This guy makes me wanna bang my head against a brick wall.

January 11, 2009 at 10:23 pm (Uncategorized)

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/fSrZVF3FEUQ&hl=en&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/fSrZVF3FEUQ&hl=en&fs=1” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

 

Peter Rollins, always the voice of sanity when I get too depressed by fundamentalist God-spam (and the object of my current intellectual/theological-crush), sums it up pretty well:

“…while I may have a little bit of the hippy in me (a type of person Driscoll seems to hate with a wild passion) I am not, contrary to the spirit of the video, too afraid to say what I think when the need arises… especially when it is against a misogynistic diatribe that may be taken seriously by some.”

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

Quick hit: patriarchy-to-English translation

January 11, 2009 at 8:30 pm (Uncategorized)

Via Urban Abess:

Patriarchy: ‘you’re too emotional’
Translation: ‘this issue only hurts women, so why get upset?’

Permalink Leave a Comment

Oh Catholicism.

January 11, 2009 at 5:16 pm (Feminism, LGBT, Religion)

 Queen Emily at Questioning Transphobia has an awesome theological critique of the Pope’s address against “gender theories”. I added the following comment:

To add another theological critique of the Pope’s words, look at the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch (read: transgendered) in Acts 8: 26-39. In Deuteronomy 23 it clearly states that eunuchs cannot enter the “assembly of the Lord”. But post-Jesus (who came pretty much to do away with religion and dogma and open up God’s love to everyone ever), the evangelist Philip is like “F*** Deuteronomy” and baptizes him anyway. Yey Philip!

I see conservative Christians who have a problem with gender theories etc as just as silly as those who deny evolution because they take Genesis as a literal scientific narrative. *Science* will tell you gender isn’t binary. *Science* will tell you some people have a divergence between their body’s sex and their brain’s gender. *Science* will tell you ‘men’ and ‘women’ do not fit into tiny little boxes with fixed characteristics. *Science* will tell you intersex people exist. It’s not some figment of their imagination caused by their rebellion against God. Like, hello.

Oh, and by that token, *science* will tell you that sex is not inherently for procreation *cough*clitoris*cough*…

 I am a recovering Catholic myself, having been almost put off the idea of God by the Catholic Church – I’ve never gained anything from going to Church, it’s rarely challenged me or helped me grow as a Christian. Having at this point experienced Churches where you’re encouraged to think and grow and transform, I can safely say that the Catholic Church has missed the point. It’s entirely souless. In the Christian tradition, sin is not defined predominantly as rule-breaking, but as anything that blocks or leads people away from God. Which is exactly what dogmatic traditions do. Would it not be fair then to say that the Catholic Church borders on sinful?

 Or maybe I’ve just been reading too much Peter Rollins lately…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Hello World

November 30, 2008 at 10:06 am (Uncategorized)

I don’t think I’ve blogged about this before, but I am currently working on a dissertation for my Film, Radio and TV course on the subject of third-wave feminism and the TV shows Sex and the City and The L Word. It’s fascinating – I’ve been working at it for months and haven’t once felt bored; lost, frustrated and overwhelmed, yes, but not bored.

So I’m currently working on a section about fashion (wherein I argue that the conventionally attractive characters of SATC and TLW actually espouse a very third-wave approach to fashion and beauty practises, for various reasons) and I’m having difficulty structuring/wording/generally getting my head round this whole big bit about TLW and fashion, partly because not many people have written about it before me from the perspective I’m going to take (SATC is dead easy because, well, everybody and their mother has written about SATC and fashion) . A book I read suggested trying to write the basic idea as a letter to a friend in order to clarify your thoughts, so I thought, stuff writing to a friend, I’m going to write to the blogosphere!

Anyway, the basic idea is that although many have dismissed TLW’s conventionally attractive characters for three main reasons, all very valid. Firstly, as with SATC, the show has been accused of promoting consumerism by depicting an enviable lifestyle –a ‘shop window’ for commodities. Secondly, it is “[d]efficient in definitive butch representations” (Moore & Schilt, 2006: 159), leaving some queer women feeling unrepresented. Thirdly, there has been some concern about what Jennifer Vanasco calls the “Fiji effect” – referring to a Harvard study linking the appearance of eating disorders in Fiji to television’s introduction to the country in 1995. The lesbian community, Vanasco claims, has largely managed to escape the beauty culture that plagues both straight women and gay men; she fears that “glamorous lesbians being broadcast into our living rooms” (2006: 185-186) might damage the lesbian community’s core values of “loyalty and inclusion”.

However, this should not be an indication that TLW has nothing to contribute to third-wave feminist discourse on fashion and beauty practise; I believe a more nuanced appreciation of the complexities of TLW’s exploration of this issue is possible.

Firstly, in validating queer female desire, TLW questions traditional feminist spectatorship theory, particularly its insistence on the inexistence of a valid female viewer position, by asserting the validity of a desiring queer female gaze.

