Weighing in on Polanski

So, a lot of people are talking about Roman Polanski right now, and one could reasonably argue that I don’t really need to add my voice to the din. I’ve linked to some good commentaries from people I greatly respect, and they have pretty much said what I would say, only more elegantly, and on much more widely-read platforms. That said, I have actually decided that it is important that I articulate my position, not just on Roman Polanski, but on the way we deal with heinous crimes perpetrated by people who enjoy a prominent position in society.

The facts, as best they can be reconstructed, are these: in 1977, Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl. He plied her with drugs and alcohol, and raped her. She repeatedly said no and asked him to stop. That’s rape under any definition you care to name.

In 1978, Polanski fled the United States, because he did not want to do jail time for his rape. There’s a bit of a dispute here: he had spent some time in jail while waiting for trial, and supposedly was under the impression that he would get a short sentence and credit for time served. Then, it was made apparent that this would not happen, and that’s when he skipped town and became a fugitive from justice.

Once Polanski fled the United States, he hardly lived like one might think a fugitive should. In fact, Hollywood continued to welcome him from afar with open arms even after his rape of a 13 year old girl. He made a number of films, accepted awards, worked with very prominent people, and generally enjoyed a good reputation. During this time, it’s not really clear how aggressively American law enforcement worked to catch him and bring him back to the United States for justice. What is known is that he is now in Switzerland, awaiting the outcome of an extradition order.

Extradition is a bit tricky; the important takeaway is that it’s not automatic. Switzerland has to decide whether or not they think the order is reasonable, and if they think it is, he will be taken to the United States. What’s going to happen then is anybody’s guess.

Now, Polanski has had a rough life. He lived through the Holocaust and his wife was murdered in a very brutal and highly publicized way. But, this does not excuse the fact that he raped a 13 year old girl, and, according to numerous accounts, may have also raped and molested other young women in Hollywood during his tenure there. People who have rough lives and then choose to rape and abuse children are put in prison all the time, because that is where they belong.

Some people appear to be experiencing some moral handwringing because Polanski makes films, some of which are widely regarded to be very good. Apparently, if you are an artist, you are allowed to be a rapist. Indeed, many of the excuses being made for him include his “artistic temperament” and the fact that artists throughout history do not really have the greatest track record on refraining from child rape. But, again, in case I have not said it enough times, Roman Polanski raped a child, and having a hard life and being an artist does not mean that he should not be punished for it.

Even Polanski admitted it when he pled guilty to the crime. It’s important to distinguish here, because some people seem to be confused: whether consensual or not, sex with people who are underage is considered statutory rape. When sex is not consensual, no matter what age anybody in the situation is, it is rape. You can commit both statutory rape and rape, which is what Roman Polanski did. There aren’t degrees of rape, as people seem to think (Oprah Winfrey Whoopi Goldberg referred to Polanski’s action as “not rape-rape,” whatever that means). You have either raped someone, or you have not, and in this case, Roman Polanski did not just rape someone, he raped a child.

One of the most disturbing things about this situation, in my eyes, is that many liberals and most of Hollywood have expressed support for Polanski. Poor, oppressed Roman Polanski, being asked to receive punishment under the justice system for raping a child. He’s served his time, they say. Well, actually, he hasn’t, because if he had, there wouldn’t be an extradition order with his name on it. It wasn’t really rape, they say. Yes, it fucking was.

It was fucking rape, and I am disgusted and horrified and sickened by the fact that many liberals are drawing all of their facts about the case from a highly skewed documentary which is clearly biased in his favour. I am horrified that so many people are justifying the actions of a rapist on the grounds that he is famous and talented and had a hard life. I don’t care who you are, if you rape someone, you should be brought to trial for it, and if the verdict is guilty, you should be punished appropriately under the law.

People demanding that Polanski be punished are not demanding vengeance or indulging in some kind of vendetta. All we are asking is that he serve his time, just like every other rapist who gets caught in America. So few rapists are caught that I think we are entitled to demand that when they are, they be punished for their crimes.

The victim in the case has since withdrawn the charges, and claims that she wants it all to be over. A lot of people seem to be reading this to read that she’s recanting or some such nonsense. It’s pretty clear, though, that this stems from fatigue over being in the public eye. While she may have opted to publicly identify herself, I think she didn’t realize how much attention the case would attract and would continue to attract. I can’t put words in her mouth, but I suspect that she would probably like to see Polanski imprisoned and she would like the media circus to be over.

And, you know, hats off to her for not only publicly admitting that she is a rape survivor, but openly naming her victim and discussing it. Many people who experience rape are not open about it, because there is still a great deal of stigma about rape. And a fair amount of judginess that goes on, like the idea that it only counts as “rape” if you are “the right kind of victim.” The fact that she was a model, for example, is held against her, with the suggestion that she probably had drunken drugged sexual encounters all the time because that’s what models do, or what people did in Hollywood in 1977. Newsflash: even if that were true, she said “no” to this particular drugged sexual encounter, and that makes it, wait for it, RAPE!

I’ve written before about liberal sexism and its pernicious effects on our society. This case is a classic example, with numerous liberals blatantly stating support for a rapist, indicating that they hope he is not punished for being a rapist, and in some cases even actively slandering the victim. Said liberals are also repeating erroneous information which has been clearly, demonstrably proved to be wrong to support their assertions.

