Rape Apologism in Advice Columns

Note to readers: I’m going to be quoting some rather icky rape apologist and shaming language here, for reasons of critique. I feel like I should warn you so that you can, you know, not read this if you would rather not be exposed to that sort of thing.

Recently, Ouyang Dan pointed me in the direction of “Ask Amy,” an advice column at the Chicago Tribune. We were actually talking about columns to use for the “Dear Imprudence” feature at FWD, and we were marveling over the sea of fail that is “Ask Amy.” Practically every column provided material for dissection and discussion. One, in particular, jumped out at me. I was so astounded by it that I actually wondered, in all seriousness, if the Tribune had really published it.

It was incredibly horrific. Really, words can barely describe the horror.

The headline in the archives, “Rape question a matter of consent,” did not bode well. I suspected that I might be on the verge of reading something very infuriating when I clicked it, but I have a tendency to go ahead and read things which I know will upset me, so I clicked through.

The lede of the column is a letter from a reader who attended a frat party and was raped at the party. Describing the circumstances, she says that she said “no” repeatedly, and asks: “…my question is, if I wasn’t kicking and fighting him off, is it still rape?” The letter closes “Am I a victim?” The reader also mentions that she had been drinking, and that she felt like her reaction times were slowed by the alcohol.

How does Amy respond?

Perhaps she says “you’re not a victim, you’re a survivor.” Perhaps she says “yes, you were raped, Victim? In Virginia.” Perhaps she refers the reader to some resources, like a rape crisis center in Virginia which might be able to provide assistance. Perhaps she points out that rape is rape, whether or not “kicking and fighting” are involved, that coercion comes in many forms. Perhaps she says that even if you have been drinking, you have a right to not be raped.

Nope. Here’s what Amy said:

…you were a victim of your own awful judgment. Getting drunk at a frat house is a hazardous choice for anyone to make because of the risk (some might say a likelihood) that you will engage in unwise or unwanted sexual contact.

Yeah. That’s right. You stupid slut, you made your bed, now go lie in it. Everyone knows that going to parties at frat houses will result in rape, or sex that you will regret, and no self-respecting lady would ever attend such a party, for this very reason. Frat houses, of course, are not under any obligation to reform their culture, or to take steps to ensure that all party attendees have a reasonable expectation of personal safety.

Amy goes on to suggest that perhaps the man should get a pass because his judgment was impaired. And that the rape survivor “must involve the guy in question in order to determine what happened.” Yes, ladies, that’s right, when you are raped, the first thing you should do is to go talk to your rapist, and talk. Because you need to find out what happened! How will you know if it’s not mansplained to you?!

Oh, she grudgingly says that “no means no” and makes a passing reference to consent. But she makes sure to call it “sex,” not “rape,” and she makes it very clear that this horrible slutty stupid writer clearly got what she deserved. I mean, who goes to a social gathering without expecting rape?

I’m sure that Amy’s response will make this rape survivor feel so much better. It’s terrific to reach out for help and to be slut shamed and informed that you’re stupid. And to be told that your letter should be “posted on college bulletin boards everywhere” as a lesson to all the other slutty, stupid college students who are foolish enough to think that they deserve bodily autonomy drunk or sober, in any location, with anyone.

Yeah, rape is a question of consent. And agency. And will. And in this case, it’s clear that the rape survivor lacked all three. She clearly did not have consent, she lacked agency, and she did not have will. She was, in fact, raped.

Why are we constantly putting the thrust of the blame on rape survivors, rather than the people who rape them? Why is it always the fault of the stupid slut/trans woman/nervous college student/sex worker just for existing, rather than the fault of the rape culture which makes people think that it is acceptable to rape people? How can an advice columnist think that it is in any way a good idea to shame a survivor, to tell her that she should go talk to her rapist to “decide” what happened, and to not provide her with any resources beyond a tepid recommendation to go to the college health clinic?

What message does that send to rape survivors needing help who read that column? It tells them that they should stay silent. They should not speak up. They should not ask for help. Keep on staying quiet, rape survivors, because no one wants to hear your stories. Don’t speak up, because if you do, you will probably be shamed and informed that it’s all your fault. (Shouldn’t have gone to that party. Shouldn’t have worn that skirt. Shouldn’t be a sex worker. Shouldn’t be trans. Shouldn’t have flirted. Shouldn’t have had that second drink. Should have been more careful. Should have tried harder. You deserved what you got.)

