Some bloke wrote an article on First Post defending 'women's right' to partake in raunch culture... And so I 'had my say'. It went something along the lines of:
I would like to address a couple points made by the author (who I noticed was male).
"The normalisation of sex is an issue in our society and does cause problems."
It is not so much a normalisation of sex, but a porno-isation of sex. For raunch culture is not about emulating sex, but about emulating pornography. Pornography is the simulation of sex and pleasure, it is not real pleasure which is being conveyed. If people are truly liberated about sex, they wouldn't be emulating ACTING. I believe this to be restrictive, limiting and not liberated or empowered.
I personally found Tom Eilenberg's argument weak: his distress at having 'to endure the upsetting spectacle of eight-year-old girls prancing around singing "I'll be your naughty girl tonight"' weakens his argument that raunch culture should be enjoyed by female students because it is their "right", because it is as a direct result of raunch culture that eight-year-old girls are singing sexually provocative songs. Clearly, raunch culture affects more than just university students, and Eilenberg seems to be acknowledging that raunch culture has a negative affect on young girls.
Secondly, I feel compelled to argue with his belief that "There are more important battles for the feminists of today to be fighting." I do not believe he has any right to tell feminists what they should or should not believe in, or fight for. I find it - and to quote him - "condescending and plain wrong". It is patronising, too, and seems to invalidate many feminists' views.
I would suggest that Tom Eilenberg should read Female Chauvinist Pigs - Women & The Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy before he comments on raunch culture again.
Friday, 19 January 2007
Saturday, 13 January 2007
Sick fuck
Picking up any newspaper can be depressing at times. It often re-inforces the idea that the world's a fucked up place. There are many different and various things in the papers - from the red tops to the broadsheets - which highlight this view.
Recently the case of the 20 year old babysitter - James Dean - from Cornwall has been in the news. Dean raped - or in the words of the victim did "rude things" - a three year old girl, now five. He also assaulted her old sister, now 9, and another girl, now aged seven.
That's disgusting. Despicable. I generally go along the principle of "killing is wrong, full stop", and so I'm generally against capital punishment, although there are times when I feel so incredibly angered, and saddened, when I hear of certain crimes that I wish for a more severe form of retribution for the perpetrators. This is one of those cases. It's deplorable. (For some reason I can only think of adjectives beginning with "D" in reference to the crime.) This piece of shit was the 2 sisters' baby-sitting, he was in a position to trust. They're all little girls. I think there was also a case involving a fourteen year old girl, but I don't know so much about that. I honest to God hope that the little girls, and any other girl he's abused, will be OK. But this is something which affects a person terribly, at whatever age they are violated. It damages a core sense of trust in others, for one thing. I've heard that the youngest child is now a lot more self-conscious and covers herself, whereas before she was free and happy and open as many little children are, because they're naive, innocent and trusting.
And why did he do this? Because he was frustrated that his girlfriend wasn't having sex with him.
What a ... What a complete pile of wankstick. How fucking dare he feel entitled to have sex? How fucking dare he feel he is entitled to that right? How fucking dare he violate the right of young girls to be free of harm, just so he can have sex? Which isn't even something he's entitled to. It's a sick mind which believes it's entitled to have sex, it's a sick mind which believes it has to force another human being into sex to satisfy the perpetrators desires.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
That mindset really, really pisses me off.
I do not blame the mother of the 2 sisters who said - as the headline of The Sun yesterday declared - "Shoot him." I would want to do that, I'd feel the same. It's because this is the kind of crime which evokes strong emotions, and I do not believe that the British justice system punishes the rapists and molesters harshly enough. I believe that just a 5% conviction rate for rape is not good enough, and that it is partly indicative of this fact. I've heard cases of rape, where the rapist is given 6 years, is out in 3. And it's just fucked up. It gives potential rapists the OK to rape, because the repercussions are not severe enough, and the conviction rate is low anyway, so they may not even have to face any kind of repercussion anyway.
I cannot articulate this well at the moment, so I will go back to this later.
Although, I should probably note, that this case was taken to court, the five year old girl was one of the youngest victims to testify in British legal history, and did so through a two-way video. She was examined by two independent pyschologists, who both said she was a credible witness (part of the defence's argument was that she wasn't). And yes, he has been jailed "indefinitely", although I must confess to being a bit confused, because I also read something about x amount of months or years and being able to go x amount of time early. Course, if anyone knows any better and could correct me on this, please do.