There’s this tendency among people who don’t want to give up their toys to try and justify the ownership of their toys. People don’t want to stop liking films by Roman Polanski and the numerous members of Hollywood who have supported him, so they decide that Roman Polanski cannot be a bad man. Can bad, even terrible people make great, even beautiful things? Yes, yes they can, because people are complicated. Can people make a conscious decision not to consume those things, so as not to be providing tacit support to, say, child rapists? Yes, yes they can.

But, you know, it’s ok to say, as Kevin Smith did: “Look, I dig ROSEMARY’S BABY; but rape’s rape. Do the crime, do the time.” It’s ok to admit that you like Polanski’s work despite the fact that he is a child rapist and I am not going to judge you for it, because I respect that point of view. It’s also ok to view his work in light of the fact that he is a fugitive child rapist, and to, you know, talk about it, and acknowledge the fact that many people think that it is good, and talk about what that means, in a social and artistic sense. And to ask larger questions about how we feel when we consume things produced by terrible people.

Apparently these people who stridently proclaim support for Polanski in every imaginable forum are bothered enough by the fact that Roman Polanski is a rapist to try and justify him, but not actually bothered to the point where they are willing to condemn a rapist. He’s one of their own! He’s arty and bohemian and tormented! To admit that he is a rapist, straight up, would be to question their own belief system, so it’s better to pretend that nothing is wrong.

30 September, 2009 – 10:46 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, Sexuality, social justice |

Shuddering Compasses

The Fifth Carnival of Feminists is up! There is a lot of fantastic stuff in here, so get reading

Remember all that strident posturing about the need to eliminate pork? Yeah, well, welcome to the real world, where the White House slathers an earmark-laden bill with praise.

Were you aware that US troops have been in the Philippines since 2002? And that two American service members just died there?

Heads up, Californians who care about reproductive rights: fetus fundamentalists are trying to add a fetal personhood amendment to the 2010 ballot.

Nestle is joining the ever growing list of corporations using bloggers as advertising tools; send people to a fancy conference, give them freebies and fun times, sit back and relax while they promote your products. I don’t really have a problem with this practice, but I do have a problem with Nestle and the Nestle Family event being held for bloggers. I’m not the only one who feels this way, and PhD in Parenting wrote a thoughtful and detailed discussion of the issue which y’all ought to read.

It’s pretty clear that at least some of these bloggers did not do their due diligence before accepting what amounts to a two day advertising event, including stays in a luxury hotel and freebies like steaks and digital cameras. Others knew full well about the problems with Nestle and took the goodies anyway. (See, people, this is why I do not accept freebies or advertising!) So, what did manyof these bloggers do when people politely asked about their thoughts on Nestle’s often illegal and definitely inethical business practices? That’s right, they busted out the racism, the ableism, and the rhetoric about how people voicing thoughtful dissent were “haters” and “crazy.”

Hollywood, which has of course been working with/celebrating Roman Polanski for years, is continuing to steadfastedly support him. I guess you get a free pass on being a rapist when you’re an “artist.” And lots of people will be happy to help out with some justifications if you happen to be one of those people doesn’t think that Polanski should face jail time.

30 September, 2009 – 10:04 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

What You Deserve

There’s nothing more tragic, to me, than hanging on to clothes which don’t fit you. Or, even more tragic, buying clothes which don’t fit you in the first place.

If you look through the steamer trunk I stash most of my clothes in, you will find that everything in it fits me. And it doesn’t just fit me. It fits me well, because I use a seamstress. I get things hemmed and tucked and otherwise modified so that they look good on me. Or, at least I did, until my seamstress LEFT TOWN. (Seriously, does anyone in the area know a good seamstress? Do I have a good seamstress among my readers? Because, if so…) Because I deserve to have nice clothes. Not just that, but I deserve to have clothes which look good on me, which flatter my body, which I enjoy wearing, whether it’s a pair of cutoff BDUs for working in the garden or a formal cashmere sweater for social events in the winter months.

Other people don’t seem to feel this way. I know a lot of people who have clothing which doesn’t fit them. “It might fit me again, someday,” they say, or “it’s a motivation to try and get down to that size again.” The clothes they do have are schlubby and unflattering, “because I’m going to lose weight soon.” Those clothes which don’t fit eat up acres of closet space and will never be worn again*.

There are a couple of problems with this.

The first is the devaluation of your own body. No matter how big or small you are, you deserve to wear clothes which look good on you. I can see, say, not going out and getting a whole new wardrobe every time you change sizes (if you’re pregnant, for example, obviously you don’t want to drop a bundle on clothes that will only fit for a few weeks). But if your size is fluctuating, you should have some nice pieces with some wiggleroom, and you should have clothes modified to fit if they start to look unflattering.

There’s this attitude people have that if they just try something else, they will finally lose weight. And one of the most common “motivators” I see cited to people considering weight loss is “having crappy clothing.” The argument goes that if none of your clothes fit, you will be shamed into losing weight. But, the thing is, that’s obviously not something that works well. If shame in general made people lose weight, I’d be a size six right now, considering all the shame I endure because of my size. Really, having ill-fitting clothing is just a form of self flagellation and punishment.