Your society, the cultural values which surround you, they are in no way responsible for what happened to you. Nope. It’s all your fault.

Way to enforce rape culture, Dear Amy.

(More commentary on this from Amanda Hess at the Sexist, ginmar at A View From A Broad, and Hortense at Jezebel.)

30 November, 2009 – 10:23 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, Sexuality, social justice |

Frosty Canapes

Global Rich List (via Sociological Images)

The Age: Police to  have power to strip-search at random

Legal experts have labelled the proposed laws, which will enable officers to strip-search children and the disabled, as draconian and a knee-jerk reaction to the problem of drunken violence.

No way this can go wrong. Also, thanks for turning “disabled” into a noun, The Age!

The Guardian: Patrick Stewart: the legacy of domestic violence

I cannot express how sad – and angry – it makes me to think that we still cannot ensure the safety of women and children in their own homes.

Racialicious: Running With the Wolves–A Racialicious Reading of the Twilight Saga

Noble, long suffering, never in need of anything that would inconvenience Bella…hmm, where have we seen that trope before?

Washington Post: Saving the riches of the sea

The move reflects both a new global emphasis on ocean conservation and a major failure by the world’s fishery managers, who have been charged with overseeing how we use the ocean.

Why do we continue to think that people who profit from the status quo are capable of self-regulation?

BBC News: Sweden woman’s ‘murder’ committed by elk, not husband

Swedish Radio International says the animals can become aggressive after eating fermented fallen apples in gardens.

30 November, 2009 – 10:03 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

On Patriotism

“There are two types of patriotism, although sometimes the two are mingled in the same breast. The first kind one might call nationalism; nationalists believe that all other countries are inferior in every respect and that one would do them a favour by dominating them. Other countries are always in the wrong, they are less free, less civilized, are less glorious in battle, are perfidious, prone to falling for insane and alien ideologies which no reasonable person could believe, are irreligious and abnormal. Such patriots are the most common variety, and their patriotism is the most contemptible thing on earth.

“The second type of patriot is best described by returning to the example of General Fuerte. General Fuerte did not believe in ‘my country, right or wrong’; on the contrary, he loved his land despite the faults that he could so clearly see and that he labored to correct. It was his frequently stated opinion that anyone who supported his country when it was so obviously in the wrong, or who failed to see its faults, was the worst kind of traitor. Whereas the first kind of patriot really glories in his own irrationality and not in his country, General Carlo Maria Fuerte loved his country as a son loves his mother or a brother his sister.”

-Louis de Bernieres, The War of Don Emmanuel’s Nether Parts

I’ve always been a subscriber to this view of patriotism, long before I ever read this book, in fact, and found this quote, which so elegantly sums up how I feel about the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. A true patriot, in my eyes, is someone who recognizes flaws and works to fix them because the nation is a thing worth fixing.

The tone of rhetoric in this country often seems to veer towards a nationalistic perspective, which makes me deeply uncomfortable. And the same tone crops up within political movements; people are told that they must subscribe to all of the stated values of the movement and not criticize them because the movement is perfect. I hope I don’t have to point out the logical flaws here.

I believe that this is incredibly damaging. Talking with a friend about the President the other day, I mentioned that I thought that good foreign policy strides were being made, while his domestic policy is horrific. And I was informed that all I ever do is complain about the President and complain complain complain can’t I say anything good about him ever, and I said “uh, I just did, I said he’s making big strides in foreign policy and shifting the way that the rest of the world views America. But that doesn’t give him a free pass on shitty domestic policy decisions.”

But, yeah, I do have a problem with the state of American domestic policy, and I’m not afraid to say it. Because, yes, damnit, I am a patriot. I think America is pretty awesome, actually, in a lot of ways. I just also think that America has some pretty huge problems, and that we need to address those problems to make America even more awesome. To make it awesome, in fact, for everyone, instead of just a select few.

I think that this country has huge social issues and that ignoring them doesn’t really help us. I think that we need to address these things, we need to be able to criticize, we need to talk about the ways to make America better. This kind of seems to be a theme in my life; I see no point in criticizing if something has no value or possibility of redemption, but I do think that criticism is valuable to improve things which have potential. I wouldn’t bother to criticize, in other words, if I thought there was no hope.

