Beyonce: A 21st Century Feminist Role Model

Beyonce's Super Bowl performance last night seems to elicit two distinct feminist reactions.  One reaction of awe, amazement and respect - and one of disappointment and disgust.  I fall into the former category: I thought Beyonce's performance was a Super Bowl halftime show for the ages.  As soon as the performance ended, I got a flurry of text messages from friends and my mother, expressing both points of view.  I find myself disagreeing with feminists of a different generation over this argument repeatedly. In 2013, if a women displays overt sexuality, explicit "sex appeal", is that empowering or disempowering for the woman? Was Beyonce's performance, which included displays of sexuality - inherently anti-feminist?

No. 

Beyonce is a 21st century feminist role model. For me, feminism is defined bywords that include powerful, independent, strong, assertive, self-assured, self-respecting. When I watched Beyonce's performance last night I saw all of those things - she put on a performance celebrating powerful women; she had a female band, female dancers, and female back up singers.

Those who disagree would say that this performance shows just how far we (women/feminists) have yet to go. They argue that Beyonce's sexualized performance strove to appease the "male gaze" with black leather and lingerie.  They think Beyonce is an antifeminist sex robot, corrupting the minds of our youth (for other examples, see: the Patriots' cheerleaders' uniforms, Katy Perry's stance on feminism). As my mother said (via text), "you have to wear lingerie and be all about sex to be powerful... hello 1930's. argh". But I have to disagree. 

Feminists need to move past the idea that dressing a certain way (either conservatively or provocatively) has an anti-feminist implication. If Beyonce has agency over her body (which she does) and control over her image (which she does) and the pride to show off her athletic, curvy, new-mommy body in a leather unitard with lace hanging off it, she is in the position of power. She is asserting her beauty, her right to sing and dance and act the way that she wants. These actions aren't driven by the need for male attention, and in fact they have nothing to do with males. 

Additionally, Beyonce's performance was an assertion of the strength and power of women and their ability to express their sexuality in a way that isn't seen as traditionally feminine (submissive, demure, dainty, lady-like). I'm a fan of any time someone subverts the societal gender/sexuality construct, so I was definitely a fan of Beyonce asserting herself this way. Also, just for the record... do you remember Janet and Justin? Madonna? The Super Bowl always has sexualized entertainment during the half time show. 

In closing, artists from Janis Joplin to Madonna have expressed their sexuality in some way through their performance - often times pushing the envelope to the point of making some people uncomfortable. Beyonce may have pushed the envelope with her explicit sexuality, but she commanded the stage and asserted herself as an artist and a woman, and for that she deserves our respect.

If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention

My mom had a bumper sticker when I was younger that said "If you aren't outraged, you're not paying attention." I think there have been times within my life that this bumper sticker applied to current events (the Iraq War, Bush's reelection in 2004, the real estate collapse, Sarah Palin...) but never more than right now.  Now, my urgency and alarm may sound very "Newt-esque" (see the definition of hyperbole), but I am dead serious. This is not a joke. If you are not outraged by the current discourse in our country, you are not paying attention. 

So after a 10 month hiatus, the blog is back. Call it laziness or distraction, but I have been busy- quit my job, moved from NYC to Boston, found a new job, bought a car, made some new friends, got kittens. There, my 2011 in a nutshell.

Let me reorient you with the point of my writing: to discuss, with any and all who will listen, topics involving gender and politics, pop culture, and current events, all through the lens of feminism. If that sounds horrible to you, let me put it in lay(wo)men's terms: I argue my views about the world and current events.

I have decided to resurrect this blog because I am finally outraged enough to really feel as though I need an avenue for my frustration. I am shocked, appalled, disgusted...the list of adjectives goes on...with the current discourse in our country regarding women, and I'm genuinely sickened by the GOP Presidential primary. So instead of continuing to talk the ear off of whomever might be standing in earshot, I will once again begin to formally rant.

Do you ALWAYS have to be a feminist?!

