At the end of the episode, she told Angel that she wouldn't be coming back to see him anymore. Why? Because, and I paraphrase (because I don't know where to get the exact quote), he will never be able to give her what she wants. Talk about a girl sticking up for herself! She knows what she needs in a relationship, and she knows that even though she loves Angel (and he loves her), it isn't healthy for either of them. Of course, for them "isn't healthy" means "could end up with hundreds of people dying, the end of the world, or worse if they allow themselves to be happy," but still. Even as I sat there and screamed at the screen for Buffy not to leave Angel, the most perfectest boyfriend ever (except for the we can't fuck because I'll lose my soul and kill your friends thing), I knew that she was actually doing a really awesome and feminist thing: and that is having the self-respect and self-love to do what's best for you even when it means leaving someone you might love. Too often on TV (and in certain recently popular movies/books... *ahem* twilight)we see girls (and boys) who hold on to love despite all of the damage it does to them, and this is an entirely negative and destructive relationship model to show to young girls and people in general. Love should be about two whole people coming together to enjoy each other and make each other happy, not staying together even though we might die and the world might end because this is it. You don't need someone to complete you, no matter what Tom Cruise says, because you can complete yourself. Falling in love should be like the icing on the whole-you cake, because without a content self you can never enjoy another person. Or so they say.
That said... I'm going to continue to get my boyfriend fix from nineties TV shows (Roswell, Buffy, and 90210 for starters) until something worthwhile comes around. But heck, at least I'm not dating a soulless demon, right?
Until next time,
-g
We'll go with Avatar first, since I feel like that will be a slightly shorter tangent. I totally loved it (with the exception of... why couldn't the blue girl princess character be the one who rode the orange flying beast? That would have been too legit), but it definitely got me thinking (as I often do) about what was drawing people to this movie. I mean, obviously, you have the massive budget that everyone keeps talking about, new breakthrough animation methods, and James Cameron. These are things that certainly had something to do with it, as most of the buzz I heard in my hometown circles focused on how it was the most expensive movie ever made, and how James Cameron had been working on it "since Titanic." I already wanted to see it, because it seemed a very "indigenous people good, army people bad" kind of movie and those are just my type. As I was sitting there in my Tinseltown seat, I suddenly had a thought: What is suddenly attracting the general populace to a movie whose theme normally only the fringers like me and Hodgens from Bones really thrive on? But then I again realized that this isn't anything new. Since the times of Children of Men and V for Vendetta, filmakers have been calling out the crazy evil government in one way or another and making tons of money with it. I think this was surprising because it was a continuation of what I assumed to be a Bush trend, but what I realize now is just a trend of disillusionment, similar to what happened during Vietnam. I just wonder if anything other than movie plots will come from it.
OK. Now on to Buffy, my new favorite TV show. First, who doesn't love that the Chosen One is always a girl? This isn't just any Chosen One, this is the one in charge of facing the greatest evil (i.e. vampires, demons, and other powers of darkness) and saving humanity. And she is always, always, always, the proud owner of two X chromosomes. They had me at hello. Second, I absolutely love that Buffy is strong, independent, and fun. I think she reminds me a lot of a Jessica Valenti feminist: their independence and self-awareness are coupled with the choice to be how they like and to push back against the feminist stereotype. Not that there's anything wrong with being the feminist stereotype, and not like I'm unaware of how many teenage boys probably tuned in because of the hot girl in the hot clothes, but I still like this other face of feminism. The other characters are great, too, challenging certain stereotypes about popular girls and "geeks" at the same time, and the plot of each episode is always tons of fun. Did I mention that it has both tacky nineties vampires and the beauty of nineties clothing? Like I said, a true gem.
Now to focus on one of the most feminist, and most frustrating, parts of the show so far. That is the Buffy/Angel relationship, and believe me it has caused me quite a bit of distress. In the efforts of saving time (and assuming that I'll be writing more about them later), I'll just address what happened in the last episode I watched today, which was the eighth episode of season 3. In it, Buffy and Angel are totally called out by Spike, the crazy but somehow lovable english punk vampire, who tells them that they can never be friends because they love each other. And, by the way, that love will kill them both. Yikes. This is kind of the (for now, unless they keep them apart for the rest of the season in which case it will be forever) culmination of two and a half series' worth of relationship problems, which can be explained quite quickly by this:
Slayer meets Boy. Slayer falls for Boy. Slayer realized Boy is Vampire with a tortured soul. Angsty desire, longing witty banter, and intermittent kissing ensue. Inevitably, Boy and Slayer fall in love and do the dirty... which causes Boy to lose his soul and become angry murderous torturing pre-soul vampire. Yikes. Enter season 2. Slayer gets over it. Slayer must kill Boy. Boy gets soul back when it's too late. Slayer kills Boy. Season three: Slayer goes emo. Slayer gets over it. Boy magically reappears with soul intact.