The second is a lack of understanding about the body. The thing is that as you age, you gain weight. It’s a natural part of life. People who stay the same size they were in high school usually (though not always) have to work very hard for that, because the body wants to gain weight. And not just to gain it, but to redistribute it. This means that as you mature, and throughout your life, your body is going to change sizes, even if your weight stays pretty static. You can try and fight it, or you can accept it, and you can buy clothes which fit.

A third is confusion about how clothes work. Here’s the secret: whether you weigh 95 pounds or 400 pounds, you are going to have a very tough time finding clothes off the rack which fit you. If you’re short, everything is too long and seams are in the wrong places. If you’re tall, everything is comically short. If you’ve got a rack of doom, no shirt off the rack is going to fit. Everyone has fat in different places and a different body type, and clothing is actually made on fit models, who have very unusual bodies. If you aren’t a fit model, clothes are not going to fit right off the rack. They just aren’t. Those celebrities you see out getting snapped by paps somehow looking fabulous in what appears to be off the rack clothing? That’s clothing which has been tailored to fit the way it does.

That means that even if you are at your “ideal” weight, your clothes still may not fit properly. You still need a seamstress to adjust them to make them flattering. And whether you are a size 00 or a size 28, you deserve to have clothing which fits. And by getting accustomed to using a seamstress, you will get accustomed to trying clothes on in the store and seeing that they don’t fit and will never fit, or that they don’t fit, but have potential. Maybe they can be hemmed. Maybe a shirt could take a few darts. And so forth. Maybe you can even get into garment construction, which is a whole new world of fun times.

Get used to the idea that you deserve to have clothing which fits comfortably. Clothing made from materials you like which flatters your body. And, get used to the idea that this may take some doing, but that’s ok. The first time you wear a tailored piece that really is customized for your body, you’re going to feel the difference. And, whether you’re at your ideal weight or not, you’re going to feel confident and good about your body, and you are going to project your happiness when you wear that piece.

You would be amazed at how perceptions change when you project an aura of confidence and contentment with your body. When you wear clothes that don’t fit right, you are not only devaluing your body, you’re telling other people to devalue it, and, by extension, to devalue you. To treat you like crap, because you don’t even bother to treat yourself well, so why should they. When you step out in well tailored garments that are flattering, you send the message that you are someone to be taken seriously, to be treated with respect. And maybe, just maybe, you will start to like your body when you stop fighting it and start seeing all the amazing things you can do with it.

*The obvious exception to this is people who experience size changes with cyclical hormonal changes in their bodies. Then, obviously, it makes sense to retain an array of clothing, some of which may not fit at any given time, but all of which will fit at some point during the month.

29 September, 2009 – 10:35 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, size |

Dusty Moles

Are American soldiers dying because of serious adverse side effects from drugs issued to them by the armed forces? Because, if so, that’s extremely problematic.

I’ve been following the Roman Polanski case with loose interest, and I’ve noted that there’s a great deal of fascinating rhetoric swirling around it. Kate Harding has a serious point to make: let’s not forget that Polanski raped a child. As Amanda Marcotte puts, it “it’s important to send the message that being famous doesn’t mean you get to rape.”

Stuff marketed to women is all pink and sparkly because market research proves it sells, right? Oh, wait, research proves the exact opposite?

Wow, I had no idea that people thought Glee was too sexual. I guess I have a high tolerance or something. Like, maybe this journo’s television is receiving the Top Secret Sexified Broadcasts of major television shows?

Apparently, when the state has no budget, the need for domestic violence shelters mysteriously vanishes.

Texas has reached a truly shocking conclusion: abstinence-only education isn’t working. Welcome to the modern world, Texas!

29 September, 2009 – 10:08 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Ineffectual

I was having a conversation with a friend the other day, and I mentioned that I didn’t really fathom the activities of trolls who spend an amazing amount of time crafting long-winded hate-filled diatribes and posting them in my comments, despite knowing that the comments are moderated, and therefore, such comments are unlikely to show up. Especially when they include things like misogynistic insults.

“Ah,” my friend said, “but you’re missing the point. They know that you aren’t going to let the comments through moderation, they just want the satisfaction of knowing that you have to read them.”

Only, the thing is, I don’t actually read them. I can tell within the first sentence (usually the first few words) whether or not I’m going to approve a comment. And when I smell a troll, I just hit delete. I don’t bother to read. I’d say that for every 100 comments not from a spambot that get deleted (i.e. comments that don’t get shunted immediately to the spam queue), I only read one or two. And, honestly, those comments I usually don’t let through because they contain fawning praise and no substantive addition to the discussion, and while I like praise as much as the next person, I kind of try to limit the meaningless comments here.

So, really, I guess this means I’m winning, because the trolls get so riled up that they spend all this time reading my posts so that they can leave nasty comments that don’t even get read. (Although probably they don’t actually read, but rather look for keywords to riff off of.) Most of them never return. The few who do usually leave another comment about how I’m censoring them or infringing their free speech or am afraid of dissent or something. Because, you know, a comment that starts “you dumb cunt…” is sure to have some thoughtful, well-argued dissent which really goes to the heart of the matter and challenges the assertions being made.

It’s kind of amazing, to me, the sheer amount of vitriol I get. I can’t imagine how it is on sites that get serious traffic, although I have an inkling from sites like Salon which have basically no moderation and some of the ugliest things I’ve ever seen in the comments threads. It’s clear that people have Google Alerts for their pet subjects, and that every now and then I write something that gets picked up by the misogynistic mouthbreathers and passed around their forums. (Hint: when you drive traffic to my site, I can see it! I know, it’s a difficult concept to understand.)