Recently the case of the 20 year old babysitter - James Dean - from Cornwall has been in the news. Dean raped - or in the words of the victim did "rude things" - a three year old girl, now five. He also assaulted her old sister, now 9, and another girl, now aged seven.
That's disgusting. Despicable. I generally go along the principle of "killing is wrong, full stop", and so I'm generally against capital punishment, although there are times when I feel so incredibly angered, and saddened, when I hear of certain crimes that I wish for a more severe form of retribution for the perpetrators. This is one of those cases. It's deplorable. (For some reason I can only think of adjectives beginning with "D" in reference to the crime.) This piece of shit was the 2 sisters' baby-sitting, he was in a position to trust. They're all little girls. I think there was also a case involving a fourteen year old girl, but I don't know so much about that. I honest to God hope that the little girls, and any other girl he's abused, will be OK. But this is something which affects a person terribly, at whatever age they are violated. It damages a core sense of trust in others, for one thing. I've heard that the youngest child is now a lot more self-conscious and covers herself, whereas before she was free and happy and open as many little children are, because they're naive, innocent and trusting.
And why did he do this? Because he was frustrated that his girlfriend wasn't having sex with him.
What a ... What a complete pile of wankstick. How fucking dare he feel entitled to have sex? How fucking dare he feel he is entitled to that right? How fucking dare he violate the right of young girls to be free of harm, just so he can have sex? Which isn't even something he's entitled to. It's a sick mind which believes it's entitled to have sex, it's a sick mind which believes it has to force another human being into sex to satisfy the perpetrators desires.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!
That mindset really, really pisses me off.
I do not blame the mother of the 2 sisters who said - as the headline of The Sun yesterday declared - "Shoot him." I would want to do that, I'd feel the same. It's because this is the kind of crime which evokes strong emotions, and I do not believe that the British justice system punishes the rapists and molesters harshly enough. I believe that just a 5% conviction rate for rape is not good enough, and that it is partly indicative of this fact. I've heard cases of rape, where the rapist is given 6 years, is out in 3. And it's just fucked up. It gives potential rapists the OK to rape, because the repercussions are not severe enough, and the conviction rate is low anyway, so they may not even have to face any kind of repercussion anyway.
I cannot articulate this well at the moment, so I will go back to this later.
Although, I should probably note, that this case was taken to court, the five year old girl was one of the youngest victims to testify in British legal history, and did so through a two-way video. She was examined by two independent pyschologists, who both said she was a credible witness (part of the defence's argument was that she wasn't). And yes, he has been jailed "indefinitely", although I must confess to being a bit confused, because I also read something about x amount of months or years and being able to go x amount of time early. Course, if anyone knows any better and could correct me on this, please do.
Friday, 12 January 2007
Amy's in a funk
Gah, I hate, hate, hate it when I get it into funks.
I rarely, however, get into funks about the academic side of my life.
But, today, I had my first AS exam. It was on the rise of Italian Fascism. 2 essays in 55 minutes. It counts for a third of my AS history grade. One of the courses I am considering is History & Journalism at QMU in London.
I spent 20 bloody minutes crossing shit out! I mean, complete fucking waste of time, idiot!
I never got to finish it, either. Which could have been OK, if I'd what I'd written had been anything decent. But, causation questions are multi-causal, and I could only really think of one factor of the March on Rome which led to Mussolini's appointment as Prime Minister. And I wasn't as analytical about it as I coulda been. Shoulda been. Meh.
I can always re-take, right.
But it's got me thinking that maybe I'm just not cut-out for it all. Which is fucked up, because I'm not stupid, and I so want to go to University then be a journalist.
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Feel so fucking stupid.
I rarely, however, get into funks about the academic side of my life.
But, today, I had my first AS exam. It was on the rise of Italian Fascism. 2 essays in 55 minutes. It counts for a third of my AS history grade. One of the courses I am considering is History & Journalism at QMU in London.
I spent 20 bloody minutes crossing shit out! I mean, complete fucking waste of time, idiot!
I never got to finish it, either. Which could have been OK, if I'd what I'd written had been anything decent. But, causation questions are multi-causal, and I could only really think of one factor of the March on Rome which led to Mussolini's appointment as Prime Minister. And I wasn't as analytical about it as I coulda been. Shoulda been. Meh.