Which brings us to today. Buffy and Angel totally love each other, but there's the problem of pure happiness banishing his soul, and that Buffy is the one source of that true happiness. They keep trying to play friends (and accidentally kissing) until Buffy, in true Slayer fashion, calls bluff on the situation. This is the part that totally kills me, because as a Buffy fan and a girl who wants to be kissed I want her to be all lovey with Angel, but also the part where I realized how cool this show really is. Buffy, a seventeen year old girl who can't quite pass all of her classes but who constantly tries to save the world (which she didn't choose as a vocation, by the way, but was chosen for it) also has the self-awareness to say enough is enough. At the end of the episode, she told Angel that she wouldn't be coming back to see him anymore. Why? Because, and I paraphrase (because I don't know where to get the exact quote), he will never be able to give her what she wants. Talk about a girl sticking up for herself! She knows what she needs in a relationship, and she knows that even though she loves Angel (and he loves her), it isn't healthy for either of them. Of course, for them "isn't healthy" means "could end up with hundreds of people dying, the end of the world, or worse if they allow themselves to be happy," but still. Even as I sat there and screamed at the screen for Buffy not to leave Angel, the most perfectest boyfriend ever (except for the we can't fuck because I'll lose my soul and kill your friends thing), I knew that she was actually doing a really awesome and feminist thing: and that is having the self-respect and self-love to do what's best for you even when it means leaving someone you might love. Too often on TV (and in certain recently popular movies/books... *ahem* twilight)we see girls (and boys) who hold on to love despite all of the damage it does to them, and this is an entirely negative and destructive relationship model to show to young girls and people in general. Love should be about two whole people coming together to enjoy each other and make each other happy, not staying together even though we might die and the world might end because this is it. You don't need someone to complete you, no matter what Tom Cruise says, because you can complete yourself. Falling in love should be like the icing on the whole-you cake, because without a content self you can never enjoy another person. Or so they say.
That said... I'm going to continue to get my boyfriend fix from nineties TV shows (Roswell, Buffy, and 90210 for starters) until something worthwhile comes around. But heck, at least I'm not dating a soulless demon, right?
Until next time,
-g
Monday, December 14, 2009
These are a few of my least favorite things.
After reading Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism, and being quiet for a while, I've decided it's about time that I get a few things off my chest.
So, here are a few of my least favorite things:
1. "I'm not a feminist, but..." Are you kidding me? The thing is, what usually follows this statement is an incredibly feminist idea. Whenever girls say this to me, I wonder, are they listening to themselves? Part of me wants to explain, very gently, that if they feel strongly enough about it to say something, and if this isn't the only part of society they take issue with, they very well may be feminists. And that is OK. Actually, that is fanTAStic!
2. Boys ordering dinner. Think about it. No really, think about it. A feminist bisexual I know told me once that when she's at a "nice" restaurant, she will ask her boyfriend to order for her, even though she doesn't do it anywhere else. Let's recall, shall we, how when we were little most of us were too shy to ask the waiter for our order. We would tell our parents, and then they would order for us. Asking a boy to order your food for you is internalizing the concept that ownership and responsibility of women passes from their parents (specifically, their father) to their husband (or, in this case, date). Is it really so much for us to take responsibility for what we want to eat in order to buck this outdated, antiquated system? I think not, ladies. I think not.
3. "That slut..." In order to reclaim our sexuality as our own, and not our parents', our partner's, our society's, or the media's, we have got to stop acting like it's something we should keep under wraps. In all of my experience openly discussing topics of sex (sex drives, masturbation, the pill, sexual experiences, etc.), the result has been nothing short of empowering. The first time you mention your sexuality in a more public sphere, it feels wrong, but it also brings a mighty rush. Soon, for me at least, it became a part of my discourse. I wasn't ashamed of talking about my sexuality in front of almost any audience (though I will admit I'd rather not mention it in front of my southern baptist grandmother). And, though to me this has become a part of my everyday experience, it is in itself revolutionary that I or any other woman could become so comfortable with their sexuality that it is a non issue. I'm not trying to glorify my own experience, because it was hard and took the support of a loving group to nudge me out of my comfort zone. I bring up the power factor to highlight the possibilities for the movement if all of us take steps to reclaim our sexualities despite the cultural expectations.
4. Anti-abortion legislation, activism, and general fundie-ness. This shouldn't take long to explain. The fact that I may, as a woman, decide to have sex before marriage, never get married, never have children, or any other thing that involves my lady bits is absolutely none of anyone's business. Roe v. Wade doesn't force women to get abortions, neither does the presence of such organizations as Planned Parenthood. However, anti-abortion activism, along with abstinence-only sex education and other anti-reproductive rights activism and legislation, greatly reduces the choices and rights I have when my own body is concerned. keep your hands and your fundie ideals off of MY UTERUS. It is still mine, right?