Ultimately, I just feel kind of sad for these ineffectual, pathetic trolls. Here they are, striving so desperately, and they get roundfiled before I even read their comments. I feel like the equivalent of the human resources director who throws out any resume with a hint of Comic Sans, without even looking, because…because you just know that it’s not worth reading, and there’s no reason to waste your time.

What’s the point of it all? I have a personal policy of my own, which is that I don’t like to shit in someone else’s house. Sometimes someone on the Internet says something I passionately disagree with, and when I do, I usually write about it here, because I don’t feel comfortable doing it on their site. Especially if that person is in a community I don’t belong to; it seems disrespectful, to me, to get argumentative in a space that I have been invited into. So instead, I read, think, process, and post something here. More commonly, in the act of writing out my thoughts, I get to the core of why I felt so strongly, and often that core is something inside myself, and I realize that whatever pissed me off actually had its merits. (The things which don’t have merit are so obvious that I don’t even bother to write about them any more, because, well, I have better things to do with my time.)

Somehow, I doubt that’s going to happen with the kind of trolls I get, though. They are, as others have pointed out, in a world where privilege does not exist, and so they aren’t even in a mindspace where they can dissent with me logically. They aren’t actually here to read and be challenged, to think, they are just here to spread their vile selves around because they think it accomplishes something. They resent the idea of being asked to examine themselves, being asked to sit down and shut up, being asked, in other words, not to shit in my house.

Only one person shits in my house, baby, and that’s me.

28 September, 2009 – 10:31 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, technology |

Bubbling Keyholes

There’s still time to submit to the Fifth Carnival of Feminists!

Over at The Curvature, Cara talks about the media’s response to the Mackenzie Phillips situation. I’m going to pretty much just cosign what she said, and encourage y’all to read it.

Maybe we actually shouldn’t be trying to win a bid for the Olympics, given that the legacy of the Olympics is usually some serious debt for the host city. (Also, uhm, aren’t the Olympics supposed to be international? If so, why does the United States get to host it, like, all the time?!)

I am shocked, simply shocked, to learn that drivers are attempting to foil traffic cameras. And that companies are even marketing products to assist people with this!

Allegedly, Barnes and Noble is threatening authors who don’t have links to the B&N point of sale site on their websites: no link, no order from B&N.

Thankfully rare, cases about women who kill pregnant women to steal their fetuses and pass them off as their own children seem primarily confined to the imagination of Hollywood (Bones and Private Practice both featured such plots in recent memory, for example). But, they do happen, and according to The Guardian, they occur primarily in the United States. I would love to see someone doing research on this.

Uhm, people? It is not ok, ever, to touch a stranger’s hair. Or a stranger’s anything else. It’s not even ok to ask to touch a stranger’s hair. Keep your hands to yourself!

What do you get when pseudoscience, fat hatred, and a lack of reading comprehension collide? Incredibly infuriating articles in major newspapers. The really quite ridiculous term “fat gap” gets the full Kate Harding treatment over at Shapely Prose.

28 September, 2009 – 10:05 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Why Inclusionary Language Matters

Read a Czech translation of this post, done by Vera!

I was saddened but unsurprised recently to encounter a discussion on a feminist website in which commenters were bemoaning the appearance of content about race, gender, disability, class, and other social justice issues on feminist sites. “Why can’t feminism,” commenters asked, “just be about women?”

Feminism is useless, in my mind, if it fails to recognize an overlapping and intersecting collection of injustices. Even if all that you care about is “women,” I sincerely hope that you mean “all women.” As a movement, feminism is primarily focused on issues which involve white, Western, able-bodied cis women. Some of the gains for women accomplished by feminism, as a movement, have also benefited women outside this narrow category, it’s true, but a lack of understanding about the fact that all women experience life quite differently and may in fact have different priorities and concerns is exclusionary. And, again, if you care about all women, this is a problem, because it means that you are hurting other women when you do not consider things like race, gender, disability, and class to be “women’s issues.”

Which brings me to the topic of inclusionary language. When you are a white, cis gendered, able bodied, Western feminist, you have a lot of safe spaces to go. Pretty much any space dedicated to “feminism” is safe for you, because there’s a very high chance that the people in charge of that space are like you and/or that many of the people in the site’s community are like you. When you are are a person of color, a person with disabilities, a person who transcends the gender spectrum, a person who is not from the West, a person of low social class, you have far fewer safe spaces to engage with if you are interested in feminism. In fact, the safe spaces of others may be directly damaging and harmful for you, as people who proclaim to care about “women” proceed to talk about people like you in a disparaging way. And, tragically often, to actively oppress you.

Racism, ableism, classism, cissexism, transmisogyny, transphobia, sexism, sizeism, and heterosexism are all problems in the feminist community. Many people who identify (or would like to identify) as feminists are victims of these problems. These are problems which some white, cis, middle class, able bodied, heterosexual feminists have recognized and are trying to fight, and some of these feminists identify as “allies” and try to include oppressed people in their feminism, to advocate for social justice, to recognize the need for justice for all people, not just for heterosexual white cis ladies.