After an enlightening conversation with a close friend, I have realized I have more to say (shocking, I'm sure). Two things have become apparent to me, through this conversation:

1. I am not as good at articulating myself as I would like to think I am, especially on political matters when analyzing from a gendered perspective
2. I am not ready to give up trying to do that yet

So let me clarify a few things (or at least give that a stab). The answer to the title of my blog post is both yes and no. Yes, I always have to be a "feminist", in the sense that I view the world the way I do, and will never give up on the idea that women and men should be given equal opportunity to thrive in the world (nor do I think anyone was suggesting I should). I don't apologize for seeing the world the way I do and although it may be overwhelming to you that I always seem to be thinking about it, trust me-its more overwhelming to me.
But also, no. I don't always have to take the path of feminist analysis.  Do I always have to watch a TV show or read a cartoon or see a movie and immediately think of the ways in which the authors gave an unjust gendered portrayal?! Of course not. 
I could just as easily read a political article in a daily periodical and look at it from a realist perspective-and analyze the power dynamics of the article, leaving gender completely out of the equation.

However, my fascination with the world around me, specifically with the political world around us, lies at the juncture of gender and politics. I'm particularly interested in the ways in which gender, etc. manifests itself in political matters. I'm also interested in pointing out these perspectives in an article when its not obvious or prevalent in that article. Isn't that the point of a good analysis? Is to point out what the quick scan of the article may have missed? And this is why I choose to take the gendered perspective when looking at articles. Its why I have a blog with the word feminist in the title.

And I'm also interested in conveying these perspectives in a non-threatening way that doesn't make me sound like I'm constantly ranting. I don't want to be written off because my perspective is always the feminist perspective that seems out of touch or extremely biased. I will say that I think that in any article, in any interaction, in any political situation, there are intersecting identities at work and at play, and the situation can be viewed and analyzed from different angles. I think its a valid point to raise that of COURSE there are different perspective besides the one I choose. And my struggle-the struggle for anyone with a strong minority perspective-is to articulate a new perspective in a way that at least makes people see the topic in a new way. Even if they disagree and even if, ultimately, they decide that you're wrong. And the struggle is to find the balance between staying true to my perspective while acknowledging that the world, and the reality in which I live, are at odds from time to time.

Celebrating the Death of a Killer: Vindication or Irony?

So, Osama bin Laden is dead. He was killed in a US attack on his Pakistani compound late on Monday, and since I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I actually believe that he's dead, and the US has buried his body at sea.
After listening to commentary for 2 days, hearing about celebratory riots in the city and feeling altogether uncomfortable with the entire reactionary scene to Osama bin Laden's death, I feel compelled to write on it.


I read an article in the New York Times this morning about many people in the New York area who had family killed on 9/11, and how celebratory they were that the murderer who plotted against their civilian family members is now dead. They rejoiced and felt closure. In some ways, I can not imagine the pain that they have gone through, or the vindication they must feel, having myself never lost a friend of family member to the hand of another. And I do understand that Osama bin Laden has been Public Enemy #1 for years and years, and there was no other option (for our national security sake) than to kill him. And I agree with that. And I commend the entire Intelligence Establishment (CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, Pentagon and other organizations) for finding bin Laden. I'm know that it was no easy feat (considering it took 10 years) to find him and kill him, and know that it must have taken efforts by Pakistani intelligence and forces as well as US forces.
I will also say that I wouldn't expect more of most people than to celebrate bin Laden's death. I don't think too highly of the "American public" (whoever is actually represented in that!), and think of the general citizen as pretty uninformed.  People are not all that insightful, or reflective, and so therefore I understand how they might see this death as revenge.  They are unable to see past the ends of their own noses (or outside of the borders of our own country), to understand a larger context of this event.

So let me give it to you, then. The larger context of this event, that is.
First of all, Osama bin Laden's death does not mean the end of al Qaeda, of terrorism in general, or anti-American sentiment throughout the world.  Yes he was a figure in the extremist world and had influence, money and clout-but he is still only one man. In addition, many think that this death will cause reactionary attacks. I am skeptical of the logic that brings us to that conclusion, but that is another post entirely.