I can always re-take, right.
But it's got me thinking that maybe I'm just not cut-out for it all. Which is fucked up, because I'm not stupid, and I so want to go to University then be a journalist.
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Feel so fucking stupid.
Tuesday, 9 January 2007
Gaaaaaaaaah!!!
I think that word sums up my immediate thoughts/feelings quite succinctly after discovering what my brother had been downloading from Limewire yesterday.
(No prizes for guessing what...)
My brother is 13, almost 14. He is very small for his age and, in my personal view, resembles something rat-like; but that is neither here nor there.
So he's at that age when a lot of guys do start to watch/look at porn. I guess it's because - and I'm not much of an expert on guys that age, because I was always more focussed on what was happening to me - guys tend to want to "explore" at that age, and society pretty much expects them to objectify women, and to start doing so as soon as possible. (Funny how it's 'Lads mags' not 'Mens mags', non? Seems to connote something more youthful about it all.) I mean, I'm probably about to go off on a tangent here but, it's pretty socially accepted within my peer group (I cannot speak for others), and has been since around that age, that guys watch porn and "jerk off". At the same time, masturbation amongst girls is pretty much a taboo subject, and I went to an all-girls school 'til 16, and we talked about a lot of sexually explicit stuff together, but never any serious mention of masturbation.
Now, around September time, my brother discovered/realised that you can get porn on the internet (I personally blame his school friends; I noticed strange websites cropping up on the Internet history around the time he had about 3 or 4 mates over, it was shocking). He was on the computer in the study doing "homework", mum comes in to check he's doing homework, and then the next thing I know, mum's going balistic. She's screaming at him (believe me I would do the same!) and he starts crying. Mum tells him that that is what porn does to you. I actually sat in the other room froze, because I don't know if anybody likes to think of a relative perusing porn sites, y'know? Although, that said, I did actually go and storm in for my tuppence: "PORN'S SICK!"
Anyhoo, brother didn't go on any porn sites after that (although, I once noticed he'd looked up "boobs" "thong" and "ass" and various combination of the aforementioned words in google images).
Now, onto yesterday. (Yeah, I still haven't got this blogging thing down yet.) Last friday, or around that time, my brother got a laptop. Now, I kind of knew this could potentially be asking for trouble... And I was (of course) right. I mean, because I'd just updated my iTunes I could see what was on his shared Limewire files (I'd installed iTunes onto his laptop on Friday), and I felt sick. Maybe I'm prudish, but whatev, I'm just not OK with porn.
I can kind of understand why boys aged 13-14 watch porn, but I'm not saying I think it's right. I think there's a social/peer pressure put on them. It's from that age, when they're beginning to develop, and like girls are aware of their bodies and the changes, when the social/peer pressure begins to pile on them to be sexually dominant. To be a player. To (at least pretend to) have a big dick. To fuck girls. To watch porn. To masturbate. To be sexually confidant. And guys pick up on these themes in everyday sitcoms. There always seems to be the whole "haha he's got a small dick" thing going on in popular culture. And, let's face it, there are images everywhere of women represented as sex objects. So most guys get to the age of 13/14, start watching porn, (maybe earlier, what do I know?), and they find it acceptable, because that's what popular culture says essentially. It's masculine to watch porn. All the boys are doing it.
I think some guys think that, by watching porn, they'll be some kind of expert when it comes to actually doing stuff with girls. Based on what, may I ask? "Acting"? (For want of a better word, and of course, sometimes it's worse: it's rape). Psch.
The majority of us like to fantasise, yes, but we don't all need porn. Porn is restricting. Porn dictates what our fantasies should be. Porn is not equal. At least that's all true in the traditional male-audience-orientated porn. Because that's what I mean when I say "porn". I do tend to generalise my terms too much, make them too vague and ambiguous.
I don't know much about porn which is aimed at women. Maybe the representations of men and women are more equal, there's no sub-ordination. So I won't pass any comment on that. I've heard some definitions of porn which include the "demeaning or sub-ordination of one person/people" or something which I've paraphrased from memory. However, the definition of porn on dictionary.com (Aren't I cool?!) is: "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". In which case it would be quite possible for porn aimed at women to be more equal and liberating, except for the fact that is is acting, and not true sexual expression.
