Several months ago, L asked me what I thought the story of Rumpelstiltskin was really about. If you're not familiar with the tale, this version by the Grimm Brothers (1810's) is the most well known. There is a boasting miller, his daughter, a king, rooms filled of straw, a strange magical little man, some questionable contracts, and an ambiguous moral. A quick Google search reveals just how baffling this strange little story is for most modern readers.
I too was baffled, but with some research skills and access to university library databases I found an amazing article:
Zipes, Jack. (1993). "Spinning with Fate: Rumpelstiltskin and the Decline of Female Productivity." Western Folklore. 52 (1) Perspectives on the Innocent Persecuted Heroine in Fairy Tales: 43-60
The author begins his discussion by noting the long and rich tradition of spinning-related folktales across many cultures, with the spindle symbolizing female productivity and a cultural or community center. Mothers and grandmothers would tell these tales to their daughters and granddaughters as they spun, making essential products for sewing and weaving for their communities. As the industrial revolution took hold in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries however, women's economic roles changed. Essential spinning and weaving tasks that once happened at home were outsourced to the new mechanized economy. Spinning tales once rooted in the community became un-moored. Zipes argues that the Grimm Brothers folk tale collection coincides with this transformation. As a result, their strange Rumpelstilkskin tale is a story caught between women's traditionally productive spinning roles and their more ambiguous roles in Europe's industrializing economy.
To support this theory, the author cites an earlier version of the tale where a hapless maiden can only spin flax into gold (no boasting miller). In her world, gold thread is pretty but essentially useless. In short, she's absurdly inept at an essential task. A little man comes by and promises to help and in doing so, make her an appealing choice for a discerning gentleman. In return, he demands her first child. In other words, I have skills you desperately need/want, I'll teach you, but you'll have to pay me. She says yes and a prince marries her (no more spinning anything into gold). Once she has her first child, the little man comes back to test her by demanding his payment. She resists and he offers his name-guessing test. After two days of failure, she rallies her ladies community who go in search of the answer. They find it and the little man flies out on a ladle (a women's implement).
Moral of this earlier story: learn to spin so you'll be a valuable asset to your husband and your community; use your ladies network and control your fate.
While this isn't a fantastic moral by modern standards, it's far better than the Grimm version. In hindsight its easy to see why the version we know is so baffling: it does not reflect a stable, immutable oral tradition. Instead, it reflects a man's interpretation of a woman's tale amidst women's changing economic roles. As women lost their economic value, their role in stories also transformed: they became passive, helpless bystanders as men and magical spinning machines determined their destinies.
Makes so much more sense than most modern interpretations!
We've discussed gender roles and children's toys here at this blog (see our Lammily and GoldieBlox posts for example), and it is heartening to hear that major retailers like Target are moving away from gender-based labeling/shelving for their toy offerings. When considering this gender-toy arena, my response has typically been, "Yes! More gender-neutral toys! How hard could it be!?"
Well . . .
Over the past few months I've been teaching myself how to sew. With a sewing machine from the 1960's and fabric from a few of my spouse's old work shirts, I've practiced the basics with a series of simple projects. For one project, an adorable stuffed robot, my result was less robot and more baby, but I loved it so much I made three.
My plush progeny
One of my cousins has a two-year-old, so I decided to send at least one of the toys to her. Then my feminist blogger mind thought, "I should make sure this toy imparts no gender expectations to the little female recipient." This seeming laudable and straightforward task immediately presented two problems. Problem 1: What do I call these things?
Trying to describe these toys in a gender-neutral way, I immediately ran into language hell. While "stuffed toy" is accurate and gender neutral, it is just too generic to be meaningful. I tried "doll," which is also accurate, but as I wrote in an earlier post, technologies (including dolls) are social constructions as much as they are physical objects. Girls get "dolls" and kitchen play sets, boys get "action figures" and Erector Sets. This dynamic goes back decades, if not centuries. If "doll" carries too much baggage, what to call them? After I told my spouse how the dolls' weighting reminded me of a baby sitting in a diaper, he started calling them "diaper babies." That's the best I've come up with so far.
