Stuff

I'm about to take off on vacation for a week and probably won't be posting much. I did set up the feature that lets you post from your phone, but I'm going to be visiting relatives and wandering around at the beach with a (very active) toddler, so I probably won't have much time for blogging. In the meantime, here's a little fluff post and an open thread where you can go on about anything you'd like.

The fluff:

Here is my latest piercing (top right), which I got last Friday. As I sat in the chair waiting for my friend to organize all his gear and pierce it already, it occured to me that I use piercing as a coping mechanism. When I'm sort of discontented with things in my life but am not really in a position to change them, I get a piercing. There's a clearly visible pattern in my life along these lines. And it occured to me that most of us probably have little things like this that we do to restore some sense of control over our lives when things aren't going exactly the way we had planned. So I'm curious...what's your coping mechanism? Have you developed different coping mechanisms during different stages of your life? On a related note, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on piercings and tattoos and your experience(s) with them.

Scripts vs. Choices

A lot of feminist conversations about sex and porn and sex work hit some major turbulence when it comes to the issue of choice and autonomy. I've described the sort of extreme thinking that polarizes the conversation and makes constructive dialogue all but impossible before. And it's true that insisting on viewing people as either completely free and uninfluenced rational agents or mindless automatons that helplessly drift along on the current of cultural attitudes and values is counterproductive and makes true dialogue and progress unlikely. But some recent posts and the responses to them have gotten me thinking about another issue that's involved here.

Because these topics are often so personal, and intense feelings and experiences are involved, there seems to be a trend in which critiques of (patriarchal) cultural scripts are always and everywhere interpreted as a critique of the choices of the individual people involved. And this feels like a personal attack, so strong defensive reactions occur, and the dialogue is permanently derailed into sniping and flaming, making your opponents position into a strawman, and a complete inability to listen. In the end this has a sort of silencing effect, where most feminists are hesitant to talk about sex or porn or sex work, and giving a sort of limp-wristed blanket approval of whatever it is people "choose" to do becomes the norm. But I call bullshit on that. To be relevant and effective, feminism needs to be critical of all the cultural scripts that govern the relationships of women and men. And we need to be able to critique these scripts in an environment that is conducive to genuine dialogue.

So here's another line we need to draw in the sand. Critiquing the scripts that your culture has provided you with is not the same as critiquing your choices. It's just not. That's not to say that it never happens that people are harsh and judgmental concerning the choices of others. But generalizing from these cases to all conversations on the topic is not helpful, and equating the two rides on a profound misunderstanding. All of us make our choices within a specific social context, and we must choose from the scripts that are available to us. We cannot randomly decide, for instance, to be a medieval knight when the year is 2009 and we're living in suburban America. A more current example is the career choices that women were steered into when my mom was young. If I speak critically about the fact that women were basically given the choice of being a teacher, a secretary, or a nurse, this does not amount to me criticizing the choices of women who became teachers, secretaries, and nurses. I can critique the culture and even note that the individual women no doubt internalized the dominant worldview of the time to some extent or another without criticizing them as individuals or belittling their choices.

It's very hard to critique the scripts of the culture in which we are embedded. Achieving the necessary critical distance to do so requires a certain amount of self-reflectiveness and the luxury of time to think and ponder and expose ourselves to other ways of doing things and other worldviews. But claiming that life choices and desires and views of sexuality develop in a vacuum and are immune to the effects of culture is astonishingly naive. And dividing up into two groups which adopt the most extreme stance and then becoming very invested in that stance to the point of losing our listening and reasoning skills is the last thing we need to do on these central and significant issues.

One In Eight Million

I love this one: The Night Keeper

Perpetual War

Since the War on Drugs™ and the War on Terror™ have turned out to be so fun and effective, how 'bout a War on the Overweight? That'll learn 'em.

Actually, I'm kind of amazed that none of the government health and social services groups has announced a War on Fat™ yet. I suppose "yet" is the key word here.

Celebrating Privilege, part II

A thought experiment:

Say I open up a lemonade stand. Only I don't charge a set amount per cup of lemonade. Instead I charge less if you're white, and male, and thin, and straight. And the more of these features you have, the less you pay. So Jack, who's a straight thin white male, hardly pays anything. Good for him, right? Yay! He gets almost-free lemonade, and that's a good thing. Or is it? What has to be happening in order for Jack to get his almost-free lemonade? Well, I have to pay my bills, so I can't be giving out all this almost-free lemonade to everyone. Someone has to cover my costs. So I hike up the prices that I charge others to compensate. That means that Jill, the fat lesbian WoC who also wants lemonade, is going to have to pay eight times as much as Jack did, if there even is any lemonade left over for her.