I don’t quite know when this shift happened, when people decided that criticism couldn’t happen because criticism was an “attack” and was therefore bad and dangerous. I don’t like it. I think that it has a chilling and silencing effect (and, indeed, dismissals of criticism are used to silence all the time).

This country was founded on the notion that a bunch of people had some problems and wanted to talk about them. So they did, and they said “hey, how can we make this place better?” And the ultimate decision was to, you know, make it a new place. To structure better values into the very foundation of government. These values didn’t come out of nowhere. They were a direct response to social problems and issues perceived by the founders. When the founders articulated these values, they were working on the operating assumption that criticism is valuable, that criticism can be used to create something better.

I’m not saying the founders were perfect. (Here I go with the criticism!) But they  had the right idea, which was to stop chafing under the yoke of a problematic government and social structure, and to do something. To do something productive, too; rather than just criticizing, they provided constructive ideas for improvement. Those ideas proved to be pretty incendiary; they ignited an entirely new nation.

I’m not saying that we need to do that. I’m just saying that we need to identify the things America is doing right, and the things America is doing wrong, and we need to talk about how maybe we can get some more good stuff going on, because America is terrific in a lot of ways and I’d like it to be better. I’d like this to be a country where we really do have liberty and justice for all.

And I’d like this to be a society which is more just, more equal. One way to achieve that is to dismantle structural barriers created by our government, which is why I criticize America’s policies, because these policies do create barriers and they should be addressed. This isn’t the only issue, of course, we also need to address barriers created on an individual level by social structures and social attitudes.

It’s possible to do both.

And it’s not terribly helpful to tell critics that they should “just go move to Canada if they hate America so much.” I don’t hate America. I just think it needs work. If I hated America, maybe I would go ahead and move to Canada. But I don’t, which is why I live in Northern California, not, say, Montreal.

So, do you want to be a patriot, or a nationalist?

29 November, 2009 – 10:05 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, politics |

Beyond the Binary

(A slightly different version of part of this post has appeared at FWD.)

I know that many of my readers fall within the gender binary, identifying as either male or female, and thus, they may not think, often, about what it’s like to be nonbinary. This is not their fault; for example, I’m not an astronaut, so I don’t think very often about what it might be like to be an astronaut, and I don’t think this makes me a bad person1. But I thought it might be interesting to start illustrating situations which we nonbinaries encounter, because I think it might be eye-opening for some. Especially for binary parents of nonbinary kids, I think there’s a lot of stuff that’s really difficult to navigate and it might help to have the perspective of a nonbinary to reference.

I’m just one person. I don’t and can’t speak for all people who identify as nonbinary. This means that your mileage may vary, in other words; my experiences cannot necessarily be universally applied to all nonbinaries. In part because I am frequently and repeatedly read as female, which means that I benefit from cis privilege. I can choose to be read as female and to let people identify me that way, and I am rarely in physical danger because of my gender presentation and expression. The same cannot be said, unfortunately, of all nonbinaries.

Defining nonbinaries is complicated, and in this introductory post, I want to talk briefly about definition and word use so that we all know what we’re talking about as this series moves forward.

The gender binary is a construct of gender which views gender as falling into one of two camps: male or female. Under the gender binary, these are the only options. Gender essentialists believe that assigned sex at birth is also one’s gender for life. Other folks believe that it is possible for one’s binary gender identity to differ from one’s assigned sex; e.g. someone may be assigned male at birth and later realize that she is a woman. Take, for example, a person with a gender identity which differs from assigned sex in the sense that she was assigned male at birth and knows she is female or in the sense that he was assigned female at birth and knows that he is male. This individual may be referred to as a trans person or said to be trans gender (or transgender) or transsexual. These trans folks still fall within the binary, however: They have a gender identity which is male or female.

It’s important to note that intersex individuals are a problem for the gender binary. Under the rules of the binary, they should not exist, which means that being intersex is treated as a pathology which must be corrected. Historically, intersex people have been subjected to invasive surgical procedures at birth in which a gender is medically assigned. In some instances, these individuals later turn out to be trans gender (or transgender), as in the case of someone who is assigned male who later turns out to be a woman. These individuals may also later realize that they actually have a nonbinary gender identity.

The nonbinary view of gender recognizes that humans actually express and experience gender along a spectrum. Gender identity, in other words, is not as simple as “male” or “female” although these are points on the spectrum. This view does not pathologize intersex people and makes room for people who do not identify with a male or female gender. The umbrella term trans is sometimes used to refer to these individuals (and sometimes not, depending on where/who you are), and they may also be referred to as nonbinary.