Problem 2: How do I ensure this toy is gender-neutral but also engaging?
I originally planned to send the toys off as they are, but then feminist blogger brain got started again.
While I will go to my grave believing that the soft, squishy, cuddly nature of these toys makes them instantly engaging, I will also admit that toys offer children a medium to role play and explore their worlds. A doll without any features or clothes whatsoever offers unlimited possibilities, but it also fails to reflect reality. This seems like a major shortcoming.
My first solution was to give them clothes. My sewing skills aren't there yet, but hey, I'm willing to learn. However, on further reflection, the clothes solution just adds new problems. What kind of clothes would be neutral? Then I considered adding hair, but same problem. Are pig/pony tails gender-neutral? If I have two dolls in overalls, one with "boy" hair and one with "girl" hair, am I perpetuating a stereotype? What about neutral hair on two toys, one with a boy face and one with a girl face? Wait, that just plays into the bow, boobs, and eye-lashes trope (see Ms. Male Character).
Now as I write, I'm wondering whether the blue color (associated with boys) is a problem. The "make engaging gender-neutral toys" thing is taking a toll on my sanity. How do we help children learn about their world through play without also teaching them our society's preconceived notions about gender and gender roles? Needless to say, these unbelievably complex, innocent-looking little bastards are still sitting in my house taunting me.
Eddie: Christ, I like a drink, but I ain't out on the beer every night or screwin' other women, or... 'Ere, I've never once raised me hand to you. Ever. Or the kids.
Rita: Christ.
Eddie: What? Why are you looking like that?
Rita: Right. You're a saint now, is that what you're tellin' me, Eddie? You're a bleedin' saint? 'Cause you give us an even break?
Eddie: What are you saying?
Rita: That is as it should be. Jesus, Eddie! What do you think this strike's all been about, eh? Oh yeah. Actually you're right. You don't go on the drink, do ya? You don't gamble, you join in with the kids, you don't knock us about. Oh, lucky me. For Christ's sake, Eddie, that's as it should be! You try and understand that. Rights, not privileges. It's that easy. It really bloody is. - quote from Made in Dagenham
Ever since the cast was announced, everyone has been talking about gender representation in the new Star Wars reboot. A mysterious, unknown actress was cast as a main character. (A mysterious, unknown black actor was cast as another main character.) It looked like Star Wars was making way for a new era of equal gender representation and diversity in Hollywood. And I hope it is.
However, partially because I wasn't holding my breath for this movie to solve all of Hollywood sexism issues, and because while I like Star Wars and loved Luke, Han and Leia as a kid I am not a hardcore fanboy and I didn't want to have to view the movie with a bunch of guys drooling over the effects and/or debating the accuracy to the lore, I waited to see the movie until a few weeks after the release date. Consequently, I had to listen to many enthusiastic fanboys extolling the virtues of the film and encouraging me to go see it.
One reason they kept sighting as a reason I in particular would like the film was that "it was very feminist" and there was a lot of gender equality. Perhaps foolishly, I got very excited about this claim, and consequently I got my hopes up much too high. (Also, perhaps we must acknowledge that an average man's benchmark for something being 'very' progressive along gender equality lines may be somewhat lower than my own.)
After seeing the movie, which I enjoyed for several reasons-- one of which certainly being the new female co-protagonist--- I playfully chided the fanboys in my immediate network for having gotten my expectations for gender equality up a little too high.
You would have thought I had deeply insulted these guys' by the explosion of outrage that followed. These guys couldn't believe their ears! One guy kept repeating over and over and over again as if in a state of shock "How could you say that! The main character is a women! The main character is a women!" I had to keep emphasizing that I hadn't said there was no progress in terms of gender representation, and that I hadn't said that the movie was sexist garbage. Another point that was made was that "It was science fiction" so it didn't have to have gender equity--- when I noted that with this logic, the movie could have been mostly female characters, these gentlemen denounced that idea as "domineering."