Now imagine that this isn't lemonade, which you can take or leave, but it's jobs and housing and education and health coverage and respect that I'm dispensing. And I've got the market cornered on jobs and housing and education and health coverage and respect, so you can't go elsewhere for them. Can Jack be considered a compassionate, ethical, progressive person if he celebrates the fact that he pays ⅛ of the cost that Jill pays? Can he be considered a compassionate, ethical, progressive person if he willfully ignores the fact that he pays ⅛ of the cost that Jill does? Can he be considered a compassionate, ethical, progressive person if he doesn't do something to try to change the fact that he pays ⅛ of the cost that Jill does?

What's Wrong with Barbie? Celebrating Privilege, part I

OK, NoseCandy (who has one of the awesomest usernames ever). Here we go.

I think I understand the angry, defensive, sarcastic place where the Barbie comment came from. But I also think it's the kind of comment one should apologize for and retract upon further consideration (and self-censor in the future). This is true for anyone, but especially for someone who hopes to be an effective advocate for improving body image. The comment in question, "I am a barbie and proud of it," carries a lot of cultural baggage, along with an endorsement of certain cultural values. And this is what I find problematic.

Central to the task of helping all different shapes and sizes of women achieve better body image is a need to question and reject the value our culture places on incredibly thin, tall, white, able-bodied women with Caucasian features and blond hair. So affirming that image by clearly aspiring to it and valuing it above other body types is counterproductive, to say the least. In fact, I think that advocating for better body image and cultural changes that allow us to value women of all shapes and sizes requires a flat-out rejection of the Barbie ideal. A consistent and vocal rejection of it, no less.

Beyond the Barbie image is the constellation of things Barbie (and similar icons) represents. Barbie is a symbol of privilege. In our culture, the more you look like Barbie, the more you're valued, and the more shit you're entitled to. And that might seem like a good thing. Being white and able-bodied and thin and cisgendered and tall and male and heterosexual are all traits that bring unearned advantages in our culture. So being lucky enough to have some of these traits may seem like something to celebrate.

But the flip side of privilege is oppression. If being white gets you all kinds of unearned benefits, that makes it that much harder to earn these things if you're not white. If being thin gets you all kinds of unearned benefits, that makes it that much harder to earn these things if you're not thin. And it seems fairly self-evident that being compassionate and progressive requires that, at the very least, we not celebrate good things that happen to us that ride on the oppression of others. In fact, I think it requires that we acknowledge the oppression and hardships of others that our good fortune rides on, and work to change the system that allocates goods and opportunities and respect in this unjust way.

I'm still trying to come up with a good example that will clarify this for those who are still struggling with the concept. But I've got work to finish and a toddler to pick up. More on this topic later...

Indexed Strikes Again

Have I already mentioned that I really, really love Indexed?

My niece and nephew's test for really loving something: "do you love it so much that if it was a person you would kiss him/her on the mouth?" Yes. Yes, I would.

Prosecuting the Interrogators

In the last couple of days since the release of the CIA Interrogation Report, headlines like this have become fairly common: CIA Interrogation Report Could Lead to Prosecution of Interrogators. I have a huge issue with this, because there's not much indication that those who ordered the interrogations, or wrote legal opinions in support of them, or pressured staffers to produce supporting documentation, or lied to congress about the interrogations, will be held accountable.

While I'm all for accountability and being able to look other nations in the eye and advocate for fair treatment and civil liberties on an international scale, I think that punishing those who execute orders without punishing those who gave the orders is inexcusable. And it's another instance of class warfare. After all, it's difficult and controversial to go after the white-collar rich dudes who govern our nation. They have political allies and teams of savvy, high-paid lawyers. But the camouflage-collar folks who do their bidding? Not so much. And it's easy to portray them as power-hungry, sadistic rogues who just went overboard and used the war and their military service as an excuse to abuse prisoners. Because we value people based on where they fit in the system, and how they look, and how much money they make, and where they went to school, and who they're friends with.

...bullshit class warfare is what it is...

Quote of the Day

"The Constitution does not just protect those whose views we share; it also protects those with whose views we disagree."

Edward Kennedy (February 22, 1932 – August 25, 2009)

The Other Princess Problem

I'm no fan of the princess culture that we engulf little girls in from birth, but my critiques tend to center around the self-image and social issues involved. But a friend linked me to an interesting opinion piece, The Princess Problem, by Laura Vanderkam in which she examines the economic effects of princess culture on women. Some excerpts:

Some moms worry that princesses make girls obsessed with beauty. But I think the problem is that the popular princesses lack what psychologists call an "internal locus of control." This is the belief that you are responsible for making your way in the world.