In this case, trans refers to someone with a gender identity which differs from assigned sex at birth, as discussed above, but in these instances, that gender identity does not fall along the gender binary. I tend to use “nonbinary” rather than “trans” when talking about people who are not on the gender binary to avoid confusion between binary trans and nonbinary trans people. Nonbinary trans folks people may self identify as genderqueer, androgyne, neuter, third gender, intergender, genderfuck, etc. Some individuals identify as nongender or agender, which is yet another facet of the gender identity spectrum.

The umbrella term trans* is sometimes used to refer to the entire trans spectrum. I may use this term when I want to discuss all people on the trans* spectrum, including binary and nonbinary people. I do want to briefly note that not all intersex individuals identify as trans*; while they are outside the binary, this does not necessarily make them trans*. We need to avoid making the mistake of lumping intersex folks under the “trans*” umbrella, and the same holds true for some nongendered folks, who not identify and do not want to be identified as trans.

I know that this is a little bit complicated. There is a lot of material out there on this topic, and I highly recommend doing some Googling and reading if you feel adrift here. Gender identity is a really complex and nuanced issue, and this is only the very beginning of a primer to try and get some terms straight so that we can all be on the same ground.

I also want to include a note about language; I am a nonbinary, and I identify as genderqueer. That means that it’s fine to refer to me as a nonbinary, or as genderqueer, or even as trans/trans* if you like. In my case, all are correct. I prefer the gender-neutral pronoun “ou,” from strangers, for people who are looking for a pronoun to use to refer to me, but my friends often use “she”2. However, “genderqueer” is not a blanket term for nonbinaries. It is a term for a very specific group of people within the nonbinary spectrum. Thus, when you know that someone is nonbinary but you are not quite sure about how ou identifies, do not refer to that person as genderqueer unless you hear that person use this term self-referentially.

Obviously, as a nonbinary, I subscribe to the nonbinary view of gender. And because we live in a society which is structured around the binary and which tends to center the experiences of cis people, living as a trans* person is incredibly difficult. We are assaulted because of our gender identity and expression. We are reduced to our genitals (or lack thereof). We are policed.

Part of the way to address this is to start breaking down barriers, to get people thinking about experiences which differ from their own. Deconstructing the binary and decentering cis people doesn’t threaten or hurt anyone’s gender identity, but it would make the world a lot safer for us. And that’s the whole point of the Beyond the Binary series.

  1. Yes, astronauts are my go-to example. Astronauts are cool! ↩
  2. I know, it’s confusing; for me it has to do with the fact that strangers using “she” erases my gender identity, whereas when my friends use it, I know that they use it in the knowledge that I am genderqueer with femme tendencies. Incidentally, I get to decide who my “friends” are and if you aren’t sure about which pronoun to use, please ask. ↩
28 November, 2009 – 10:46 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, gender | Tagged , |

What Is A Woman?

The simple answer to this question is that a woman is a person who says that she is a woman. That she identifies as a woman. That she would like people to use female pronouns when referring to her. A woman is a Miss, a Ms., a Mrs., a Lady, a Dame, a Countess. A princess, even. Conversely, a person who says that ou is not a woman is not a woman, no matter what ou looks like.

This question, “what is a woman?,” seems to be fraught with meaning these days, though. My simple answer, which is the right answer, is dodged and twisted and corrupted to serve agendas every day. The thing about gender identity is that it is defined by the people who live within that identity, not the people outside it, and yet people seem to feel compelled, every day, to change the definition of what a woman is to suit their needs. Indeed, some people who identify as women work especially hard to exclude other people who identify as women, which sort of boggles the mind, if you stop and think about it. I mean, really, think about it.

I’ve been thinking about this lately in the context of “women only spaces,” which are presumably spaces in which only women are welcomed. The naive among us might assume that this means that anyone who identifies as a woman would, thus, be welcome in such a space. After all, it’s a space which is designed for women which means that women ought to be able to join it. Sort of how like you would expect to find cranberries in a bag of cranberries.

The problem, unfortunately, is that some people who are in charge of these spaces think that they get to decide who is considered a woman and who is not. And this judgment is most commonly levied against trans women. This is called, incidentally, “transmisogyny,” and it’s only one form of transmisogyny. You might also call it “gender policing,” which it also is, with certain people thinking that they are allowed to determine who is allowed to belong to their gender, and who is not. As though gender is some sort of exclusive social club with blackballing privileges.