Honestly? One of the first things that comes to my head when the issue of men/boys watching porn is raised is: fucking pathetic. It really is.
(No prizes for guessing what...)
My brother is 13, almost 14. He is very small for his age and, in my personal view, resembles something rat-like; but that is neither here nor there.
So he's at that age when a lot of guys do start to watch/look at porn. I guess it's because - and I'm not much of an expert on guys that age, because I was always more focussed on what was happening to me - guys tend to want to "explore" at that age, and society pretty much expects them to objectify women, and to start doing so as soon as possible. (Funny how it's 'Lads mags' not 'Mens mags', non? Seems to connote something more youthful about it all.) I mean, I'm probably about to go off on a tangent here but, it's pretty socially accepted within my peer group (I cannot speak for others), and has been since around that age, that guys watch porn and "jerk off". At the same time, masturbation amongst girls is pretty much a taboo subject, and I went to an all-girls school 'til 16, and we talked about a lot of sexually explicit stuff together, but never any serious mention of masturbation.
Now, around September time, my brother discovered/realised that you can get porn on the internet (I personally blame his school friends; I noticed strange websites cropping up on the Internet history around the time he had about 3 or 4 mates over, it was shocking). He was on the computer in the study doing "homework", mum comes in to check he's doing homework, and then the next thing I know, mum's going balistic. She's screaming at him (believe me I would do the same!) and he starts crying. Mum tells him that that is what porn does to you. I actually sat in the other room froze, because I don't know if anybody likes to think of a relative perusing porn sites, y'know? Although, that said, I did actually go and storm in for my tuppence: "PORN'S SICK!"
Anyhoo, brother didn't go on any porn sites after that (although, I once noticed he'd looked up "boobs" "thong" and "ass" and various combination of the aforementioned words in google images).
Now, onto yesterday. (Yeah, I still haven't got this blogging thing down yet.) Last friday, or around that time, my brother got a laptop. Now, I kind of knew this could potentially be asking for trouble... And I was (of course) right. I mean, because I'd just updated my iTunes I could see what was on his shared Limewire files (I'd installed iTunes onto his laptop on Friday), and I felt sick. Maybe I'm prudish, but whatev, I'm just not OK with porn.
I can kind of understand why boys aged 13-14 watch porn, but I'm not saying I think it's right. I think there's a social/peer pressure put on them. It's from that age, when they're beginning to develop, and like girls are aware of their bodies and the changes, when the social/peer pressure begins to pile on them to be sexually dominant. To be a player. To (at least pretend to) have a big dick. To fuck girls. To watch porn. To masturbate. To be sexually confidant. And guys pick up on these themes in everyday sitcoms. There always seems to be the whole "haha he's got a small dick" thing going on in popular culture. And, let's face it, there are images everywhere of women represented as sex objects. So most guys get to the age of 13/14, start watching porn, (maybe earlier, what do I know?), and they find it acceptable, because that's what popular culture says essentially. It's masculine to watch porn. All the boys are doing it.
I think some guys think that, by watching porn, they'll be some kind of expert when it comes to actually doing stuff with girls. Based on what, may I ask? "Acting"? (For want of a better word, and of course, sometimes it's worse: it's rape). Psch.
The majority of us like to fantasise, yes, but we don't all need porn. Porn is restricting. Porn dictates what our fantasies should be. Porn is not equal. At least that's all true in the traditional male-audience-orientated porn. Because that's what I mean when I say "porn". I do tend to generalise my terms too much, make them too vague and ambiguous.
I don't know much about porn which is aimed at women. Maybe the representations of men and women are more equal, there's no sub-ordination. So I won't pass any comment on that. I've heard some definitions of porn which include the "demeaning or sub-ordination of one person/people" or something which I've paraphrased from memory. However, the definition of porn on dictionary.com (Aren't I cool?!) is: "creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire". In which case it would be quite possible for porn aimed at women to be more equal and liberating, except for the fact that is is acting, and not true sexual expression.
Honestly? One of the first things that comes to my head when the issue of men/boys watching porn is raised is: fucking pathetic. It really is.
Sunday, 7 January 2007
It seems sometimes the world's a lonely, lonely place for a young Bedfordian Feminist...