Even people who are trying to be good allies mess up, though, and use exclusionary language. Many become extremely defensive and lash out when called on exclusionary behaviour. Others recognize that they have done something hurtful (sometimes doubly so in being exclusionary and then in being reactive to questioning from people who raise concerns). Some allies even feel bad about this, and apologize or make an effort to avoid making such mistakes in the future. The ally thinks that ou has done the right thing by doing this, but the ally does not necessarily recognize the harm that has been done. For the ally, it’s a slip, the use of a “bad word” or the failure to recognize a community of people in a supposedly inclusive discussion. For the person who has that word or phrase used as a slur every day, as a weapon every day, who is constantly deliberately excluded, seeing a supposed friend do it is a stab to the heart.

A not entirely unexpected stab to the heart, but still.

What do all of the following words or phrases have in common?

Bitch. Cripple. Grow a pair. Lame. Cunt. White trash. “He/his/him” as a generic when the gender of a subject is not known. Ballsy. Harpy. Whore. Female impersonator. Jewed. Real woman. Retarded. Slut. Dumb. Natural woman. Harridan. Witch. Idiot. Man up. Biological sex. Crazy. Tranny. Invalid. Psycho. Step up. Asexual (not in reference to someone who identifies as asexual). Breeder. Shrew. She-male. Gay (not in reference to sexual orientation).  Moron. You guys as a generic greeting to a mixed gender group. Skank. Mankind. “Man” as a generic for “people.” Gyp. Halfwit. Insane. Schizo/schizophrenic. “Disabled” as in “the disabled.” Women born women. Ungendering by using “he” as a pronoun for a trans woman or “she” as a pronoun for a trans man. Fat/fatty (as an insult, not an adjective).

They’re all exclusionary. Some of these words are actively used today as insults, and some of them have a historical context of use as insults which oppress, silence, and marginalize large groups of people, some of whom happen to be women. Some of these terms are racist, some are sexist, some are classist, some are cissexist, some are heterosexist, some are ableist. (I deliberately haven’t used speciesist terms here because, while I think that there is a clear intersection between animal rights issues and feminism, others may disagree, and thus, may not think that using speciesist language is exclusionary.) Many of these words are a common part of the vernacular; I use “bitch” all the time, for example. Many are examples of subconsciously exclusionary terms, in that people use them thoughtlessly, without realizing what they are really saying.

All of them should not be used by people who claim to be feminists, if feminism for them is about advocating for all women and improving conditions for all women. I include myself in this admonition. Every time we use them, we engage in othering. We exclude The Other, and make it clear that we don’t actually care about the issues that other people may experience. We make it clear that our claims of ally status are just lip service.

At its core, feminism should be, to my mind, about justice. Justice for all women. Not just women who fit into a very narrow set of categories. And this is why we need to use inclusionary language. This is why we need to cultivate spaces which are truly safe for everyone. This is why we need to own our actions and apologize for them if they are hurtful. We cannot repair the damage we have done to other human beings, but we can work to prevent it in the future.

Lots of people like to defend exclusionary language. They say that they like using a term, or can’t come up with a good alternative, or don’t really see why they should have to change. “The word doesn’t really mean that anymore,” or “but I’m not really [pick your poison]ist, so it’s ok.” But, here’s the thing. Even if the word doesn’t mean that anymore, that doesn’t mean that it does not carry very negative implications. Even if someone thinks that the word is being used in a positive sense, it is still loaded with negative meaning. It does not mean that the word does not have a very loaded history. It does mean that every time you use it, you are unconsciously enforcing a system of oppression. You can participate in and even perpetuate a system of oppression without actively subscribing to it.

People who dislike being told that they should not use exclusionary language are often people who have something to lose if actual justice is achieved. If we ever live in a society where trans hatred doesn’t exist, everyone who is cis gendered will lose privilege, for example. As the old saying goes, “we all like to see our friends get ahead, but not too far ahead,” and this appears to apply to social justice issues as well, though you would be hard pressed to find someone who openly admits it. Being informed that you are hurting people with your actions threatens people when they have something to lose in this fight. This is why people push back so strongly when they are informed that their word usage is hurtful. This is why people become defensive when they are asked why they failed to include different perspectives in discussions. This is why people get angry when they are called on their privilege.

You can believe with all your heart that sexism is terrible and evil, but when you call a woman a bitch, it kind of undermines your point. You can think that people with disabilities are oppressed and marginalized by society, and that this is wrong, but when you call something “lame,” you’re saying that you think it’s ok to continue oppressing people with disabilities. When you say that someone should “step up,” you are unconsciously erasing everyone in the population who cannot step, like wheelchair users and people who are bedbound. When you refer to someone or something as “insane” or “crazy,” you are using mental illness as a slur.

So stop it. Stop using exclusionary language. Start including people.

And stop trying to defend it. If you’re too lazy to find a better word or phrase to use, that’s your problem, not society’s. If you can’t be creative enough to think of a different word or phrase, a word or phrase which does not exclude or silence someone, you apparently have not heard of a thesaurus.

27 September, 2009 – 10:05 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in disability, Everything, gender, LGBQT, race, social justice |

Dollhouse: Vows

I’m going to go ahead and quote the im I sent to Tristan when I finished this episode: “ok, that was tight.”

And it was. Dollhouse is back, baby, and it’s back with the good bits and not the bad ones, from the new opening titles (nice) to some pretty clever storytelling and staging. I am unsurprised to learn that Joss wrote and directed this episode.