We didn't really have a chance to have a nuanced conversation about it, as the discussion descended into a shouty mess but if I had I would have pointed out that out of the roughly 12 principle characters of the film (if we ignore the robots), only 4 of them were female. Also the film barely (and arguably) passes the Bechdel test--- boiling down to whether or not a discussion about Rey's visions of Luke are about Rey herself (or rather Luke), and to whether or not hugging counts as 'talking to each other.' While there were definitely more women in the background as extras, very few of the small roles with 1-3 speaking lines were women. A scene that stood out to me in particular was a scene in which the Resistance formulates its battle plan--- while many women stood around listening, none of them contributed to the discussion. (Part of the reason for this is because Abrams filled most of these roles with actor buddies of his; apparently he doesn't have any actress buddies.) This also bothered me because often small speaking roles pay more than background extra work--- meaning that even before considering the pay gap, male actors were much more likely to be paid more than female actresses on this film simply due to these gendering/casting choices.
But I think the thing that upset me the most about this conversation (and also much of discussions around gender and race in the film) is this idea that we (as female viewers) should be happy with what we have been given.
I am not going to be grateful for something being fair and right.
Am I glad that Star Wars has chosen to include more women in its universe, and hopefully more moving forward? Yes, absolutely! But I am not going to cite it as a paragon of gender representation. Especially not when things like Jennifer Jones or Battlestar Galactica exist. Just because something has taken a step in the right direction, doesn't mean we have made the whole journey and we should stop there. There is still a distance to go!
I object to an attitude that because a big Hollywood film has thrown women a bone, our hunger should be sated and we should be quiet. It is not up to the patriarchal system to decide when it has achieved equity, it is up to us. We don't have to just take what we are given--- and then sit down and shut up so the men can enjoy their slightly-less male dominated universes in peace.
Let's not award things for being average.
In thinking about this, I was constantly reminded of a scene in Made in Dagenham--- a true-story film about a group of female workers who go on strike due to unfair wages. After many days of the strike putting pressure on the workers families, the main character Rita has an argument with her husband (quoted above, and who I should note is a pretty good guy) in which he complains that she should basically do what he wants (break the strike) because after all she has life pretty good--- he doesn't beat her or their kids, spend all their money on alcohol, or cheat on her, like other guys in their community might. Rita is outraged by this and informs him that he doesn't get a special prize for being a decent human being. "That's as it should be." she shouts at him. And that's what I want to shout at people extolling the virtues of The Force Awakens because it has a few women in its principle cast. That's as it should be! The fact that this is some sort of feat of heroism just shows how messed up our media is!
The Force Awakens has done some helpful work in tipping the scale back towards gender equality (although its not a 50/50 balance). But I don't believe in showering accolades upon something that is doing the bare minimum.
Let's not get carried away in the general frenzy around Star War, and in the relief of women finally being acknowledged or included. Just like when the internet praised Dustin Hoffman gratuitously, when he finally realized basically a bit of what it is like to be a human woman and how shitty they get treated. I'm glad he shared his experience, because he was probably able to reach a lot more people and help them understand the challenge of being a woman and problems in our society, but at the same time I don't think he needs to get a Feminist of the Year Award for this. (Here is Amy Poehler helping another man achieve such enlightenment as well.)
By going overboard with praise and awards for things that are only creeping towards parity, we are in some ways lowering the bar for what progress can be and what excellence is. We are also setting up an expectation that even the slightest move towards inclusion of women and non-whites is some sort of huge achievement or concession even. We can do better, and it's important to know that we can do better.
We can love media and be critical of it at the same time.
To quote Feminist Frequency, it is possible to enjoy and care about a film and still see it's flaws. I was frustrated that these men I was discussing Star Wars were so unable to engage with the Star Wars storylines or politics or cultural relevancy in any way other than in zealous binaries--- especially when they are able to discuss the minute details of the effects and the self-referential moments.