Why would anyone not want to conform, huh? I swear, I look around my sixth form common room (by the way, my sixth form is one of the largest in the country, with 600 students), and I see a lot of conformity, the most obvious being slavish devotion to fashion. And I've honed a very keen sense which enables me to spot out conformity/superficiality/fakeness from the very intonation of someone's voice and their mannerisms. So, to be honest, I feel like I'm in the bloody minority. But that's ok with me, actually, for the most part.
Most people my age do not seem to show an active interest in Feminism, they do not seem to care. Some seem to belittle or ridicule it. It's seen as out-dated and extreme; who wants to be either, eh?
I have a couple of theories why this is the case, and I have made tentative steps in asking people why they're not interested in Feminism. One girl said: "I think we have enough rights. We don't need anymore." If you ask me, she seems to have completely missed the point of it. She even went on to say something about men always having been the main providers.
I think a lot of people believe there is equality, or maybe they're just happen to settle with what they're got. Maybe they believe all the stupid stereotypes about feminism, and therefore don't want to be painted with that brush, or don't view themselves as feminists. Maybe they'd just rather devote their time to fashion, friends, boys, and parties. If that makes them happy, fine.
Or is it?
There are times when I really, really wish that more people my age did care about feminism. Luckily, my best friend Faith seems to agree with me on some of the subjects we've touched base on. But, that's one person, and she doesn't even go to my sixth form. I do love to talk about things I feel passionately about, I do love to have intelligent conversations. And if there's hardly anyone pro-feminist around, what the hell am I supposed to do?
Here's a few examples from some attempts I've made, albeit relatively paraphrased but remembered to the best of my ability.
On the bus one day on the way to school. I was talking with a group of people in my year about the Ipswich murders. I cannot quite remember exactly what I was talking about, but I think I may have been saying that prostitutes don't choose prostitution; many are forced by desperate circumstances into prostitution. This girl just casually brushed all that I'd said aside and said: "Yeah, well, they're not all nice. I mean, go down Tavistock Street [pretty much Bedford's redlight district], they're all dirty skanks really."
It's not that I mind people disagreeing with me, actually I quite like it (odd as that may sound, but diversity is great in debates). It's just that the level of conversation had gone from fairly intelligent - using polysyllabics for crying out loud! - to a toss-away comment, which clearly had no thought put to it, and was pretty irrelevant to the point I was making. I mean, let's do a brief analysis of the language she used. Well, it was pretty much monosyllabic/basic language, and the choice of lexis ("dirty skanks") suggests negative judgement, and no thought or questioning as to why womyn are in that situation. "They're not all nice"...Excuse me, but I don't care if someone's manipulative, selfish, generous, honest or whatever personality traits they have, nobody deserves to be prostituted and it's damn wrong to use and abuse womyn as if they're for some john's own personal use, or toy to play with.
In English, we've been studying the Language & Gender module. In one lesson, I made a point paraphrasing from Female Chauvinist Pigs - the idea of one of the most successful executives in publishing (Judith Regan) bragging that she has "the biggest cock in the building" is harmful to womym, and herself, since having the "biggest cock in the building" suggests something superior about men, or that male qualities are more conducive to success and therefore women's achievements are more inferior because they are not the achievements of a man, and by extenstion, all that Regan and her female peers achieve will never be as good as that of a man's, because by their (her) own definition, to be truly successful you have to have "the biggest cock".
Then, a guy responded to my comment by saying that "that sounds like feminism." His tone was negative, and suggested he felt there was something quite distasteful about it all. I assumed he meant the point of what I'd said was feminist, then I realised he meant what Judith Regan had said sounded feminist. Which is ironic, because to me it is anything but feminist. In another English lesson, a point was made by my (female) English teacher, about the possible sexist meanings to a certain word or use of word, to which the same guy responded by saying "That's just feminist talk", using the same derogatory tone.
Now, it's not that I believe that everyone SHOULD be a feminist just because I am, but I'm not particularly keen on hearing feminism expressed in such derogatory tones by someone who appears to be pretty ignorant on the whole subject. So, basically, I snapped.
"Why is it that you always refer to feminism in a negative tone, like it's something bad?!" Amy began.
The guy replied in a quiet, mumbly tone: "I just don't appreciate extreme feminism."