There’s a lot of stuff to cover here, but I think the takeaway is that I am excited about Dollhouse again, and, quite frankly, I thought that I was not going to be. I think I got kind of ground down by some of the vitriol directed at me over the summer by ardent apologists for the show and Whedon defenders in general, and I was actually almost dreading the premiere, but instead I finished feeling totally amped.

I’d like to specifically discuss some stylistic things in the episode which I really liked before delving into content. For one thing, it was awesome to see the return of true Joss dialogue. Joss dialogue doesn’t necessarily have to be witty, although it sometimes is, but it is often very trenchant and sharp and perceptive, and it definitely was on, as they say, in this episode. I was scribbling quotes all over my note pad because a lot of splendid things were said this episode.

I also really, really, really liked the mirroring with Victor. At the beginning of the episode, we see Adelle fondling his face, and him being obviously upset by it. At the end, we see Sierra repeating the action, and a totally different reception. Something about those little bookends of activity spoke to me, in a way I can’t really fully articulate.

I also liked the incorporation of casual misogyny, which sounds like a weird thing to say, but it underscores some important themes in the show. We have Echo’s handler leering and making a comment about “inspecting the plumbing,” underscoring the fact that he views the Actives as objects, literal Dolls. And then, we have Adelle pointing out to Ballard that Echo needs someone who “cares for her,” and referencing the fact that Ballard picked up important details about the engagement that her handler didn’t. There was a clear message there. (Although, ladies, back me up here: Why was Echo sitting upright on an exam table with her ass in the middle of it and her legs closed for what was clearly meant to be a gyn exam?!)

So, let’s start, for lack of a better place to start, with whatever in the hell is going on between Topher and Saunders. This was a really interesting storyline, for me, because we learned more about both characters. We found that Topher does sleep in the Dollhouse, something which I think wasn’t confirmed last season (and, again, I wonder, is he an Active?), although I could be entirely wrong (I have been before). Saunders also pretty much exploded, characterwise, in this episode.

It’s clear that the revelation/understanding of the fact that she is an Active is devastating her, for all of the reasons she talked about in that very intense scene in Topher’s lair. I noted early in the episode that it was strange to see Saunders programmed to be bitter and resentful, but it’s actually more complicated than that: she is actually growing that way, in part because, as Topher pointed out, he programmed a whole person, “not a roomba,” and people evolve.

She’s clearly messing with him because she’s struggling with herself and trying to figure out who/what she is. She’s on a search for meaning, which is somewhere a lot of us have been, but on a whole new level. I can’t help but note, however, that she seems to know exactly how to push his buttons. She knows his triggers and she knows how to get him, and their revealing conversation strongly suggests to me that they knew each other before the Dollhouse, and he knows it, even if she doesn’t. She also seems to be a bit afraid of her real identity, at the same time, which I also found extremely interesting; fear of the unknown, or something deeper?

Topher’s violent reaction to her sexual assault while he was sleeping also intrigued me, as a viewer. Especially given that he refers to the Actives as objects and specifically says that he can program a “sex slave” any time he wants. She was obviously teasing him (mentally and sexually) in that scene, and it seemed to me like a couple of layers were going on there. If they have a past history together, did Topher react so strongly because she disturbs him in some ways? Because he has trouble reconciling her real identity with who she is now?

And, is Topher the kind of simplistic person who would prefer to program a sex slave, as we have kind of been led to believe through his prior characterization, or does he, as Saunders suggests, want the thrill of the chase? It’s kind of a classic trope, that men prefer women who don’t like them because of the playing hard to get aspect. Perhaps Saunders intuits/senses/or knows this on a deeper level. And, I also feel like some of her attitude comes from nostalgia for being an Active; whatever I may think about it as a viewer, she clearly misses it.

Echo’s main storyline also fascinated me, because I think that in a lot of ways, it was a subtle mirroring of what’s going on with the show. First we see something which repulses us, presented without nuance or apology except from a few hardline critics who are disgusted about it. Then, the peel’s off the orange, and we realize that there is actually a lot more going on than we realized. I can’t help but think that Whedon did this deliberately by putting Echo in a wedding dress and pretty much pushing every viewer button imaginable (even if you don’t think that what happens to the Actives is rape, a wedding is a little much), and then turning the tables. It’s kind of a clear message: trust me, I know what I’m doing. Everything is not what it seems.

And we will be going down the rabbit hole this season, with Echo and Ballard versus the world. Echo’s glitching, like she was in the first season, but it’s far more complicated, and she’s reaching a high level of self awareness which includes the ability to at least try and pretend that everything is fine. This sets us up for some very fruitful exploration. Like, maybe we will find out why Ballard is obsessed with her.

Something else which I noted in this episode was the rat theme. I will never forget one of the first season Buffy commentaries, in which Joss talks about enjoying working with “rat actors,” and when rats started falling out of the supply cupboard, I couldn’t help but think of that and kind of giggling. But the rats were actually there for an important reason, and rats kept coming up throughout the episode, perhaps most memorably with Saunders’ line “put the rats back in the maze, Topher, before one of them bites you.”

There’s a clear connection here: Actives=Rats. Rats are, of course, a classic symbol of and metaphor for animal experimentation, and a small part of me can’t help but hope that they were included here as a gibe at animal research and the abuse of animals in the name of science. “That’s how science works,” says Adelle, but it’s more jarring when people think of human beings being in the position of rats.