Best to marry a high-earning man, because your husband will determine the standard of living for you and your children. Indeed, if you do well, you won't deal with this at all. In the non-Disney, Brothers Grimm version of Cinderella, the stepsisters cut off their heels and toes to fit into the glass slipper because, as their mother points out, when you marry a prince, you don't have to walk (i.e. work). While the majority of married women these days expect to contribute, financially, to their families, the key word is "contribute." That is, provide extras that can be trimmed if we need work-life balance. Newly minted breadwinner moms feel stressed because suddenly it's not about vacations or violin lessons. Their children's standard of living is up to them.

Your thoughts?

How to Be Fauxgressive

There's so much fail in all the bullshit that has followed from a comment on the blog We Are the Real Deal that I just can't help but use it as a teachable moment. So, if you're interested in not being a willfully ignorant and hurtful person in the blogosphere, here are some handy tips:

1. When a commenter (legitimately) notes the lack of diversity on your blog, which claims to address a wide range of issues that diverse people face, stop and carefully think it over a minute before firing off an angry reply.
2. When you do reply, try not to invoke the very symbol of privilege which represents some of the most oppressive and hurtful elements of our culture in the area in which you claim to be an advocate (i.e. Barbie and her relationship to any woman who doesn't look like her). Don't flaunt your privilege in the face of the presumably less privileged commenter and openly gloat over the fact that you are more valued by our culture because you fit the mold. And please, for the love of dog, don't imply that she's only criticizing your blog because she's jealous of you.
   
3. If you happen to have fucked up and engaged in the above noted behaviors, at least try to craft a sincere and thoughtful apology that shows that you've actually heard the things that many people are saying to you. Don't retreat into a "you mean people just don't get my style" routine. Don't pretend you were being sarcastic and claim to have actually been saying something that makes no sense whatsoever given the actual words that are still on the screen in front of all of our faces. And don't defend your indefensible celebration of your privilege at the expense of others. It's not only immature and unseemly, it's downright vulgar and hateful.
4. If you have managed to bumble your way through steps 1-3 above, and a co-contributor posts a "let's clear the air" post in which she invites people to continue the discussion, since commenting has been closed on the previous post, listen carefully and thoughtfully to the things the commenters take time to write to you, and then respond. Like, to their direct comments and questions. To them. Take the issues they've raised, one at a time, and address them. Listen, and engage in the discussion. This is called "constructive dialogue," and it's one of the most powerful tools we have in the fight against oppression and marginalization.
5. If you're unable to truly listen and engage in constructive dialogue, then just say so up front. But don't keep saying, "I'm reading and thinking about all of this, and I'm going to address all of your concerns in an upcoming post" and then actually write that promised post without ever really addressing the issues that were raised in a meaningful way. Because that is the perfect example of hypocrisy and self-involved ego-stroking masquerading as advocacy and compassion and inclusiveness. In other words, this entire debacle is the paradigmatic giant, heaving, oozing, steaming mass of FAIL.

OK, I just squicked myself out with that last phrase, so I'm gonna go clear my palate with a little tequila.

Female autonomy in a patriarchal, anti-choice culture

Oftentimes debates over sex work and motherhood and marriage and career choice end up polarizing feminists where female choice and autonomy is concerned. For instance, pro-sex-work feminists will claim that feminism is about women's choices, and any choice a woman makes is feminist and should be supported. In this view, questioning the various individual motivations and cultural influences that led to the choice is an unfeminist act and portrays women as mindless little children who are incapable of making free choices. In contrast, their opponents will point to the fact that women's choices are systemically limited and we are all the products of a patriarchal culture that teaches women to value themselves according to how they are perceived and desired by men, and often financial necessity is a major factor in the decision to enter the field of sex work to begin with. In this view, if you're systemically oppressed and socialized to collude with your oppressor, your choices cannot be viewed as free, but are always dictated by the situation in which you find yourself.

These two positions are frequently portrayed as the only two options. If you express any concern that perhaps many prostitutes would have chosen a different career if they had had other financially viable options open to them, you're immediately placed in the second camp, and regardless of what you say, you're seen as believing that women are mindless little automatons who are incapable of independent thought. But if you advocate for sex workers rights at all, you're placed into the first camp, and thought to be ignorant and naive concerning the profoundly influential and constitutive nature of the culture in which we are all immersed. In this environment (which is fairly typical of the feminist blogosphere), people who take a moderate stance and believe both that women often choose sex work under coercive conditions and that it's the feminist thing to do to advocate for better treatment of sex workers, regardless of how they got there, are viewed as a walking contradiction, since they're trying to take two contradictory stances at the same time.