Second of all-and most importantly-I want people to understand that looking at the big picture, and I'm talking biiiiig picture, like as big as it gets. We all have to inhabit this Earth together, for an indefinite amount of time forward. Rejoicing in the death of another is not only counterproductive to our own survival. We should be must be concerned about what world conditions led us to the place where American is hated by approximately 1/3 of the world  population (rough estimates here), and how we can go about changing that. Our foreign policy for the past 11 years has unilateral, preemptive and militarily driven. Its time to take a step (or two) back from that, as I think Obama has in some ways, and reevaluate the importance of cooperation, negotiation and concern for the global community, and not just our own.

In addition, are we so disconnected that we have forgotten our humanity? The grim fact is that yes, Osama bin Laden had to die as part of our "War Against Terror" (as utterly non-descript that "war" is). But we should not celebrate that fact. We should acknowledge that it is the reality that we live in that the world is not at peace-although we should try to get there, and STAT. This is not a crusade and we are not entering a Clash of Civilizations, even if Samuel P. Huntington says we are. We are all citizens of a global community and our goal here is to further the human race, not destroy it.

Professor Tristan Borer of Connecticut College, posted a poignant quote via facebook yesterday, that successfully articulates the irony I am struggling to articulate:

"Joyfully celebrating the killing of a killer who joyfully celebrated killing carries an irony that I hope will not be lost on us. Are we learning anything, or simply spinning harder in the cycle of violence?" -  Brian McLaren

I am distraught to think that this quote falls on deaf ears. The reason why American so desperately hated Osama bin Laden is because he was exactly what this quote details-a killer who joyfully celebrated killing. In order that we maintain our humanity and in order to continue striving towards a more peaceful world, we should be must be better than that.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"- Gandhi

Do Young Men Have the Upper Hand in Sexual Relationships?

I am so fortunate to have the intelligent, articulate and curious friends that I do. They are always bringing the most interesting articles to my attention, and consistently  want to continue discussing/wondering about them. This article is no exception. Entitled "Sex is cheap: Why young men have the upper hand in bed, even when they're failing at life", the article seems like a good follow-up to my last post-about the article trying to explain why men are failing at life.

However, unlike the last article, I think the author has more evidence to back up his claims and a better overall hypothesis and conclusion. The claim being explored is that although men may not graduate from college at the same rates or have the same professional successes in their early 20s as women, they still have the "upper hand" and control when it comes to sexual relationships. The article points to the idea that sexual ratios (the number of sexually active men to women) changes the way in which men and women interact, and has an effect on long-term outcomes for those men and women. The obvious first thought its "well DUH!", it makes sense that different ratios would have a different outcome. But who doesn't like a little statistical research to back it up: "Analysis of demographic data from 117 countries has shown that when men outnumber women, women have the upper hand: Marriage rates rise and fewer children are born outside marriage. An oversupply of women, however, tends to lead to a more sexually permissive culture."

This is also the case on college campuses, as many of my girlfriends know first hand. At the small liberal arts college that I attended, the ratio of men: women is 40:60, meaning there are almost twice as many women to men. This leads to a sexually permissive culture in which men have the "upper hand" so to speak, and can demand (if not literally then metaphorically) casual sex without monogamy. Although I hate the idea of commodifying sex in any way, to use an analogy: this is simply supply and demand. If there are twice as many women as men, that means the demand for men goes way up, and so does the "price" for women (sex without monogamy or commitment).

So I can accept the premise and conclusion that when there are more young adult men, there is less monogamy and a more sexually permissive culture. But my liberal arts-feminist-inquisitive brain isn't satisfied with the conclusion, I want to know why. Why is it that this is the trend and hasn't always been? What has changed in the last 20 years to create this new climate.