Either I loved the movie or I hated it. Either I was with them, or I was against them. Either I thought Star Wars was AWESOME or I thought it was trash that should be thrown out the window. I was angry to find myself being forced into a box that I had no hand in creating with words being put in my mouth, and being forced to participate in a reductive, binary system so typical of the patriarchy.
There were other things about the film that I definitely enjoyed and I'm looking forward to seeing what the subsequent films have in store (hopefully more great female and racially diverse characters!). But because I had an unrealistic expectation of gender equality in the film (50/50) but instead saw something that was more (30/70), I had found myself disappointed that more work hadn't been done in this regard.
However, Feminist Frequency makes a good point that it's very important for such a huge, popular franchise to be making such conscious and conspicuous effort to be more inclusive because this can be just the thing to spur other Hollywood filmmakers, studios, and franchises to also move in this direction and to help them understand that gender equality sells! Also, because Star Wars is a global phenomenon, this effect might be felt globally.
Keep up the good work Star Wars! Let's keep moving until inclusion on screen is as it should be.
Many people waiting in line to see the nation's founding documents at the National Archives building in Washington D.C. miss the Archives' amazing museum exhibits located below the famous rotunda (of National Treasure fame). A few months back I went to see "Spirited Republic: Alcohol in American History" and in the process also saw "Records of Rights." I will admit this latter exhibition was much more interesting. As the exhibit website explains:
The rights and freedoms embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights did not initially apply to all Americans. Martin Luther King, Jr. described them as "a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir." For generations, various groups have struggled to "cash that check." "Records of Rights" showcases documents from the holdings of the National Archives to illustrate how Americans have endeavored to define, secure, and protect their rights.
While the exhibition is billed in a positive light -- questing for equal rights -- it mostly made me depressed. The well-curated exhibit did an excellent job demonstrating how we've denied rights to a sobering list of groups throughout our nation's history: Blacks, Native Peoples, Women, Immigrants, the LGBT community. In short, we've been nasty to a lot of people and in many ways still are.
I was perhaps most surprised by the women's section: Remembering the Ladies. As a writer for this most excellent feminist blog, I though I was tolerably well educated in the American woman's struggle. Well, I was wrong.
For example, did you know that until the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974, financial institutions could deny women credit unless they had their husbands' permission? Our grandmothers were denied credit cards and loans unless our grandfathers gave them permission slips. My brain has struggled with this concept ever since I left the exhibit. I had also never heard of the Equal Rights Amendment. Apparently my knowledge of landmark 1970's legislation is embarrassingly thin.
Thanks to this excellent exhibit, I want to learn more about the realities my grandmothers faced and hopefully bridge the experience gap between our generation and theirs. This interest has only deepened as I've heard Gloria Steinem bring this material back into the public consciousness on her recent book tour.
As far as I can tell, Records of Rights is a permanent (and free) exhibit and I definitely recommend a visit if you are ever in the District. In the meant time they also have an excellent interactive website that's worth a look.
As someone who constantly wants to learn, podcasts have been a godsend. I can plug myself in, walk to school/do the dishes/clean my room/eat dinner and learn about life at the same time?! LOVE IT. All podcasts, of course, are not created equal. Every so often I've tried one of those three-people-recorded-their-rambling-conversations podcasts and those are no good. The world does not need more of those. The world needs......... safe spaces to learn and talk about everything related to sex.
I have so many questions! What kind of sex toys are good? Where should I buy them from? Where can I find erotica that isn't horribly patriarchal? What kinds of things do I like? How do I incorporate those insights into my relationships? Do other people have these questions too!? What kind of source should I trust? Standard big mags like Cosmo? Women's Health? AskMen? HELP.
So imagine my excitement when I came across this article "9 Feminist Podcasts to Stream in 2016" (because I do trust Ms. Magazine) which introduced me to the Sex Nerd Sandra podcast. Granted, I've only listened to 2ish episodes at 1.5x speed at this point... but I LOVE IT. There are 200+ episodes (how have I never heard of this?) and I'm literally trying to plan my day with activities that allow me to listen.