"Well that's fair enough, but that wasn't extreme feminism. There's so many different kinds of feminism [here I gave a few examples which I could think of, although I'm sure there are many I haven't heard of, and I know I'm not the most qualified on the subject]. You're just thinking of stupid stereotypes which were designed to undermine and hurt feminism and you clearly know very little about it at all!!!"
In fact, yesterday, another guy claimed the world was run by women (as if), and to back up this claim he said: "Men have sex when they can, women have sex when they want." (Which, if you ask me, is a total disregard for all the rape victims!)
Also, I swear honest to God, I feel pretty isolated being a Feminist in Bedford. I've joined a couple of London-based Feminist Yahoo groups, but, it's next to impossible to go along to any meetings, due to train prices/times/location of meetings (have no sense of direction)/ lack of fellow feminist sympathisers to commute with me. I would honestly love to join some kind of Feminist group closer to home...
But, there are many positives: thank Goddess for blogging, eh folks?!
Most people my age do not seem to show an active interest in Feminism, they do not seem to care. Some seem to belittle or ridicule it. It's seen as out-dated and extreme; who wants to be either, eh?
I have a couple of theories why this is the case, and I have made tentative steps in asking people why they're not interested in Feminism. One girl said: "I think we have enough rights. We don't need anymore." If you ask me, she seems to have completely missed the point of it. She even went on to say something about men always having been the main providers.
I think a lot of people believe there is equality, or maybe they're just happen to settle with what they're got. Maybe they believe all the stupid stereotypes about feminism, and therefore don't want to be painted with that brush, or don't view themselves as feminists. Maybe they'd just rather devote their time to fashion, friends, boys, and parties. If that makes them happy, fine.
Or is it?
There are times when I really, really wish that more people my age did care about feminism. Luckily, my best friend Faith seems to agree with me on some of the subjects we've touched base on. But, that's one person, and she doesn't even go to my sixth form. I do love to talk about things I feel passionately about, I do love to have intelligent conversations. And if there's hardly anyone pro-feminist around, what the hell am I supposed to do?
Here's a few examples from some attempts I've made, albeit relatively paraphrased but remembered to the best of my ability.
On the bus one day on the way to school. I was talking with a group of people in my year about the Ipswich murders. I cannot quite remember exactly what I was talking about, but I think I may have been saying that prostitutes don't choose prostitution; many are forced by desperate circumstances into prostitution. This girl just casually brushed all that I'd said aside and said: "Yeah, well, they're not all nice. I mean, go down Tavistock Street [pretty much Bedford's redlight district], they're all dirty skanks really."
It's not that I mind people disagreeing with me, actually I quite like it (odd as that may sound, but diversity is great in debates). It's just that the level of conversation had gone from fairly intelligent - using polysyllabics for crying out loud! - to a toss-away comment, which clearly had no thought put to it, and was pretty irrelevant to the point I was making. I mean, let's do a brief analysis of the language she used. Well, it was pretty much monosyllabic/basic language, and the choice of lexis ("dirty skanks") suggests negative judgement, and no thought or questioning as to why womyn are in that situation. "They're not all nice"...Excuse me, but I don't care if someone's manipulative, selfish, generous, honest or whatever personality traits they have, nobody deserves to be prostituted and it's damn wrong to use and abuse womyn as if they're for some john's own personal use, or toy to play with.
In English, we've been studying the Language & Gender module. In one lesson, I made a point paraphrasing from Female Chauvinist Pigs - the idea of one of the most successful executives in publishing (Judith Regan) bragging that she has "the biggest cock in the building" is harmful to womym, and herself, since having the "biggest cock in the building" suggests something superior about men, or that male qualities are more conducive to success and therefore women's achievements are more inferior because they are not the achievements of a man, and by extenstion, all that Regan and her female peers achieve will never be as good as that of a man's, because by their (her) own definition, to be truly successful you have to have "the biggest cock".
Then, a guy responded to my comment by saying that "that sounds like feminism." His tone was negative, and suggested he felt there was something quite distasteful about it all. I assumed he meant the point of what I'd said was feminist, then I realised he meant what Judith Regan had said sounded feminist. Which is ironic, because to me it is anything but feminist. In another English lesson, a point was made by my (female) English teacher, about the possible sexist meanings to a certain word or use of word, to which the same guy responded by saying "That's just feminist talk", using the same derogatory tone.