This is bullshit. It is bullshit of the highest and stinkiest order, and it is especially repellent that it is tolerated and in fact actively encouraged in some feminist circles. If feminism is advancing the cause of women, that, to me, means advancing the cause of all people with a female gender identity. This means that you must simultaneously consider a lot of issues; the needs and wants of one woman are not the same as another, the priorities of one group of women are not those of another. This in fact reflects the huge diversity of humanity as a whole, but apparently it’s a little bit hard for some women to grasp. And those women are usually cis women.

Why act like 50% of humanity is uniform when you are talking about half of the human population?! And why act as though you are the ultimate arbiter of gender identity?

Gender identity is not about which chromosomes you have, and how many of them you have. Gender identity is not about what your genitals look like, or how they are laid out, or even if they were the genitals you were born with. Gender identity is not about the hormones your body produces, or the hormones you take. Gender identity is about your identity.

If you say you’re a woman, you’re a woman. It’s that simple. Your physical presentation, your appearance, are not relevant. You may choose to express your identity through your physical presentation, but you are not required to. And you should not be subjected to scrutiny and humiliation by people who think that they have a right to inspect your karyotype, the contents of your pants, the contents of your medicine cabinet.

This policing from within the feminist community has very real world consequences. The exclusion of trans women from so-called “women only spaces” deprives trans women of services they need. Of support they need. Of friends they need. And it means that society in general can continue to marginalize trans women, because, well, if the feminists do it, why shouldn’t society?

And, of course, many of these exclusive “women only” spaces welcome trans men. Which is truly astounding, because what this suggests is that these spaces are actually highly committed to gender essentialism, believing that someone’s assigned sex is someone’s gender. Forever. (Setting aside the fact that sometimes “assigned sex” turns out to be wrong, speaking in a strictly biological sense, mistakes are made, and sometimes “sex” is not as apparent as you might think it is. And, of course, sex is not gender.) Basically, this reinforces the idea of trans folk as “fakers” who are “masquerading” for unclear reasons.

As opposed to, say, accepting the fact that trans people are people with a gender identity which does not match their assigned sex at birth. Which means that people, in general, are whatever they say they are: If someone says that he is a man, he’s a man. If someone says she’s a woman, she’s a woman. If someone says that ou is neither of these things, then, well, ou is neither of these things. This is identity 101, people.

When the news lasciviously dwelled on the details of the Caster Semenya situation, it was a terrific example of the fact that most of society does not understand what a woman is. Not really. This seemingly simple term which people think is obvious and which people assume that everyone understands must actually be a little bit more complicated if the media can publish headlines which attempt to suggest that a woman is a man. The media routinely engages in gender essentialism and confuses the difference between sex and gender; is it any wonder that most of society does too?

People, this is simple, and we all can do it: Respect someone’s gender identity. Get over yourself. Take your mind out of the gutter society has been dragging it in, and recognize that a woman is who she says she is. You don’t get to make decisions about someone else’s gender.

27 November, 2009 – 10:56 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, gender, social justice |

Humid Submarines

Warning: this ain’t livin’ will be down on Monday, 30 November from 6:00 AM UTC to 9:00 AM UTC!

BBC News: Siberian tiger in severe decline

The last remaining population of Siberian tigers has declined significantly, according to research.

News.com.au: Australian soldier accused of hate crime

…firing on a group of seven mostly Aboriginal children playing footy in a park in the north Queensland city.

New York Times: Community Standard or Double Standard?

Mostly it was a reminder of television’s policy regarding gay men: Do tell, just don’t show.

La Linea: More Immigrants Dying in the Desert and the Band Plays On

A crisis that only seems to worsen as both Mexico and the United States ignore the underlying causes of illegal immigration.

Womanist Musings: Couple Crashes Obama’s First State Dinner

Imagine for a moment, a poor working class couple in jeans and a t-shirt deciding that they would like to have dinner with the president,  would the secret service assume that they deserved to be there?

27 November, 2009 – 10:03 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

This Is Just to Say

You know what would be cool? If the President pardoned innocent people on Death Row instead of turkeys.

I wrote this last night, and it quickly turned into one of the most quoted things I have ever written. Evidently it spoke to a lot of people.