Secondly, and this issue is a little more complex, some have posited that the series demonstrates “that sexual identity cannot always be read from the body or its ornaments” (Beirne, 2006: 5). However, Beirne argues that the series “undertakes a strange practice of simultaneously making feminine lesbians both hyper-visible and rendering them less authentic”.

The bit I’m having trouble with (mainly in the writing of, but also structuring into the actual essay) is I want to write about the character of Moira/Max Sweeney, a FTM transsexual introduced in season three. I believe that TLW’s treatment of this character demonstrates an attempt on the part of the series to engage with contemporary third-wave and queer discourses about fashion and beauty.

Max is initially introduced to us as Moira, ostensibly a butch lesbian but secretly struggling with his gender identity (as such I am going to use female pronouns to refer to him in his pre-transitional stage) who begins a complicated relationship with the unmistakably femme Jenny while Jenny is at home with her parents recovering from depression. Moira moves with Jenny to Los Angeles from the Mid-West, which is, of course, presented as politically regressive in comparison to California – and not as fashion-forward. Moira initially has difficulties integrating with the rest of the core group, in part due to what they interpret as her outmoded cultural politics. When Jenny introduces Moira to her friends Carmen and Shane in ‘Lobsters’ (3.3), Moira reads the androgynous Shane as butch and insists on chivalrous behaviour: “You ladies stay here, let us butches unload the truck.” Carmen raises a quizzical eyebrow and teases Shane “Big butch. Go unload the truck.”

However, although the series implicitly rejects Moira’s archaic gender politics in favour of the more contemporary queer ethos of the core group, the values and sincerity of the primary characters are also called into question by the end of the episode.

The group attend a fancy dinner at an expensive restaurant in honour of Jenny’s return home. Whereas ordinarily the group’s penchant for trendy spots goes unquestioned (as it provides a great deal of viewing pleasure) this particular scene, through its set design and lighting as well as the action on-screen, queries both their bourgeois lifestyle and the viewer’s enjoyment of it. In contrast to The Planet – the group’s customary hangout, whose colour palate and decor is warm, hospitable and simultaniously connotes stylishness and inclusion – this restaurant is coldly lit with charcoal-grey walls and coded as pretentious and unwelcoming. Moira, wearing a baggy t-shirt and flannel gilet, arrives with a dressed-up Jenny to meet the rest of the immaculately-groomed group.

Although we are periodically reminded of Moira’s problematic world-view (when learning of Tina and Bette’s baby, she replies “You know, a bunch of women back in my dyke community, they’re doing that too” as though lesbians having babies were a novelty), the entire scene is geared towards aligning the viewer with her and portraying the main characters in a negative light. Situationally, the group’s dynamic is organised along multiple layers of awkwardness (in addition to Moira’s failure to integrate, the group handle the subject of Jenny’s self-harm with clumsiness, Alice reacts negatively to the attendance of ex-girlfriend Dana’s new lover and Bette and Tina inaudibly quarrel over finances). Moreover, rather than concentrate on the group’s conversation, the camera focuses on the newcomer and her discomfort.

Had the scene been set somewhere more inviting and had less screen time been given to Moira’s discomfort, the audience may be less inclined to empathise with her – she would interrupt our viewing pleasure by intruding on the intimacy of the group and disturbing the visual aspect. As it is, however, the ambience is geared towards absence rather than presence, thus nothing is disturbed. Moreover, the episode itself ends

What I believe this means in terms of the critique of the core group (apart from the implied classism) is that while the show upholds their contemporary, arguably third-wave approach to fashion (and it does: Moira eventually finds acceptance she would have never imagined in her old dyke community in order to transition to male), it questions the cliquishness of their PoMosexual, educated, liberal circle. This echoes similar self-critiquing that happens across third-wave feminism (is feminism accessible? Etc etc). But it kind of shows that the characters’ engagement with fashion and beauty practises is a sign of the type of feminism they espouse – a modern one that eschews second wave denunciations of these practises. They associate their fashion-forwardness with their up-to-date gender politics, as is evident in Bette’s remark “I just don’t see why Jenny feels she has to role-play like that” (echoing the tendancy among queers to shun labels such as ‘butch’ and ‘femme’ as dichotomous). I’m still working on this analysis, if it’s not obvious!

 

 Anyway, thanks for listening to my ramblings, I’m going to discuss my ideas with my prof on Thursday and try and work it into a more mature, scholarly analysis…

Permalink 8 Comments

Helen Mirren, STFU.

November 18, 2008 at 1:21 pm (Feminism)

Stop spreading misinformation about rape.

I’m so sick of this kind of shit…

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obligatory Obama post

November 6, 2008 at 11:54 am (Uncategorized)

Goes without saying, I’m thrilled. I set my alarm super early to get up and find out the results.

Few thoughts:

– Boo to California and Florida for raining on everyone’s parade by banning gay marriage. Double boo.

– It’s amazing I know so much about the US presidential election but nothing about voting here in the UK.