Ok, this is getting way too long, but I did want to briefly mention the awesome scene between Sierra and Ivy. Sierra’s imprint dislikes “Orientals” and makes a series of awesomely racist comments to Ivy, which, you know, great commentary on racism, etc etc, especially since Dichen Lachman is part Tibetan, and, you know, therefore part “Oriental.” Clearly that was done intentionally, and I sense the influence of Mo Tancharoen, “the Asian Whedon,” there.

Hey, y’all, Laura wrote a review of “Vows” too, and you can read it right here.

26 September, 2009 – 6:08 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, television | Tagged |

Felinity and Femininity

Some loosely organized thoughts on the association between cats and women in Western culture, and its larger implications. (Being a feminist with cats, you know I had to talk about this eventually.) I think I have a thesis somewhere here, but it’s still gelling, so consider this one of my less polished posts.

The association between women and cats is ancient. A predatory older woman is a “cougar.” An angry mother is a “lioness protecting her cubs.” A sexualized young woman is a “tiger in the sack.” Nasty women are “catty” and occasionally have “cat fights.” A pathetic old woman with no life partner and more than one cat is a “cat lady.” A smug woman is “the cat who ate the canary” or possibly “the cat who ate the cream.” A sexually aggressive woman is a “cat in heat.” Female dancers move with “cat-like grace.” Female sexual organs are “pussies” or “kitties” and a man who is believed to be weak is also a “pussy” (because to be referred to by a derogatory name for a woman’s genitals is the ultimate insult).

Cats were domesticated late, when compared to other animals, and the reasons for domestication remain unclear. As pets? As a method of pest control? Possibly as food? But there’s an implication there; both women and cats have come only recently to domestication, and must therefore be closely watched and controlled for fear that they will run away or act out.

During the witch hunts which swept Europe and North America at various periods in history, cats were persecuted as the familiars of witches, believed to be capable of going out into the world to do the evil bidding of their mistresses. When accusing people of witchcraft, people often pointed to their cats, or claimed to see visions of cats, with some creative accusations claiming that women actually had the capability to turn into cats to roam the night. Cats were burned alive and drowned alongside women believed to be witches. They were tormented and murdered on the very altars of churches.

Oddly enough, some historians believe that the explosion of the Black Death across Europe happened, in part, because of the decimation of the cat population. Without cats to keep them in check, rats multiplied, and those rats carried death and disease. Ironically, destroying animals believed to be evil brought about an evil and torment far greater than any witch could have imagined.

During this period, men were also associated with cats and were accused of witchcraft. Today, of course, cats are firmly associated with femininity. Men who like cats are emasculated. Men are also informed that women will always love cats more than men; that a cat can, in fact, be viewed as a rival or a threat in a romantic relationship. Suggestive language implies that women keep cats for some sort of sexualized emotional benefit, that a woman with cats doesn’t need a sexual partner, that women get cats to compensate for loneliness, even that women keep cats instead of having children. Countless relationship guides include some variation of “why women like cats more than you,” “how to get women to like you as much as they like cats,” “loving women who love cats,” and “how to understand women through their cats.”

Cats and female sexuality are especially closely associated; women may even be described as “feline” or “catlike” when they are objectified and sexualized. Costuming as cats is not uncommon among women donning sexualized costumes at Halloween or for performance. Cats were even briefly used in European art when courtesans were portrayed, a signal to someone viewing a painting that the woman portrayed was a courtesan, was sexually available, was not a respected and honored wife or matron. Negative traits associated with women are also ascribed to cats: detached, aloof, cool, disloyal, unpredictable, whiny, greedy, selfish.

Several popular mystery series written by female authors prominently feature cats, and the authors of these series are often photographed with their cats. Yet, male authors rarely write cat-centric literature, and are even more rarely photographed with their cats. Cats, the reasoning goes, are a woman’s area of expertise and interest; they belong in chick lit and romances, not in respectable (male, white) literature.

The “battle of the sexes” is often waged with cats and dogs as proxies. Cats, of course, are linked with women, while dogs are linked with men. Women like cats because they’re independent and clean. Men like dogs because they’re needy. And that’s just the tip of the stereotype iceberg.

What’s especially interesting about using cats and dogs as proxies is that cats are fundamentally helpless in some ways and women are often disempowered by the society they live in. The domestic cat is viewed as an independent creature which can take care of itself, but it is also isolated in that independence. There’s a reason people torment cats, not dogs: cats are smaller and weaker, just as women are smaller and weaker, statistically speaking. There’s a reason many people devalue both cats and women (and especially women who have cats). Cats, by living alone, do not benefit from the protection of the pack, fearing predators and enemies which include humans and other cats. Likewise, women often find themselves isolated even from other women, and are attacked by other women who are clawing (another cat reference) their way to a better position. Dogs, on the other hand, at least in the case of large dogs, can defend themselves, can even kill if they have to, and even small dogs can defend themselves in a pack.

A cat who fights back when it is tormented and abused is said to have a bad attitude, and may be punished for it. Likewise, women who fight back, physically or verbally, are often punished for it, even when the behavior is deliberately provoked. Both cats and women are taught that it is dangerous to resist, to defend yourself, because the punishment may be death by violence.