Watching the President indulge in the ritual pardoning of the turkey yesterday, I couldn’t help but be struck by the scene. He was making a bit of a joke out of it, fun and games, with a whiff of embedded commentary in his speechmaking, but here’s an event which is widely publicized every year and very widely reported. The media laps it up; it’s supposed to be a feel good moment, watching the President officially pardon a turkey, this potent symbol of one of the more bizarre holidays celebrated in America, in which people eat a large meal to rejoice for the fact that Europeans displaced Native Americans with murder, policy, disease, systematic discrimination, and then occupied their land.

This potent symbol of American industrial agriculture, a bird so overbred that it will not be able to walk when it fully matures.  (The President does not pardon a Heritage Turkey, he pardons a Broad Breasted White, a bird which, incidentally, cannot breed on its own.) That white turkey emblemizes so many problematic things, it’s a surprise the poor thing doesn’t topple over from the strain.

Meanwhile, there are innocent people on Death Row.

This country executes people who are known to be innocent.

A human being and a turkey are two very different things.

The President can pardon a turkey, but not a human being? A feel good photo opportunity can be staged with a bird, but not a person? The media can universally acclaim a President who magnanimously spares the life of a turkey, while reporting with eager glee only days earlier on the execution of a real live person?

I understand that this is a nation in which we try to maintain a separation between the branches of government, in which the Executive is not supposed to interfere in the Judicial, but the Judicial is rife with problems. And I would like to see those problems being addressed. I would like to know why the prison population consists primarily of poor people of colour. I would like to know how it is that governors can refuse to write a stay of execution when they are presented with incontrovertible evidence that the person condemned to die is innocent. I would like to know why it is that we kill people in the name of the state at all, really.

I would like to know why it is that the President of the United States can pardon a turkey for a press relations opportunity, but not a human being.

Oh, but it would be too political to pardon a prisoner on Thanksgiving! Oh, it would be too political for a Black President to pardon an innocent Black man on Death Row! Oh, it would be too political for the President to criticize the very real and serious flaws in the American judicial system! We must appease! We cannot ruffle feathers! (But we can pardon feathered creatures.)

The President is a symbol, a leader, something larger than life, a mythos. And yes, it would send exactly the wrong signal if the President pardoned an innocent prisoner; it would suggest that our judicial system is so flawed that it takes intervention from another branch of government for justice to be done. It would suggest that we should not and will not tolerate incarceration and execution of the innocent.

It would suggest that we have something for which to atone.

And we certainly wouldn’t want to say that on Thanksgiving, now would we?

26 November, 2009 – 10:21 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, politics |

Burping Llamas

The Age: Fielding likens same-sex marriage to incest

Family First senator Steve Fielding has compared same-sex marriages to incest, as a Senate inquiry yesterday recommended against allowing gay marriage in Australia.

Minneapolis City Pages: Anonymous online reviews affecting Twin Cities eateries

But many restaurateurs say they have received criticism they felt was false, unfair, or malicious—which they had little ability to correct or refute.

Racialicious: Disney, Twilight and Bollywood

Stephanie Meyer has capitalized on the one niche that Disney and women’s romance novels left open: the hunger for teen girls (and their mothers) for a safe place to explore the wonder and excitement of their own sexuality.

Guardian: Police stop and search powers curbed

But the statistics still show that only a tiny proportion – 0.6% – of the searches carried out under anti-terror laws led to an arrest.

East Bay Express: Green Washing the Milk

Dean and Aurora continue to gain market share in part because lax federal organic standards allow them to operate or contract with massive farms that maintain dense herds of cattle.

C-Ville: The sorry state of saying “I’m Sorry”

The apology as we know it hasn’t always been around.

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

Glee: Hairography

I made the probably unwise decision of watching Glee first thing in the morning today. And happened to mention on Twitter (sorry, merideth, I swear it’s relevant!) that I thought it wasn’t possible to be any more infuriated by Glee, and I was wrong. And was promptly told that I am entirely too sensitive and why can’t I just settle down and enjoy the nice fun television show?

Well, I’ll tell you why I can’t settle down. Because Glee is filled with fail.

Four things really stuck out in this episode for me, and I’m going to bulletpoint them for your convenience:

  • Making fun of “weird” Black names
  • The handling of Kurt
  • The epilepsy jokes
  • The Deaf choir

Let’s take these one at a time. The Black name thing was a quick throwaway right at the beginning of the show, so Glee pretty much led with pissing me off this week. We’re introduced to a Black teen in the “school for bad girls” named Aphasia. Ha ha, those Black people pick the weirdest names for their kids! Let’s all chortle together, shall we? (And don’t even get me started on the framing of the school for juvenile offenders, I am trying to  keep this review short.)