5. Political representation of women. In the United States, women have been legally able to be elected to Congress since 1917, and able to vote since 1920. This session of Congress, the 111th, has the highest level of women representatives since 1917. We still only make up 16.8% of Congress. If we're so worried about the legislation that effects us, such as the wage gap, parental leave, discriminatory laws, reproductive rights, and health care, why aren't more of us running, voting, and winning? Of course, I don't claim that a woman by the act of being a woman will be the best possible representative for women. I voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election based on many different factors, and I would always expect my fellow women to vote based on more than a chromosome. However, as we make up half of the population of the country, and there are both good and bad men in Congress, it stands to reason that there is underepresentation afoot.
6. Feminism as the f word. Feminism, by dictionary definition, is the belief in the equality of the sexes and the movement surrounding that belief. Most people, I think, believe that people are equal no matter what sex or gender they identify with. So why is it that feminism is seen as such a dirty, radical thing? Because it pushes back. Though most people may think they believe in an equal society, they continually reinforce the disenfranchisement of half the population through societal and institutional double standards and discrimination. Feminism challenges the status quo, because that status quo doesn't cut it where gender equality is concerned. Whenever you push on the status quo, you threaten people, and those people are bound to push back. The point is that we have to unabashedly embrace the word and show what we are truly pushing for.
I am feminist, hear me roar!
More later, perhaps a few of my favorite things is still to come?
-g
So, here are a few of my least favorite things:
1. "I'm not a feminist, but..." Are you kidding me? The thing is, what usually follows this statement is an incredibly feminist idea. Whenever girls say this to me, I wonder, are they listening to themselves? Part of me wants to explain, very gently, that if they feel strongly enough about it to say something, and if this isn't the only part of society they take issue with, they very well may be feminists. And that is OK. Actually, that is fanTAStic!
2. Boys ordering dinner. Think about it. No really, think about it. A feminist bisexual I know told me once that when she's at a "nice" restaurant, she will ask her boyfriend to order for her, even though she doesn't do it anywhere else. Let's recall, shall we, how when we were little most of us were too shy to ask the waiter for our order. We would tell our parents, and then they would order for us. Asking a boy to order your food for you is internalizing the concept that ownership and responsibility of women passes from their parents (specifically, their father) to their husband (or, in this case, date). Is it really so much for us to take responsibility for what we want to eat in order to buck this outdated, antiquated system? I think not, ladies. I think not.
3. "That slut..." In order to reclaim our sexuality as our own, and not our parents', our partner's, our society's, or the media's, we have got to stop acting like it's something we should keep under wraps. In all of my experience openly discussing topics of sex (sex drives, masturbation, the pill, sexual experiences, etc.), the result has been nothing short of empowering. The first time you mention your sexuality in a more public sphere, it feels wrong, but it also brings a mighty rush. Soon, for me at least, it became a part of my discourse. I wasn't ashamed of talking about my sexuality in front of almost any audience (though I will admit I'd rather not mention it in front of my southern baptist grandmother). And, though to me this has become a part of my everyday experience, it is in itself revolutionary that I or any other woman could become so comfortable with their sexuality that it is a non issue. I'm not trying to glorify my own experience, because it was hard and took the support of a loving group to nudge me out of my comfort zone. I bring up the power factor to highlight the possibilities for the movement if all of us take steps to reclaim our sexualities despite the cultural expectations.
4. Anti-abortion legislation, activism, and general fundie-ness. This shouldn't take long to explain. The fact that I may, as a woman, decide to have sex before marriage, never get married, never have children, or any other thing that involves my lady bits is absolutely none of anyone's business. Roe v. Wade doesn't force women to get abortions, neither does the presence of such organizations as Planned Parenthood. However, anti-abortion activism, along with abstinence-only sex education and other anti-reproductive rights activism and legislation, greatly reduces the choices and rights I have when my own body is concerned. keep your hands and your fundie ideals off of MY UTERUS. It is still mine, right?
5. Political representation of women. In the United States, women have been legally able to be elected to Congress since 1917, and able to vote since 1920. This session of Congress, the 111th, has the highest level of women representatives since 1917. We still only make up 16.8% of Congress. If we're so worried about the legislation that effects us, such as the wage gap, parental leave, discriminatory laws, reproductive rights, and health care, why aren't more of us running, voting, and winning? Of course, I don't claim that a woman by the act of being a woman will be the best possible representative for women. I voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 election based on many different factors, and I would always expect my fellow women to vote based on more than a chromosome. However, as we make up half of the population of the country, and there are both good and bad men in Congress, it stands to reason that there is underepresentation afoot.
6. Feminism as the f word. Feminism, by dictionary definition, is the belief in the equality of the sexes and the movement surrounding that belief. Most people, I think, believe that people are equal no matter what sex or gender they identify with. So why is it that feminism is seen as such a dirty, radical thing? Because it pushes back. Though most people may think they believe in an equal society, they continually reinforce the disenfranchisement of half the population through societal and institutional double standards and discrimination. Feminism challenges the status quo, because that status quo doesn't cut it where gender equality is concerned. Whenever you push on the status quo, you threaten people, and those people are bound to push back. The point is that we have to unabashedly embrace the word and show what we are truly pushing for.
I am feminist, hear me roar!
More later, perhaps a few of my favorite things is still to come?
-g
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