In some senses, a culture of fear and mystery surrounds cats, just as it surrounds women. Centuries of association are apparently difficult to erase in the popular mind, and it seems unlikely that women and cats will ever be decoupled. Both are associated with a number of negatives which are used to justify cruelty and abuse which can sometimes be extreme; such cruelty is sometimes even described as deserved or appropriate because cats and women both behave so irrationally that a rough hand is needed to keep them in line.

Women are, of course, compared to other animals. (A fat woman is a “cow” or a “pig,” an ugly woman is a “dog,” a deceptive woman is a “snake,” an assertive and aggressive woman is a “bitch.”) But I think that the connection between women and cats runs especially deep, and it’s interesting to explore the reasons behind that. It’s also interesting to look at the real world similarities between women and cats: both, for example, are viewed as legitimate targets for physical abuse. Torment of women and cats is considered an appropriate subject for jokes, and in some cases, a “manly” thing to do. Both are also made dependent on the very people who abuse them: the domestic cat, by nature of being helpless (and sometimes made more so with brutalities like declawing), and the abused woman, by nature of a range of things, ranging from the inability to escape for economic reasons to a culture of fear which traps her in an abusive relationship.

Felinity and femininity are indeed deeply intertwined in the Western consciousness.

26 September, 2009 – 10:32 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in animals, Everything, social justice |

Bones: The Bond in the Boot

So, before I talk about “The Bond in the Boot,” I have to admit to an antifeminist guilty pleasure.

I love James Bond. I own the deluxe edition of the complete Bond, and I bust it out on regular occasions. I’ve also read a fair number of the Ian Fleming novels. I can’t say what I love about Bond; as a character, he’s someone I totally loathe. And the plots of the movies are utterly formulaic, with the enemy of the week primarily depending on the political climate in which the film was made. But there’s something about it. The mythos, perhaps. The fact that, historically, they prided themselves on actually doing the stunts, not using models and special effects. The epic title sequences. Whatever it is, I’m a Bond fanatic.

So when the episode opened with Bond-esque music, I knew I was going to enjoy it, especially since there were nice little Easter eggs for Bond fans, like the nod to Universal Exports. And the story was indeed straight out of a Bond film: diamonds, spy vs spy, mysterious Ukrainian woman.

It was also fun to see the interagency conflict, especially when the CIA fellow ended up actually being more or less on the same side as the team. Yes, he was engaging in some shady activity that he shouldn’t have been, but he ended up doing the right thing and recognizing the efforts of the analyst who tried to intervene in a situation which was too big for him. It was also great to see Booth get a chance to one-up Bones, as she was obviously extremely miffed about her lack of security clearance.

The real story, for me, was the one about finances. Bones is an author, and her wealth is periodically referenced throughout the series; we accept that she is wealthy, as is Hodgins, and that they do their work because they love it. It’s actually one of the things I really like about both characters, and I think that the show has done a good job when it comes to talking about some of the difficulties faced by people with money. (Not that I know anything about that, since I am a person without money, but, you know, I know some people who know some people, if you know what I’m sayin’.)

This episode set up a very classic situation: someone needs money, this person is liked and loved and respected, and people without money assume that the rich people will step up, putting them in an awkward position. It was clear that Brennan and Hodgins both wanted to help, but were struggling with a lot of issues, like the attitude that rich people should automatically hand out their money to people who want it, and the fact that Wendell probably wouldn’t have appreciated a handout. And, of course, a reference is made to the current economic situation, which complicates matters. Hodgins, for example, points out that the assets of his foundation, through which he makes charitable donations, are currently frozen, illustrating a common funding problem going on all over the world right now, and underscoring the fact that when you are wealthy, it is sometimes hard to separate the institutional and the personal.

Bones, being the sort of person that she is, freely admits that her financial situation separates her from Booth, and that it is an issue. I like that. Having spent a fair amount of time around some extremely wealthy people, I am well aware of the fact that in any relationship, friendship or otherwise, in which there is a financial imbalance, it’s going to be an issue. Not because either side wants it to be, but because that’s the way the world works. Bones is, I think, trying to explore some of that, and they’re doing it in a good way.

Something else I haven’t really touched upon when talking about Bones is Angela’s character, and what she does in the lab. We really got to see her work her magic this time with the image which turned out to be more than an image. One of the things I really love about the show is that Angela is a tech wizard, something more commonly associated with men, in addition to being an extremely talented artist. These things are often thought of as contradictory, left brain/right brain things, and I like that Angela represents a balance of both and that she brings a fresh perspective to the show which actually often proves to be very important when solving cases.

The kind of work that Angela does is passed off as a few seconds on screen, but in the real world, it’s major. Setting up the kind of reconstructions and scenarios she does in almost every episode require a very high level of skill. Restoring data like she does on a regular basis is nothing short of a miracle. We’re constantly reminded that Brennan is brilliant, but, in truth, so is Angela. I kind of like that she’s an insanely talented and strong character and the creators don’t feel the need to shove it in our faces, to go “look at us, we wrote an empowered lady character,” but rather, they just let us quietly absorb it.

As for the plumbing scene under the sink, the less said, the better. There may have been gagging noises from the viewers during that scene, and I’m not going to say which mammal/s present they were emanating from.

Laura’s also got a review up at Adventures of a Young Feminist.

25 September, 2009 – 7:58 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, television | Tagged |