GORDON: Ladies and gentlemen, last week, I kinda volunteered a discussion topic which Kat has graciously decided to roll with. Today, we’re going to be talking about feminism- where we stand now, and with an increasing number of people claiming that feminism’s work is done- what we’d like to see next on the agenda.
KAT: So perhaps we should start be establishing what the first three waves of feminism have accomplished.
You are probably all familiar with the fact that the first wave fought for (and won) the right for the vote.
2014 will see the XXII Winter Olympics held in Sochi, Russia. Or at least, such is the current proposal of the Russian state and the Olympic committee. Personally, I’d like to keep that from happening.
While massive corruption has been an issue for a long time, and while Russia is no more free from the ugly face of white supremacism than any of its fellow European nations, a few recent events stand out as especially damning. Continue reading →
The last of my installments (for now) in looking at these rising alternative cultures is “Free Information Culture,” which shares the same problem with “science” culture in that there’s really no good name for it yet. I’ve referred to it before as “internet culture,” only the problem with that is that, like “science culture,” it isn’t so much the culture of the thing itself as the culture of the fanbase. In simpler terms, it’s the difference between Hollywood culture and movie-lover culture- it’s the end product that’s valued.
So what’s the internet’s “end product”?
Besides porn and stuff like this…
Free Information.
Whether it’s the news, or Wikipedia, or TED Talks, or Imgur, or anything else imaginable, it’s on the internet for free and public use. It’s something of a great equalizer. No matter where you’re from, what language you speak, what class you hail from- you can create or say anything and then get called gay in the comment section.
And while that last bit is sort of a joke, it does play a role in developing the “free information culture.” Granted, general anonymity can make us vicious and vile people, but it also (to some extent) strips us of our egos. When you make something online, you really don’t get much, if any, credit, but that’s alright since it isn’t the point. It’s just about creating, nothing more or less. Who drew the first rage face? Who started up Bad Luck Brian? Who edited and sourced that one Wikipedia page you used to stitch your last minute term-paper together? Who puts together those monthly fail compilation videos? I don’t know and will probably never know, but I do know that they’ll keep coming because of the simple joy of creating them. I and every other person with a half-decent internet connection.
And all of this simply isn’t understood by some people.
Recall the massive outcry against the SOPA and PIPA bills? What prompted the creation of these acts was that some people- certain corporations in particular- couldn’t quite wrap their heads around the idea of free and unlimited access. Now maybe you agree with them, and maintain that posting copyrighted material of any kind is piracy and immoral, however, what needs to be understood is that this was viewed as an act on the very nature of the internet and everything it had come to represent.
Again excluding porn and stuff like this…
Now more and more companies are catching on to the idea that it’s wiser to try to work with the faceless and vengeful cat-worshippers of the internet than against them- just look at video game companies that are starting to work in tandem with modders. The game Minecraft in particular is a good example of this, as many of the new aspects of each update to the game coming from the fan-forums themselves. Nevertheless, there are still plenty of people out there (I’m looking at you, Music Industry) who continue to struggle (vainly) against the dissemination of what they view to be the “information wants to be free” crowd.
Again, it all boils down the core of the culture that the internet has produced, gravitating around the concepts of freedom and egalitarianism. Look at Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.
If he did his work back in the early 90s, we can be pretty sure he’d be viewed overwhelmingly as a candidate for a James Bond villain. But today we (for the most part) view him as being a heroic (or at least positive) figure in a world that’s become increasingly secretive and unequal. Why this dramatic shift in perception? Again, it’s the internet and it’s affect on us. In a time of economic crisis we might not be able to go to the movies, or eat out, or drive for miles to see a friend, but we can watch something online, or browse recipes, or video-chat with the same buddies that you’d otherwise not be able to see. Any threat to your full and unrestricted access to the internet is, by proxy, a threat to some of the last pleasures you have left.
Hence the formation of a culture obsessed with the values of free speech, free access to information, and freedom from censorship. And with every development of the internet or our access to it serving as another leap in the evolution of the culture, it’s safe to say that the howl of anger that the governments of the world met when trying to create such bills as ACTA is only going to intensify.
This isn’t the first time I’ve lamented about the sorry state of feminism in the culture wars, and it certainly won’t be the last- nevertheless, the time has come for me to really lay out exactly what it is that’s killing feminism.
Sure feminism was necessary at one point, but it’s just not relevant anymore.
You never hear that stated outright, but it seems to be underlying most responses on why feminism isn’t as major an issue was it was in the 70s or the 60s or the 50s or whenever exactly it was that the last wall of patriarchy supposedly fell.