Sandra Daugherty turns sex education on its head in "Sex Nerd Sandra" with unapologetic sex tips, techniques and tales from real life. She uses her background in cultural anthropology, philosophy and broadcast journalism to explore the intimate topics of the human condition, with a nerdy twist that pushes sexual shame out the window.
First, production is excellent. There is a wonderful balance of personal story, friends visiting, and expert interviews. Podcast quality is really important to me and I can assure an A+.
Also wonderful is the incredible diversity. Not only does Sandra take on a range of topics from navigating relationships to sex toys and technique, but her guests come from all walks of life. There are sex workers and therapists and life coaches and people who identify with pretty every label you can think of. Seriously. Just look at the list.
Most podcasts that I listen to advocate for two things: 1) to be self aware about whatever is going on. Whether its why you hate your job or how you aren't ready for a specific kind of relationship or why a particular person annoys the crap out of you... take some time to think about it and learn about yourself. Then you can 2) talk about it. Talk to your partners, your friends, your family. Advocate for what you want and need!
Podcasts like Sex Nerd Sandra are literally the definition of a safe space to build self awareness and explore. I have never heard such a variety of people confidently identify with a "label" while bringing up their conflicts and struggles. Never have I heard people talking about many of these topics ever! A sex worker talking about how she does friends with benefits? Didn't even occur to me that such things happened! But now I know! Its so wonderfully joyful and open that the listener (or at least me) becomes imbibed with energy and ready to take the next small step forward.
Ms. Magazine is correct that Sex Nerd Sandra is fucking feminist. It is an excellent source to explore sexual health/desires while advocating for balanced, healthy, consensual relationships. I am so excited to learn more about myself, about how other people get it on, and to talk about all this with everyone.
--
Other (not sex related) podcasts that I listen to and love:
1) Dear Sugar with Cheryl Strayed and Steve Almond
2) Another Round with Heben Nigatu and Tracy Clayton
You might not have noticed, but October marked the second anniversary
of our Dropout Drop-In blog! It’s hard
to believe two whole years have passed since L started us off, but on the other
hand, it’s amazing how much ground we’ve covered since then.
As of this writing, our humble little experiment boasts more
than 100 posts covering an impressive range of topics. At the very least, the blog has offered a
place where we’ve wrestled with what it means to be a woman in today’s society
and how we, as individuals, handle the various challenges womanhood presents in
that society. We have shared many
personal accounts of triumphs and disappointments, and I believe, have helped
each other think critically about our own experiences.
In addition, while this blogging experience has made me more
aware of women’s issues in the media, the workplace, and the world, I think L
had amazing foresight when starting this blog.
In the two short years since we began, many women’s’ issues have
exploded into the public consciousness.
We’ve seen Gamergate and renewed debates regarding online harassment. Sports stars violently thrust domestic
violence into the media. Influential
works by Sheryl Sandberg and Anne Marie Slaughter have wrestled with workplace
issues. Topics from gender identity to children’s
toys have seen their discourses transformed.
The Women’s Studies Drop Out Drop-In has given us a place to grapple
with these topics and work out where we stand.
Looking to the future, this blog remains a valuable place for us to explore what feminism means for our lives. I look
forward to sharing many more thoughts with you and hope to be challenged by yours in return. Here’s to another fruitful year dropping out!
Over the last few months, I’ve
sat down to write this blog post numerous times, and ended up staring at my
computer screen. I’ve been struggling with my thoughts and how best to piece
them together on a page so that they resemble something halfway intelligent.
Today, I decided to say screw it, and just go with whatever ends up on the
page, so if it gets crazy off topic, forgive me. Let’s get started.
All my life, I’ve been a numbers person. I’ve always noticed trends and
patterns with numbers, and I enjoyed noticing them and making sense of them.