A few suggestions.
1. Maybe it is just true that men desire sexual promiscuity and multiple partners more than women do. And when these men dominate the numbers game (ie the sexual ratio) you get less monogamy and more sex. And the article discussed here cites cities and college campuses as main places where this sexual ratio is skewed in favor of men. But I think this explanation leaves something to be desired, as it fails to explain those places which the sexual ratio is equal or imbalanced the other way (is it true that a scarcity of women makes men less promiscuous?!)
2.As my last post depicted so nicely, women are now graduating and joining the professional world at a high rate, and therefore are putting off what used to be the "next step" in life-monogamy, marriage and having children. Its possible that this article is misattributing this sexual trend to only men, when really it should have been attributed to BOTH genders desiring less monogamy, and more sexual partners. Certainly watching such shows as "Sex and the City" would give that impression (at least when it comes to Samantha's character). Maybe our young adults are just moving away from monogamy and towards a more sexually permissive culture.
3. Option three is my hybrid option, and the one that I'm going to go ahead and endorse. It is sort of the combination of options 1 and 2, with some adjustment. When you have a culture that is less conducive to monogamy for both men and women, albeit for different reasons, you get a more sexually permissive culture overall.  Men don't want monogamy at all and are fine with casual sex, and women are more focused on other things, such as a steady career, so what you get is an environment that this article has described.


So to conclude: do men really do have the upper hand, or not? Since men are in higher demand than women (because there are more and more women who fit this demographic now), they are the ones who-it seems-are making the rules. But who is actually making the rules depends on the men and women in any given situation. The fact that in our 21st century world there are plenty of women who have put any relationship desire on hold to pursue a career, does create a more sexually permissive culture. So if men do have the upper hand in sexual relationships, its not by far, and in my prediction, its not for long.

Have "All The Good Men" really gone?!

This post is reactionary- The Wall Street Journal published "Where Have the Good Men Gone?", written by Kay Hymowitz last Saturday. The article's title, sexist in itself, struck my interest on a friend's Facebook page, and I clicked on the link. I am immediately drawn to (and wary of) this type of article, which seeks to make generalizations about an entire group (in this case, the male gender).

The article names a new stage of life that has emerged for men-"pre-adulthood", as Hymowitz calls it- and discusses where it came from and what the implications for men and women are. This "pre-adulthood" stage is apparently what you get when you have financially stable, young adult males (ages 22-28ish) who have the means to support themselves and have a fun recreational lifestyle, but desire nothing more serious, romantically.  They are stalled between adolescence and "real" adulthood, with a family and responsibilities.  The article goes on discuss the fact that women are the "top sex" right now (Hymowitz's words, not mine), and that their college GPAs, graduation rates and professional success have left men out in the cold.  The article postulates that this creates a gender gap between the successful and put together young professional women and the "aging frat boys, maladroit geeks [and] grubby slackers".

Although the tone of the article isn't entirely condescending, the suggestion that all young men fall into the categories of aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers is offensive, even if watching any romantic comedy would probably not make you believe any differently. And even if, at the ripe age of 23, I have experienced "guys" almost exclusively as part of one of these three categories (can you guess which?), I refuse to believe that this new or different. Isn’t the old saying men just mature later than women? Or is that just what my mother has told me since I was 13, to quell my fears that I will always be more mature than my male counterparts…

The strangest part of this article, by far, is one of the main conclusions drawn by Hymowitz seems to come to the conclusion that it is actually society that is mostly responsible for this new category, as these men are “struggling” with this new life stage. To sum up what the problem is, Hymowitz says “Today's pre-adult male is like an actor in a drama in which he only knows what he shouldn't say. He has to compete in a fierce job market, but he can't act too bossy or self-confident. He should be sensitive but not paternalistic, smart but not cocky. To deepen his predicament, because he is single, his advisers and confidants are generally undomesticated guys just like him."


Oh well then! If he can’t act too bossy or self confident, has to compete extra hard in the job market and has to be surrounded by ‘undomesticated’ guys (whatever that means!), it sounds to me like he may be experiencing what it has been like to be a woman in the professional arena for approximately 80 years. Since the beginning of global patriarchy (read: for thousands of years) men have had far more options at their disposal, for outlets of identity, life choices, job market perks and the general ability to feel secure in knowing they were within their gender bounds to have the ability to be “successful”. And now, all of a sudden, they are struggling!

What the article lacks is a true celebration of the fact that women are succeeding both professionally and personally, without any sort of lingering “but”. Somehow, backhandedly, I get the sense that this new male “pre-adulthood” is women’s fault- if we hadn’t been so successful, then men could have maintained their status and would be so darn confused now!