Now, it's not that I believe that everyone SHOULD be a feminist just because I am, but I'm not particularly keen on hearing feminism expressed in such derogatory tones by someone who appears to be pretty ignorant on the whole subject. So, basically, I snapped.
"Why is it that you always refer to feminism in a negative tone, like it's something bad?!" Amy began.
The guy replied in a quiet, mumbly tone: "I just don't appreciate extreme feminism."
"Well that's fair enough, but that wasn't extreme feminism. There's so many different kinds of feminism [here I gave a few examples which I could think of, although I'm sure there are many I haven't heard of, and I know I'm not the most qualified on the subject]. You're just thinking of stupid stereotypes which were designed to undermine and hurt feminism and you clearly know very little about it at all!!!"
In fact, yesterday, another guy claimed the world was run by women (as if), and to back up this claim he said: "Men have sex when they can, women have sex when they want." (Which, if you ask me, is a total disregard for all the rape victims!)
Also, I swear honest to God, I feel pretty isolated being a Feminist in Bedford. I've joined a couple of London-based Feminist Yahoo groups, but, it's next to impossible to go along to any meetings, due to train prices/times/location of meetings (have no sense of direction)/ lack of fellow feminist sympathisers to commute with me. I would honestly love to join some kind of Feminist group closer to home...
But, there are many positives: thank Goddess for blogging, eh folks?!
Monday, 1 January 2007
Feminism & That Spice Girls Thing On Sky One
(At least from my point of view!)
Loved, loved, loved that they had Ariel Levy on! :) Made Amy happy! :)
Because, her book - Female Chauvinist Pigs - was the first piece of feminist work I'd ever read.
I must admit I was a Spice fan; I was about 7 or 8 years old when they emerged. I think it was the first CD I ever got, I remember getting it for Christmas. I even saw 'em at Earls Court, although that said, I was beginning to become less enamoured with them. I liked the whole "Girl Power" thing, though. I liked the idea for years after, even though it was still pretty much as basic. I liked the idea of girls having power. I don't remember ever being too sure what that "power" was for, but it, and the fact that each Spice Girl had her own individual identity - gave me a strong sense of individualism, free choice for myself, and all women, sisterhood, and an unwillingness to conform (Despite the fact that the Spice Girls were manufactured- ah! Irony!) which I still have today.
Yes, there were many flaws in the Spice Girls; lack of genuine talent (although bloody good marketing skills!), they didn't really express any deep, intellectual ideas, and their brand of feminism - ie "Girl Power" - was basic and "first base", and some people would argue it wasn't even feminism; too hollow, perhaps. But, the truth is, it did give thousands, millions of young girls a simple glimpse into feminism, into being liberated women - and whether or not they interpreted that later into just being a "ladette" or to delve a little deeper - surely this re-branding of feminism does have some positivies: feminism had had such negative connotations (and true, the stereotypes do still exist, sadly), the Spice brand of "Girl Power" was at least represented in a bright, positive, colourful way - as perhaps suitable for something which is, admittedly, somewhat shallow.
But, the "Girl Power" message seemed to cover the following areas of feminism:
1) Sisterhood/Female Solidarity
2) Women speaking up. And loud.
3) Women having fun together.
There wasn't any mention (as far as I'm aware) of more serious issues feminists are concerned about: rape, battery, the pornstitution, trafficking, women being objectified/represented as sex objects/valued only by their sexuality, ie how well they can gratify a man's sexual desires, equality in the workforce, abortion etc. This could possibly be because the target audience was pre-teen.
Maybe the pre-teen audience was why they were called the "Spice Girls" not the "Spice Women". To appeal to young girls, not to infantilise them and therefore then undermine make their messages of "Girl Power". Again, is the lexical choice of "Girl" to appeal to young girls, or even because "Woman Power" isn't as catchy, or to infantilise/demean the message? And, of course, how seriously can a manufactured pop act of 5 young women in crop tops, mini skirts and platform boots be taken as a threat to the patriarchy? Heck, one of them is called "Baby Spice"! It's a bit of fun, light entertainment. Sure the young girls seem to be lapping up the "Girl Power" notion, but hey, give it a few years, and their hormones will be telling them differently, surely! And we'll push more bland boybands on them to dream and sigh about, more girl bands all in the same uniform, preferably something quite sexually explicit.