Then I started noticing trends and patterns in every day life. Those are
sometimes harder to make sense of. Luckily, society tends to be numerically
inclined, whether people want to admit it or not. Don’t believe me? Look at it
this way: we have standards for quite literally everything. We have education
standards that students (and sometimes teachers) are required to meet in order
to progress or graduate. Employers have qualifications applicants must meet to
even be considered for an interview for a position. We have beauty standards.
We have health standards. We have standards of wealth. We have mathematical
standard deviations in analyses of everything, which aim to determine how far
away from the norm something is.We have standards of proof. We have political standards, believe it or
not. We have societal expectations and gender expectations, which are more or
less behavioral standards. We have personal standards and dating standards and
so many others that the word “standards” doesn’t even sound like a word
anymore. What happens when none of these standards are good enough?
A few years ago, I knew three things in my life needed to change: where I
lived, what I did, and how I lived. They weren’t necessarily mutually
exclusive, and the first two definitely could’ve fallen under the third
category. What I really needed to do was overhaul my life. I was unhappy,
perpetually angry and short-tempered, and didn’t know where to start to make
anything better. I decided to start by questioning how I got where I was.
Somehow, I had gotten off track
from where I wanted to be. I spent 6 years in college and grad school in
different states learning how to live as the person I (mostly) wanted to be
instead of the person my hometown expected me to be. When I returned home I
quickly found myself to be a square peg trying to fit into a round hole.
Instead of just accepting that I was a square peg, and I had no desire to fit
into a hole anyways, I forced myself into it, shaving off bits and pieces of
myself as I went. In order to get back on track, I had to decide how I was
going to get those pieces back. I chose to make changes in my life that let me
live by my own standards.
I’m not really sure how I came to define my own personal standards. Some of
them can and do overlap with what society tells us is normal or expected. Some
of them I believe are better even though society tells us it might be weird. I
stopped caring about what society thinks, and focused on who I wanted to be,
and how I wanted to be that person. I decided that I wanted to change where I
lived. I wanted to be in my own space, to be able to go to the store without
seeing people who had known me since I was a kid and who had known the version
of me that I no longer wanted to be. I wanted to live in a space where I could
be my full self. I wanted to work in a job that I didn’t despise. I wanted a
job where I could park my car and walk inside, and not spend 5 minutes in my
parked car, telling myself to go into the building because I had student loans
to pay. I wanted to be someone that could face her own reflection in the mirror
and not just be ok with what I saw, but to be happy with it. To be able to look
at my reflection and smile, not grimace or sneer or feel disheartened, turn off
the bathroom light, and walk away.
I started off by making little changes. I bought clothes that made me
feel powerful or comfortable or, gasp, attractive, even if it meant I was
wearing a necktie or motorcycle boots. I stopped convincing myself that I would
one day cave in and start wearing makeup. I started convincing myself that I
didn’t need it, because I look just fine without it, and sometimes more than
just fine. I started looking for apartments, for new jobs, for new
opportunities. I started looking into getting a dog, because I find dogs
naturally make a lot of things better. I started being my real self, after
years and years of denial. I started living authentically. I started letting go
of stupid, petty things. I started challenging the status quo. I started
building others’ confidence, instead of standing by and watching others tear it
down because that person for some reason doesn’t meet any or all of those stupid
standards I named earlier. I started challenging the way people think, in
polite, respectful ways. I got my knee fixed, and I went on an international
vacation I’d been dreaming about for 6 years to celebrate it. I recently felt that my knee was in good enough condition to train for and run a 10k race. I got a new job
and a new apartment and a puppy and I am noticeably happier…and yet, it’s not
enough.
I am happier than I’ve been in a long time, and I’m continuing to take steps
towards meeting certain standards I’ve set for myself. It all began when I
started asking myself questions, so it seems fitting that I end this blog post
with more. What happens when you work for years to meet the standards you set
for yourself, only to find that they are no longer good enough? What happens when
you don’t know where or how to set the new ones, so you don’t know how to go
about meeting them? What do you do when you don’t know what to do?
I didn't make my October post yet, so I thought I'd leave this here for you all to enjoy, if you haven't seen it yet!