– I had a friend say to me, upon hearing the news, “well this means black people can never complain about equal rights ever again!”, which made me fucking angry. Yeah, a country *founded* upon racist principles with a mind-bendingly racist and imperialist past and present can just sweep that all under the carpet cos it has a black president. Racism no longer exists. Whatthefuckever.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Books

November 4, 2008 at 2:07 am (Uncategorized)

I posted last year that I was trying to struggle through Pride and Prejudice along with a bunch of other books to up my reading quota. Well, it turns out I never finished P&P (I’ll try again some day) but I did read a bunch of other stuff, making it up to thirteen books by the end of the summer (Martha’s Vineyard, for the record, is the perfect place to take a little séjour if you’re in the mood for one of those holidays where you just read and read and read). Some of the ones that *blew my mind* (just off the top of my head) are No-one Belongs Here More Than You by Miranda July and particularly Autobiography of a Blue-Eyed Devil by Inga Muscio (the genius responsible for Cunt: A Declaration of Independence). July’s short stories are so insanely good that they almost compell you to make something in response, and there’s the odd moment-of-recognition that makes you think it was written especially for you; you should also be warned that they’re pretty creepy at times. As for Muscio, this woman writes the most incisive commentaries on our contemporary culture and always inspires me to look at things in a whole new light. Autobiography is about racism and imperialism and, although this is an issue I was aware of, I gained a whole new understanding and learnt things beyond my wildest knowledge-related dreams. And her writing style is very enjoyable to read – she’s hella entertaining and accessible.

More recently, I’ve been enjoying Russell Brand’s My Booky Wook, which is preposterously well-written. While in the past my opinion of him has wavered between “arrogant twat…hottie…womaniser…very funny guy…how exciting that we have someone on mainstream tv who challenges the dominant paradigm on masculinity…oh he’s slept with Kate Moss, how cliché”, I am currently firmly on the “he’s incredibly likeable and I rather fancy him” side of the fence. He’s clearly insanely intelligent and I love him.

<object width=”425″ height=”344″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/S1uhmnNnmL8&hl=en&fs=1″></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/S1uhmnNnmL8&hl=en&fs=1” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”425″ height=”344″></embed></object>

Permalink Leave a Comment

I’m back…

November 4, 2008 at 1:09 am (Uncategorized)

Okay, so I went off track for quite some time – got distracted with my travels. I had the most splendid year out, after Cape Cod I spent ten months in Montreal (possibly the best ten months of my life), and now I’m back completing my degree (and it looks like these next ten months are going to be almost as good – my course rocks the kasbah). I am currently working on a film project, a dissertation (about Sex and the City and The L Word), a long essay (about Miranda July) and ongoing study work etc. I’m going to try and post here every so often just cos I enjoy blogging and writing and there’s a lot on my mind (as always). I also totally need another procrastination method to add to my roster.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Knocked Up

July 7, 2007 at 10:14 pm (Uncategorized)

I’ll happily admit that if I see a feminist review somewhere about a film or book or whatever, I try to seek out the film/book/whatever in question so that I can read that review and know what it’s talking about. Two recent examples are Knocked Up (a film) and We Need to Talk About Kevin.

I’m not going to talk at length about either of them, just jot a few points down (if yr wondering why I’ve been neglecting such a new blog, it’s cos I’ve just moved to Massachusetts from Northern Ireland and have no internet access except in one-hour spurts at the library which, I’m sure you can imagine, are spent catching up with friends etc).  

There’s a review of Kevin up at The F Word (it’s been there for ages, I’m only getting around to reading it now).  I’m in the middle of reading it and so far it’s A.M.A.Z.I.N.G. – and that’s just in a literary sense. It’s political message is just as worthy. Now, I’m someone who has always wanted kids so I can understand people who don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t, particularly given our society’s PROCREATE OR YOU SUCK! ideals. This book gets you very far inside the head of someone who doesn’t want kids but goes along with it for the sake of compliance, with disastrous consequences. The book’s central message? Don’t have kids just cos you feel you should, only if you genuinely want them. Perfect.

 I’ve seen numerous reviews of Knocked Up pop up around the feminist blogosphere and couldn’t wait to see it as such. I finally got to see it the other day and I loved it. A few points quickly:

– I think it’s great that they showed unmarried parenthood as not a big deal, and showed that sometimes married life is not all it’s cracked up to be.

– I also think it’s great that they showed a crowning vagina.

– However: why was the vag in the crowning shot completely hairless? Don’t get me wrong, I’ve gone down on enough girls to get why some people wax their pubes – I do it myself from time to time. But why would anyone care about that when their 9 months pregnant? Gutless.

Permalink 1 Comment

Bad feminist?

June 21, 2007 at 9:00 pm (Feminism, Pop Culture)

A few things that make me a “bad feminist”:

– I love pink stuff.Every time I read one of those articles bemoaning the fact that everything is turned pink, I secretly think “how cool!”

– I rarely leave the house without makeup

– I would LOVE to take a pole dancing class

So shoot me.

Permalink 2 Comments

Next page »