I'm not going to say that the Spice Girls changed my life. They were, however, a small (admittedly shallow and basic) step into an interest in feminism. Admittedly, when I was younger, I had very confused ideas about feminism and what it was. I mean, I used to think they did burn their bras, although that seemed exciting to me. Now I correct people on this myth. I'm admittedly new to feminism on a level where I can understand it, thanks largely to Ariel Levy for really getting me started and re-igniting the same passion for "Girl Power" as the Spice Girls. But, realistically, the Spice Girls were more a light entertaining bunch of girls whose songs I knew and danced along with all the moves. They were marketed in an incredibily novel, original, exciting way - they each had "personalities" - and their constant cries for "Girl Power" set them apart. But, they're only first base feminism. Real feminism is a lot more empowering, interesting, exciting and real.
Loved, loved, loved that they had Ariel Levy on! :) Made Amy happy! :)
Because, her book - Female Chauvinist Pigs - was the first piece of feminist work I'd ever read.
I must admit I was a Spice fan; I was about 7 or 8 years old when they emerged. I think it was the first CD I ever got, I remember getting it for Christmas. I even saw 'em at Earls Court, although that said, I was beginning to become less enamoured with them. I liked the whole "Girl Power" thing, though. I liked the idea for years after, even though it was still pretty much as basic. I liked the idea of girls having power. I don't remember ever being too sure what that "power" was for, but it, and the fact that each Spice Girl had her own individual identity - gave me a strong sense of individualism, free choice for myself, and all women, sisterhood, and an unwillingness to conform (Despite the fact that the Spice Girls were manufactured- ah! Irony!) which I still have today.
Yes, there were many flaws in the Spice Girls; lack of genuine talent (although bloody good marketing skills!), they didn't really express any deep, intellectual ideas, and their brand of feminism - ie "Girl Power" - was basic and "first base", and some people would argue it wasn't even feminism; too hollow, perhaps. But, the truth is, it did give thousands, millions of young girls a simple glimpse into feminism, into being liberated women - and whether or not they interpreted that later into just being a "ladette" or to delve a little deeper - surely this re-branding of feminism does have some positivies: feminism had had such negative connotations (and true, the stereotypes do still exist, sadly), the Spice brand of "Girl Power" was at least represented in a bright, positive, colourful way - as perhaps suitable for something which is, admittedly, somewhat shallow.
But, the "Girl Power" message seemed to cover the following areas of feminism:
1) Sisterhood/Female Solidarity
2) Women speaking up. And loud.
3) Women having fun together.
There wasn't any mention (as far as I'm aware) of more serious issues feminists are concerned about: rape, battery, the pornstitution, trafficking, women being objectified/represented as sex objects/valued only by their sexuality, ie how well they can gratify a man's sexual desires, equality in the workforce, abortion etc. This could possibly be because the target audience was pre-teen.
Maybe the pre-teen audience was why they were called the "Spice Girls" not the "Spice Women". To appeal to young girls, not to infantilise them and therefore then undermine make their messages of "Girl Power". Again, is the lexical choice of "Girl" to appeal to young girls, or even because "Woman Power" isn't as catchy, or to infantilise/demean the message? And, of course, how seriously can a manufactured pop act of 5 young women in crop tops, mini skirts and platform boots be taken as a threat to the patriarchy? Heck, one of them is called "Baby Spice"! It's a bit of fun, light entertainment. Sure the young girls seem to be lapping up the "Girl Power" notion, but hey, give it a few years, and their hormones will be telling them differently, surely! And we'll push more bland boybands on them to dream and sigh about, more girl bands all in the same uniform, preferably something quite sexually explicit.
I'm not going to say that the Spice Girls changed my life. They were, however, a small (admittedly shallow and basic) step into an interest in feminism. Admittedly, when I was younger, I had very confused ideas about feminism and what it was. I mean, I used to think they did burn their bras, although that seemed exciting to me. Now I correct people on this myth. I'm admittedly new to feminism on a level where I can understand it, thanks largely to Ariel Levy for really getting me started and re-igniting the same passion for "Girl Power" as the Spice Girls. But, realistically, the Spice Girls were more a light entertaining bunch of girls whose songs I knew and danced along with all the moves. They were marketed in an incredibily novel, original, exciting way - they each had "personalities" - and their constant cries for "Girl Power" set them apart. But, they're only first base feminism. Real feminism is a lot more empowering, interesting, exciting and real.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