But of course, the two extreme stances are not the only positions you could take. In fact, thoughtfully navigating a path down the middle is the far more feminist approach, in my view. But for the purposes of this discussion, the relevant point is that you don't either have to believe that women are incapable of autonomous decision making because of their cultural environment or that every choice a woman makes is sacred and inviolable. Instead, you can view her as a competent rational being who is nonetheless under a great deal of pressure to follow the pre-set gender scripts set forth by her culture.

This issue concerning choice is exemplified by this version of the Kourtney Kardashian pregnancy story. Kardashian is careful to portray her decision to keep the baby as a completely autonomous choice:

Although Kardashian sought out the advice of others, she says it was her decision -- and hers alone -- that was the most important.
"I really wanted to think it through for myself, and not hear what my sisters were saying, or what Scott was saying. Even though I took it all in, I wanted it to be my decision," she says.

However, many of the other things she says reveal that the pre-existing scripts about abortion we have - especially those that come from an anti-choice angle - were very formative and influential on her thought process. For one thing, a friend advised her to consult her doctor about "the risks and stuff," but when Kardashian did consult her doctor, it doesn't sound like he was talking about the medical risks at all:

My doctor told me there is nothing you will ever regret about having the baby, but he was like, 'You may regret not having the baby.'

I, for one, don't know why a medical doctor would be the person you would consult about regret. Medical risks and possible complications? Sure. But it seems like this consultation had much more to do with morals and worldviews than medical procedures.

Further, according to the article,

Scott Disick, the baby's 26-year-old father, was supportive either way.

But I'm not really sure I get what "supportive either way" means here. Elsewhere in the article we find this

He said, 'I really want you to keep it, but I will support you whatever you decide to do'

and then this

I got so excited, and when I told Scott he was so excited. But I think if I had said I'm not going to keep it, I really think he would have pushed me into keeping it.

which sounds more to me like "I'll support you either way but only if you make the choice I want you to make." It also sounds from the article like her sisters were in favor of her keeping the baby.

But beyond the immediate influence of the people in her life, the cultural scripts on abortion run through her description of her decision making process. These quotes:

"I do think every woman should have the right to do what they want, but I don't think it's talked through enough. I can't even tell you how many people just say, 'Oh, get an abortion.' Like it's not a big deal."

and

"I looked online, and I was sitting on bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty from having an abortion," she recalls. "I was reading these things of how many people are traumatized by it afterwards."

and

After scouring the Internet, Kardashian says she started to realize that an abortion wasn't an option for her. "I was just sitting there crying, thinking, 'I can't do that,' " she says. "And I felt in my body, this is meant to be. God does things for a reason, and I just felt like it was the right thing that was happening in my life."

and

Kardashian says she did some intense soul-searching. "For me, all the reasons why I wouldn't keep the baby were so selfish: It wasn't like I was raped, it's not like I'm 16. I'm 30 years old, I make my own money, I support myself, I can afford to have a baby. And I am with someone who I love, and have been with for a long time."

tell us a lot about the positioning of abortion in her worldview. Kardashian assumes that having an abortion is always "a big deal" (um, not for everyone), that there is always guilt and trauma associated with it (which there probably is if you've internalized anti-choice views), that to have an abortion is to interfere with God's plan in your life, that this is the kind of thing you can "feel in your body" but still portray as a carefully thought-out decision, that, if abortion is ever justified, it's only in cases of rape, or when the mother is very young, or poor, and that if these factors aren't in place and you get an abortion anyway, you're selfish.

Given these assumptions, how could she have chosen otherwise? A "choice" that carries harsh social or financial consequences, or forces you to view yourself in a profoundly unfavorable way, is not a free choice. Given Kardashian's description of the situation, it doesn't appear that she could have chosen not to keep this baby and still retained her self-respect. And this is due to the well-used and familiar scripts that her thoughts concerning abortion adhered to. So this is a case where we all seem very eager to portray her choice as a completely free and autonomous one, in spite of the piles of evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, it could be that this was the option she was already inclined toward, and she simply tapped into the existing scripts on this particular side of the issue in order to articulate and make sense of her decision to herself and to us, but that if she had been inclined toward the other option, she would have tapped into the opposite script. Either way, the existing scripts and dominant cultural attitudes play a huge role in this decision-making process, and the image of the entirely dependent, autonomous rational agent making a completely free and uninfluenced choice doesn't work well here. Once again, personal "choice" turns out to be this complex thing that cannot be easily placed into one category or the other ("completely free" or "entirely coerced") but is instead a subtle interplay of cultural forces and personal desires. And we, as feminists, would be better served by dropping the oversimplified extreme views and working toward a more realistic and complex understanding of choice and autonomy.