The handling of Kurt. Kurt, as we know, is in love with Finn. Which makes him GAY! GAY GAY GAY! GAY! So, how does Kurt deal with this? He tries to sabotage Rachel, who is also in love with Finn. This came complete with a scene in which it is made clear to viewers that Kurt is manipulative and mean and…just like a girl, basically. Yes, folks, it’s true: Being GAY! makes you exactly like a girl. The stereotypical trope award of the episode goes to Kurt, guest starring as Catty Bitch.

The epilepsy jokes. Now here’s the part where people tell me I’m being “oversensitive.” Another throwaway moment; someone uses the word “spazzing” to describe the sort of movements which should be made in the hairography number, and then goes on to say “It’s like cool epilepsy.” What the forks?! And, you know, I get it, this is the character who is supposed to be “dumb” and maybe we are supposed to laugh because “she said something not ok,” but here’s the thing, people use “spazzing” all the time and they also make fun of epilepsy. This isn’t some sort of cleverly embedded commentary on how ableist language is used in our society, it’s just…icky.

Finally, the Deaf choir. Now, I have seen numerous quotes from people (able people, mostly) about how Inspiring this number was. Look at them, singing “Imagine” together. People actually said that they bawled during this scene.

I had the opposite reaction. But maybe not for the reason you think.

Here’s the thing. I saw the Deaf choir start to perform, and I thought “gee, it’s funny how when you are Deaf, you cannot move while singing/performing.” But, you know, whatever, this show is so faily at this point that I just sort of swallowed it. Especially because I was also thinking “ooh, exciting, Glee is finally allowing us to see the Deaf choir performing, I may have to give them some points for trying even though they are doing it very badly.”

And then, to my shock and horror, someone from the glee club started interrupting the Deaf choir to sing. Ok, now, I have not sung in a choir, but I consulted a real live person who has performed in choirs, and I was informed that, no, it is not actually conventional or acceptable to interrupt a choir while they are performing. Choirs do indeed have jam sessions and mashups where they sing together. But when you are performing, it is definitely not ok for someone to just jump in and start singing.

Why was it ok here? How was it inspiring to watch the Deaf choir’s performance being interrupted and co-opted by the glee club? Because the Deaf choir were doing it wrong? Because “the poor impaired folk need normal people to fill in their defects,” as Lauredhel said when we were chatting about this episode?

I wasn’t inspired or moved by watching the two choirs perform together. I was PISSED. Because it was framed as perfectly acceptable for the glee club to just jump in on another performance. And for this to turn into a Special Learning Experience, look at how they can all sing together and be happy! Yes, folks, totally erasing people with disabilities and not allowing them to perform is Inspiring!

The Deaf choir has been a running joke in this series. (Because everyone knows that Deaf folks can’t sing, or dance!) And now, in the scene where we finally had a chance to see them performing, they were treated with complete disrespect and condescension. They were framed as a failure, until the nice glee club came in and rescued them. But, you know, nice try, Deaf choir!

The one bright spot in this episode: Tina actually being allowed to solo in the final number.

Incidentally, check out Gallaudet Dance if you want to see actual Deaf people actually performing and being amazing in the process. Further reading over at Adventures of a Young Feminist, where Laura also reviewed “Hairography.”

ETA: Read the comments before commenting on this post. Especially this comment, which discusses Kurt’s characterization in detail. (Hint: I’m saying Kurt is “just like a girl” in the context of how the show depicts women.) Seriously. If you leave a comment which clearly indicates that you have not read the comments, or in which you use violent and offensive language, it will not be published. No matter how valid you think your “point” is.

26 November, 2009 – 8:19 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, television | Tagged |

House of Night

I recently started reading the House of Night books, in part because several people talked them up to me, and in part because a charming waitperson insisted on loaning me her copies of the first two books. (Take that, New York Times and your snobbish lists of things waitstaff can and can’t do…I’m pretty sure “loaning books to customers” would have been on that list if you’d thought of it.)