This video is much needed relief to me as we find ourselves in the midst of Bond adoration as the new film comes out and I have to listen to my film guy friends explain to me how masterful the movies are. It says much more than I can ever express clearly during these conversations.
I was even recently told I couldn't just say that I didn't like Bond movies because they were sexist and just leave it at that, I had to explain myself. When one friend came to my defense and pointed out that in some of the movies the sexual escapades border on rape, that didn't seem like a valid enough explanation. Most of the time I try to avoid having to explain myself because it's never worth the time; rather I say that the films 'aren't made for me' because they aren't. But being told that it's my responsibility to have to explain every. single. time to men what is sexist about a sexist piece of media, really irks me because even acquiescing to that demand seems like an extension of the very patriarchal system that I'm witnessing in the stupid Bond film I'm trying not to spend any more of my life on. Why can't men take a moment and consider my claim and see if they can figure out why lots of women find the films offensive? I mean, I'm expected to spend hours listening to and considering men's arguments about why the films are great!
I don't feel like I am obligated to explain to people that using female characters primarily for eye candy and male wish-fulfillment is sexist because it is so obvious. People should understand this by now.
Another common defense of the Bond franchise is that, geez, you just have to understand that they were a product of their time. But then, I want to ask, why do we need them now? If they are antiquated, backwards historical artifacts, why are we reproducing them and extending them and make them literally 'of our time'? I mean, Birth of a Nation was a "product of its time," does that make it any less racist? Should we all be chill with making Birth of a Nation II? No that's ridiculous. So is insisting the Bond franchise isn't gross and unnecessary.
The films aren't really being transformed, except maybe by delving further into the mental anguish of what it's like to be a rich, British, smug, white man with endless guns. The center pieces of the films are still objectified, male-gaze-defined 'Bond girl' (it's all in the name). If the films didn't have them, would they even be Bond films anymore? I think most people would argue, no they really wouldn't. So if you remove the misogyny there's not much left except some masculine brawn. And so why do need to make more of these other than to make a cultural record of which female body shapes were idealized over the decades?
(I mean why is Berenice Marlohe even in Skyfall? Her character is so forgettable I can't even remember why she is there other than to be unceremoniously shot by the baddie? Does she even have more than three lines?)
(Also please note, the author of this post never watched Quantum of Solace because she watched Casino Royale and then also Skyfall at some point and then thought, why are you doing this to yourself?)
In addition, during Bond discussions, I'm usually told to count my blessings because at least now Bond has been given the gift of introspection. We can witness him experiencing angst like a monosyllabic, sociopathic Harry Potter. He makes sure to spend some screen time wallowing in guilt and distress over whichever ladyfriend has recently bit the dust aka driving around on a yacht looking pensive and frowning. Am I a force for good or a force for evil, James wonders as goons majestically and cinematicly gun down beautiful women around him. Again. Performing violence and abuse against female characters for the sole purpose of instigating action and character development for a male protagonist is inherently mysoginistic--- denying women of humanity, agency, or identity as anything other than vessels of moral conscious for men. Why do I need to explain this???
Yeah, the Bond franchise is all about male fantasy, and I'm not ok with what that fantasy is.
P.S. Ok and way, maybe Namoi Harris' Moneypenny is a bit more progressive. And Judi Dench is M or whatever and this is a step in the right direction. But honestly is it really progressive? I'd have to actually spend more time evaluating the storylines and the objectification of Harris to see if this is really valid--- and right now I'm not willing to spend more of time with Bond movies right now. And frankly, it's not enough.
I've been totally swamped recently and while I have had many thoughts and articles I've wanted to write about... I am totally not ready. However, there are a few things I have seen recently that I'd love to share! Be sure to check out the actual articles, because there is a lot more discussion and more tips that I didn't include here.
1st) Ditch the binary thinking and start some thinking! Any progress is progress. Get movin.