This article ends with the depressing conclusion that the only smart choices that seem available to women are to “put up with [a man] for a while, but then in fear and disgust either give up on any idea of a husband and kids or just go to a sperm bank and get the DNA without the troublesome man”. Now, this conclusion may be intentionally overstated for effect, but I can’t help but leave the article feeling depressed and argumentative about it (clearly stated by the epically long post about it). Is this article the type to get feminist writers in trouble-typical man-hating? I don’t think so, because Hymowitz actually lets men off the hook for any of their shortcomings by blaming society for all of their problems. Has the author-as my male friend so delicately put it-just not gotten laid in a while? I doubt her recent sexual experiences have much to do with the article, and I give her more credit than to assume she wrote it out of spite or sexual frustration.

So what is it then? Have all the “good men” really gone? Or, perhaps, is our definition of what makes a “good man” and a “good woman” changing? OR, even more radically-should we abandon those two-dimensional notions altogether?

In closing, I am surprised that the Wall Street Journal would publish an article so shallow and incomplete. As a feminist, I take issue with Hymowitz categorization of an entire gender. In the same vein, I take issue with the fact that implicitly this decline of men has come because of (and consequently as an expense to) successful young professional women. This article dances on the surface of the real questions that are much deeper than what Hymowitz addressed-how does the success of so many young women affect and change a society? In order to do that more thoroughly, we have to look at more factors than what TV networks “pre-adult” men are watching. The societal shifts that we are seeing are monumental, and deserve more time and consideration than just merely pointing the finger at each other.  This is serious, people!

In addition, I’m deeply concerned that the author sees no other alternative for men to go enjoy “another beer” because all the women have gone to the sperm bank…

Until next time,
Sarah

Since when is "Feminist" a Dirty, Dirty Word?

Many of my very intelligent, capable friends (both male and female) do not identify themselves with the word "feminist", even though if you break down the basic idea: that women should be treated equally to men and given the same opportunities without gender disadvantage, these friends and acquaintances wholeheartedly agree that they believe in equality. So if the platform isn't the problem, then it must be...the word feminist! Ah, what a revelation! But alas, how did we get to this point? Since when is "feminist" a dirty, dirty word?

I recently read an article  about gender and women's studies, or lack there of, in high schools in this country. This article suggests that maybe our negative connotation to the word "feminist" comes from a lack of education on the topic. I myself have to agree that although I was raised in a liberal home and attended a liberal public school system in New Hampshire, I went to college thinking that "all feminists are lesbians" and "all feminists burn their bras and hate men". Oh, if my 17 year old self could see me now (I'm sure she would be horrified, for more than one reason!) at the ripe old age of 23, writing a blog about how not to be afraid of the word.

Another suggestion as to our aversion from the word "feminist" comes from the fact that radical feminists-those who do come from a place, in theory, of believing that all men are rapists (if not physically than emotionally, economically, socially)- are the only ones who ever got any attention. Because people don't know there are more mainstream definitions, they disassociate with the word altogether.

But now! I have come to reclaim the word and its meaning-and I encourage you to do the same. Even now, I can imagine many a situation (especially those involving a cute boy) where I would temper my answer to "are you a feminist" with a "but" ("yes, I am a feminist BUT I'm not crazy"). I feel like I have to apologize for my belief that everyone should be given the same opportunity, regardless of their gender!
But not anymore. I refuse to continue letting feminist be a dirty word, only spoken in GWS classes at small liberal arts colleges in New England. I am a feminist because I believe in equality (and squashing the giant worldwide patriarchy in favor of something a bit more...modern) and I am not sorry.

So now that that's established-how do we go about changing how everyone ELSE feels about it?! I am at a loss! Education is certainly important and should be a component of how everyone views the feminist movement from its inception (which was probably about the times that homosapiens started walking upright...). And all of the smart, competent women need to stop apologizing for having that inner feminist that they have. That will tie into my next post-how anti-feminist is pop culture, anyway?- but that is for another day.

Until next time,
Sarah