Let’s face it, women can vote, run for and hold public office, be CEOs or workers, and so on and so forth. Really, shy of being able to serve in combat (American women, anyways), one might argue that all doors are now open. This mentality even seems to be affected most contemporary feminists, who though I am sure have the very best intentions, really can’t find much to rail about themselves. I’ve been through blog post after blog post, article after article, and found that overwhelmingly the subjects being discussed are mostly rants against Todd Akin (not to say that idiot doesn’t deserve it) or retrospectives on the battles of the past. Take a look at the contents of the latest Ms. magazine:
With Wonder Woman at the helm, the issue celebrates 40 years of fearless reporting with 40 Ms. and key feminist moments that shaped our history; birthday letters from dozens of life-long readers; and essays from founding editors Gloria Steinem and Letty Pogrebin, and current Executive Editor Kathy Spillar.
In the special 40th anniversary issue, you’ll also read about:
– What’s at stake for women in the 2012 election
– The significant ballot initiatives in your state
– Record numbers of women running for office
That’s their central points for their fall issue.
Now let’s take a look at Jezebel.
I had a rough time sifting through the articles for one that best demonstrates my point (I know Jezebel isn’t so much a “feminist” website as it is a “women’s interest” one- though exactly what that means I can’t rightly say)- for the most part, they seem tangential at best. “What is it with Women and Law and Order: SVU?” or “Should Women Run? You’re Damn Right They Should.“
That last one’s not talking about running for office- it’s literally about jogging. ‘Cuz apparently there was some blog post asserting that women with a certain body type aren’t cut-out to be runners, and that merited a response. Sure, whoever said that was wrong, but is that what feminists have been reduced to? Chasing down solitary quips of (comparatively) benign misinformation in the ugly bowels of the blogosphere? If that’s the standard for a worthwhile target, Evan and I should be beaten to death for mixing up when the premier of Community is going to be shown.
Please don’t beat us to death…
If this is the substance of the contemporary feminist movement, can you really blame people for feeling that all that’s to be done has been done? Can you really blame people for stereotyping self-proclaimed feminists as just angsty or contrarian? Is feminism just going to wither away?
I hope not- there’s still plenty of work to be done.
See this picture?
It’s from Dove’s “True Beauty” campaign. A series of advertisements aimed at combating anorexic and unrealistic standards of beauty. I’m sure the owners of Dove- a corporation by the name of Unilever- would be proud.
You know what other company Unilever owns?
Yep- these guys.
Now as I have family who read this blog, I’ve got embedded for you below the mildest Axe commercial I can find- be assured that it’s prudish and progressive compared to the rest of ’em.
That’s what we’ve got here- a corporation that on one hand is hawking their products by telling you that you’re beautiful just the way you are, and on the other hand depicting women as mindless dolls in low-cut dresses who can be manipulated with aerosol bottles. The latter alone would be a slap in the face, but that fact that the company is two-faced enough to shamelessly operate both utterly discredits their “True-Beauty Campaign” and exposes the fact that they’re ready, willing, and able to use feminism itself as a vehicle for controlling and objectifying women and perceptions about ’em.
This is Paul Polman, Unilever’s CEO, and he can go **** himself.
See, there’s this offshoot of modern feminism called “Sex-positive feminism” (you might know it by other names), which broken down to its most basic elements asserts that women’s use of their sexuality is empowering- and while no one would deny sexuality as an integral part of any human being- more often than not, this line of thought is used to justify strip clubs, prostitution, pornography, etc. as being actually good for women.
Now I’m not going to start accusing the founders of “Sex-positive feminism” of selling out their own movement- I don’t think that’s what their intention was. But then again, such things are what the road to hell is paved with, and even if the goal of this off-shoot was to make sexuality just as empowering as brains or brawn, the simple truth of the matter is that the prostitute isn’t probably viewed by her client as being a more well-rounded person because of her job. Heck- using this logic, I might argue that a twelve year old Honduran girl whose working for 32 cents an hour in a sweatshop is likewise “empowered”.
Strange how “Dead by 26 feminism” isn’t quite as popular…
Feminism isn’t dead- it’s just got a knife at it’s throat, and if saving feminism from becoming a tool of the very system that it was first established to combat isn’t a worthwhile endeavor- I don’t know what is. To anyone who would complain that all the important battles have been won- I present to you this. “Your solution to saving feminism is by saving feminism?” you might ask- and hey, it’s a valid point. But this isn’t just some circular exercise- this is a struggle for what’s really empowering. It’s a fight over messages- will we be told “These shoes are empowering!” or “No- they are shoes– empowerment comes from how far you walk and how much butt you kick.” Isn’t that worth something?
At the very least it beats writing an angry article about how body shape doesn’t exclude you from jogging.
P.S. I know I should also say some stuff about the “Slut Walks” (“Slutwalks”?, “Slut-Walks”?), the issue of rape, the continued problems of worker-manager ratios, etc. but it’s past 1:30 in the morning- please excuse the narrowness of this post.
Imagine my surprise to log on to Culture War Reporters to jot down my Tuesday post, only to find Elisa having already written something. I can only imagine that her cutting in on my territory means that she’s looking to start a fight so vicious, bloody, and prison-lunch-line-shanking-ly brutal it will make the combined carnage of the fall of Masada and the genocide at Wounded Knee look like a slap-fight between a couple of elderly Mennonites.