Today, I challenge you to adopt the “every little bit counts” mentality. Maybe the extent of your yoga practice today is holding child’s pose on your bed for 45 seconds. Maybe your workout is 10 quick squats while you’re waiting for your roommate to get out of the shower. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing, my loves. Every little bit counts. The beautiful thing is that this mentality can actually spill into all areas of life. Maybe you’ve been avoiding calling an old friend because you can’t find time for a thorough conversation. Take 30 seconds just to say hi. Maybe your apartment has gotten out-of-control messy, and you don’t have the energy to do an in-depth clean. Set aside 10 minutes. Target one corner of one room. Baby steps, a little at a time. Every little bit counts. With this mentality, we realize that we don’t need to fear seemingly daunting tasks. Life is all about staying balanced, and keeping the flow. As long as we’re doing something, we’re doing juuust fine.
2nd) Work on intertwining peace and balance into your relationships- Ditch the sarcasm, passive-aggressiveness, and brutal honesty. Build a "super"-you.
Since we’re all works-in-progress, if you find yourself employing any of the above weapons or armor, please do not be ashamed. I assure you that we have all, out of the need to protect ourselves, meddled with unsavory powers. The point is that Super You gets bogged down by sad little tricks like these, so it’s better to learn to recognize them and then ditch them when you can. Keep your heart and mind open to the intentions of your behavior — and to the intentions behind those intentions. Keep evolving and keep shedding that cheap shit.
3) But don't play too nice: make sure you can skillfully interrupt to make better use of your time while still getting the job done!
If you want others to see you as curious and interested, you have to ask questions. And often, you have to interrupt to create space for your question—especially if your conversation partner likes to talk.
Do Interrupt: 1. When you want to ensure understanding “Excuse me. I just want to make sure I understand. It sounds like the problem we’re trying to solve is…”
2. To help them clarify their thinking “I apologize for interrupting. I just want to make sure I understand. It sounds like your goal is….and your biggest concerns are…. Did I get that right?
3. Because you’re genuinely curious “Wait. What do you mean that you went through a dark period?” or “Hold on. How could you tell that he was bored in your meeting?” “Wow, can we take a step back. You just made a really interesting point. How did you come to that conclusion?”
4. To facilitate a productive conversation. Sometimes, interrupting is the best way to get a conversation back and track. Meetings without skillful, facilitative interruption turn into chaotic wastes of time. “It sounds like we’ve surfaced a topic that’s different from the meeting objective. How about the two of you continue that discussion later?” “Excuse me. We’re running short on time and we have a few people we haven’t heard from…” “Sorry to interrupt, but my next meeting will call in 5 minutes and I want to make sure I answer your question.”
--
Lets get to work! Hopefully the more I employ these, the more time I will have to write the longer articles that are stuck in my head.
In a recent instagram Between Two Books (a book club run by fans of Florence + the Machine) announced their participation in Elle Magazine UK's Elle Feminism campaign--- a promotion for their 'feminism issue' featuring Carey Mulligan of the upcoming film Suffragette. A discussion quickly arose in the comments, with followers declaring that #FlowsForFeminism "needs to be a thing."
A photo posted by The Flo +the Machine Book Club (@betweentwobooks) on
I am 100% behind #FlowsForFeminism. Whether or not feminism is a conscious, central part of the project and work of Florence and Florence + the Machine, I do count Florence as one of the contemporary figures who have influenced my evolution as a feminist and a person. Namely, she introduced to me the idea that women can be loud if they want.
Florence + the Machine's music is full of big sounds. Florence's voice is infamous for being particularly distinctive--- big and full, declarative, "witchy," full of octave jumps, shrieks, howls, and endless, drawn-out notes. Layers of choirs and drums build the dramatic songs. All together the sounds are noisy, loud, declarative, full--- there is no hiding them, and there is no hiding from them.
Women are so often expected to be seen and not heard, to speak only when spoken to, to hold their tongues, to let things go, to suffer in silence. If they must make themselves heard and visible, they should do it in a way that pleases others, in which they are cute, sexy, pretty, or attractive. Listening to Florence I realized that things could be different.