In the world of House of Night, vampirism happens as a result of changes which occur during puberty. People who are going to become vampires are Marked with a tattoo of the crescent moon, and expected to attend school at a House of Night, which is basically like a finishing school for vampires. If they make it through the changes associated with becoming adult vampires (and not everyone does), then they become something distinctly other than human, but still alive.

These books have been talked up to me because they feature a strong female lead, although she is a bit of a Mary Sue, if you ask me. Zoey seems to be on the fast track to maturity (which other characters make sure to mention with awe), she has powers no other vampire has dreamed of, she’s pretty, and she’s kinda perfect. So I’m not really sure, really, how strong of a female lead she really is. She takes charge, but in part that’s because she’s given these powers which allow her to do that. She’s an object of sexual interest who manages not to become subsumed in a boy, but we’re reminded constantly of her prettiness, and the romantic lives of her buddies play a less prominent role than her own (in the first two books, at any rate).

There are some things about these books which definitely make me uncomfortable. There seems to be a bit of cultural appropriation/noble savage crap going on with the constant references to Cherokee culture, and I’m kind of not a fan of the overt antidrug/alcohol messages in the book. We’re reminded at pretty much every opportunity that people who smoke marijuana and drink are pathetic losers who will never amount to anything and it’s really a shame, because they used to be so cool. Until they started smoking and drinking, of course, and people who do that are so gross.

And let’s talk about ableism, because the authors are using “lame” and “retard” like they’re going out of style (which, really, they ought to be). Anyone or anything which could possibly have these words used to describe it is. Abundantly. Sometimes multiple times on the same page. Interestingly enough, “gay” isn’t used as an insult, perhaps because there is a token neutered gay boy among the friends (and Zoey is constantly talking about how “hot” women are and hastening to add “but I’m not gay or nuthin’” in so many words).

And, of course, part and parcel with ableism is the constant fawning over perfection. Adult vampires are regularly described as perfect, impossibly beautiful, etc etc, which seems to be a common theme in vampire novels in general. The idea of perfection and the almost worship of it is a little…well, it’s annoying. It suggests that being human is somehow a flaw or disease (something echoed, incidentally, in the disdainful attitude many vamps in the series have to humans), and that vampirism is, in a sense, a cure for being a gross icky human. Which rubs me the wrong way, as a human reader.

The decision to appropriate famous people in the arts, letters, and so forth also kind of upsets me. According the books, basically anyone famous who has ever produced something of worth is a vampire. Including current popular figures. I get that the idea is to try to construct a mythology which fits into the framework of the world we know so that we can connect with it, but, again, I find it kind of annoying. The implication is that humans are unworthy and have nothing to contribute to society, other than acting as refrigerators.

Which is funny, since all vampires arise from humans, which means that humans actually contribute the most important thing of all to vampire society: More vampires.

I do think that one interesting thing about the books is the integration of a goddess-centered religion, and the stress on vampire society as matriarchal. While I may not think of highly as Zoey as some readers do, I think that the overall tone of the books is very female positive. A lot of references are made to the historic fear of female power, and the oppression of women who are powerful and try to exert power. The books also talk about the abuse and mistreatment of women who have been in touch with the Divine on some level, and about male attempts to dominate society and penetrate (sorry) female-only spaces.

I also, of course, love that the books are cat positive. Laden with cats. Overflowing with cats. A lot of vampire stories take the position that because vampires are inhuman, animals naturally fear them, but in the House of Night books, cats not only don’t have a problem with vampires, they have an affinity. The relationship to cats is also framed as a partnership and relationship, not an ownership, which I think is awesome. Cats choose their partners in these books instead of being treated like objects, which I think sends some interesting messages to readers about pets and how they are treated.

Of course, these books are pretty predictable. Supposedly gotcha plot points are laughably obvious to me. But that’s kind of the way of books which operate at this level, so I don’t think it bothers me as much as it might otherwise. It’s not like I’m reading these things to be blown away by innovative storylining and plot.

One thing which does kind of surprise and intrigue me is the creativity of the word use. Ableist slurs aside, there are portions of the books which actually have very creative, elegant, interesting, and beautiful language. I noticed it especially in the beginning of the first book, although alas it seems to have gone downhill from there. There were a few turns of phrase which I found particularly delightful, thus making it all the more annoying that the authors resorted to troped slurs when they apparently ran out of creativity. I’m hoping that there will be a return to this awesome word use in later books, because it’s a trait that made House of Night really stand out to me.

25 November, 2009 – 10:55 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, vampires | Tagged , , |