But I’m not here to talk about that. I’m here to make good on my promise last week- to investigate and determine whether or not Art of Manliness is sexist.
Of course, before we begin we have to define what “sexism” is. The obvious answer would be discrimination/prejudice against women, but it has got to be more than that. The stereotyping of women (regardless of whether its positive or negative) has also got to be a part of sexism, just as much as it would be a part of racism or any other form of bigotry.
Now at first glance, Art of Manliness really doesn’t touch on the subject of gender relations all that much. For every one of their articles on subjects such as “What to Wear on a First Date“, there are ten articles on how to shine your shoes, shuffle a deck of cards, hitchhike around the US, make maple syrup, and even a world history of shaving. On the whole, the blog is far more invested in trying to break from what it sees as a culture totally lacking in strength, competence, and independence.
But of course, you really can’t devote an entire blog to what makes a man a man without every once in a while stumbling across the subject of women.
For example, take a look at “Women and Children First? Down with the Ship?” or “Womanly Things We Wish Women Still Did“. In both cases, the author simply brings up the subject, allowing the readers to duke it out in the comments section on whether or not the old cry of “Women and children first!” is still right or fair (or if it ever was to begin with).
On the whole, Brett McKay (the principal author) understands that the subject of feminism and feminist issues are still quite controversial, and only more volatile in the venue of his Art of Manliness blog. For the most part, he either allows his readers to debate such questions as “should men hold doors open for women?”, or refers the issue to his wife (and co-author) Kate. Indeed, from everything I’ve read on the blog, it would appear that the single most “edgy” post on gender roles (“What Can Manly Men Expect of Women?”) really doesn’t do anything more than point out (what the author sees) as a double-standard in what men and women can ask of each other. In fact, I’ll stick my neck out there and say that the author makes some solid points on women’s issues and feminism.
When I was in college, my house was once visited by a collection of female students bearing cookies that they had baked for the men of the campus. The self-titled “Domestic Divas” claimed their mission was to call for a return to “Biblical” roles for men and women, and a rejection of “feminism”. My reaction, and the reaction of every sane man and woman on that campus, went sort of like this:
As many pointed out, this well-meaning but idiotic group had ignored the fact that their ability to be at college (or to speak to men without us having spoken to them first) was a direct result of feminism. And while perhaps not as extreme as in the case I just cited, this basic problem seems rather prevalent in our culture- many women seem to take the struggles and hardships of their predecessors for granted. The (few) benefits of 1950s society are looked back on fondly, but the abuse, neglect, and degradation is completely forgotten. I don’t think Brett McKay is sexist for decrying equality in gender roles combined with inequality in social expectations. McKay isn’t stating that its a woman’s place to dress up for a date, but simply that its as an appreciated gesture as flowers or getting the door.
No, I think Art of Manliness is sexist for completely different reasons.
And in the defense of the authors of the blog, I don’t think it’s anything intentional.
My main issue comes down to this. Art of Manliness is a good site. Heck, it’s a great site. The information is useful, the writing is concise and simple. The subject matter is instructive and edifying. Only it’s directed solely at men.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that I don’t think both myself and the males of my generation could stand to toughen up a bit…
I just don’t think that the characteristics or skills in the blog are in any way unique to men. Starting fires, shooting guns, shuffling a deck of cards, picking out a good scotch, backing up a trailer, breaking down a door, wrestling alligators (yeah, that’s an article)- these are all things just as useful to women as they are to men. There’s even an article titled “How To Parallel Park… Like a Man!“.
See, I’d imagine that we’d just call that “Parallel Parking”, since driving isn’t exactly exclusive to men or something men are just better at. And I don’t want to hear the whole “Men are evolutionary predisposed to having better spatial judgment” schpeel. First, if it’s correct, it just means men are more likely to have better spatial abilities- it’s not universally true. Second, just because I’m six feet tall doesn’t mean I stand a chance against a five foot NBA star in a basketball match- training trumps negligible physique every time. I’m a man and a relatively new driver- I’d bet that every woman driver in the city I live in can parallel park faster and better than I can.
Case in point…
The real problem with Art of Manliness isn’t so much the content but that the content is labeled as being “for men”. Even the abstract qualities brought up in the blog are good for men and women alike. The post on the virtue of justice uses an illustration in which justice is depicted as a woman, for ****’s sake. Bravery, intelligence, perseverance, leadership, heroism- can you really tell me that these aren’t just as admirable in women as they are in men?
(Just as a final note, I want to thank and recommend Reaction Gifs, from where I frequently borrow my illustrations- it’s a neat site, check it out).
See, there’s this offshoot of modern feminism called “Sex-positive feminism” (you might know it by other names), which broken down to its most basic elements asserts that women’s use of their sexuality is empowering- and while no one would deny sexuality as an integral part of any human being- more often than not, this line of thought is used to justify strip clubs, prostitution, pornography, etc. as being actually good for women.
Culture War Reporters 