Both Heartbreaking and Heartwarming

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Sign the associated petition here. (You know, I always wonder if online petitions really accomplish anything. I fear that the answer may be no, but at least it makes me feel like I'm acknowledging all the shit going on in the world.)

Happy Valentine's Day?

Oh, the Midwest...

News from Wisconsin:

It's an unusual combination. Buy a pair of diamond earrings, get a free gun.

General Coin and Gun Exchange owner Brian Zinn says since "guys like guns and girls like diamonds," he would "mesh the two together this year."

He says some wives have been sending their husbands into the store to take advantage of the 'bang bling' deal.

Zinn says if you buy a $400 pair of diamond earrings, you can pick any gun in the store worth under $300.

The free gun deal runs through Valentine's Day.

I'm rather amused by how quintessentially American this is: a seamless combination of stereotypical gender roles, heteronormativity, excessive capitalism... and (bonus!) violence.

Academic Censorship

Two frustrating pieces of information that have recently come to my attention:

• First, Florida Atlantic University has proposed shutting down their Women's Studies Center and Master's degree program in Women's Studies, on the grounds of budget cuts (despite increases in administrative salaries in the past year).

I'm a little worried that this is the beginning of a slippery slope for Women's Studies programs--many of these programs have roots in 1970s Second Wave feminist activism, when the mass media attention to the feminist movement gave feminist scholarship leverage in academia. But I feel like feminism no longer has as much popular support in the mass media, and thus schools like FAU feel like they can just silently shut down these programs.

Now, I maintain that the most important classes that I took in college were Women's Studies courses: they taught me how to think, opened my eyes to social inequality, made me care about social change, and in addition, the upper-level seminars were some of the only classes where I was assigned complex theoretical texts, which really are responsible for making me want to go to graduate school. I know many other people, both Women's Studies majors and not, who were similarly changed by Women's Studies classes.

In addition, both at my undergrad institution and here at UT, the Women's Studies professors and community were some of the most vocal voices for women when it came to campus issues from sexual assualt to equity in employee salaries--these women are needed as campus activists. And finally, there just not that many schools that offer advanced degrees in Women's Studies. To lose even one is a fairly major loss for the field.

So that's my pitch for Women's Studies--now, go sign the petition.

• Meanwhile, in "everyone's still afraid of sex" news: Georgia House Republicans are attempting to bar the teaching of any type of sexuality studies in state universities, specifically targeting queer theory. They also want all professors who teach and reasearch such subjects fired. Ah, censorship. An excerpt from the OnlineAthens article:

State Rep. Charlice Byrd, R-Woodstock, took the House well on Friday to announce a "grassroots" effort to oust professors with expertise in subjects like male prostitution, oral sex and "queer theory."

"This is not considered higher education," Byrd said. "If legislators are going to dole out the dollars, we should have a say-so in where they go."

Byrd and her supporters, including state Rep. Calvin Hill, R-Canton, said they will team with the Christian Coalition and other religious groups to pressure fellow lawmakers and the University System Board of Regents to eliminate the jobs.

"Our job is to educate our people in sciences, business, math," said Hill, a vice chairman of the budget-writing House Appropriations Committee. He said professors aren't going to meet those needs "by teaching a class in queer theory."

Not that the OnlineAthens helps any by titling the article "Steamy sex courses fire GOP's ire." In fact, the only course that the article lists legislators as being specifically pissed about is a graduate course in queer theory. Since I'm sure those Republican legislators have no idea what queer theory is (for the record, an incredibly complex body of knowledge about discourse, the State, the family, sexuality, gender performance, politics, activism, etc), it would appear that they're upset about... the word queer? The suggestion of alternative sexualities?

Academic censorship reaaaaaally pisses me off--so legislators are claiming that we shouldn't study things that make them uncomfortable? And that they know more about what's worth studying than people who've spent 10 years getting their PhDs? I'm also concerned about the confusion with how the academy works--that is, with the conflation between research and teaching. A professor who researches male prostititution 1) isn't necessarily a male prostitute, and 2) probably doesn't even teach classes on male prostitution. Oh, and for the record, just because you stop studying something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

And don't even get me started on this claim that universities are for "sciences, business, and math"? How about learning critical thinking? How about being an informed citizen? How about, you know, liberal arts education?! Ugh.

Veritable Hilarity

Feeling lazy today, readers, so I just give you this hilarious clip from The Ellen DeGeneres Show. Worth it, I promise.

Oscar Movie Mania: Slumdog Millionaire

This may shock you, but I'm feeling rather low on righteous rage today. While I'm fairly certain that this is a direct result of not having had time today to read the news or my usual selection of blogs (class all day), I've decided to embrace this rare even-tempered mood, and detour slightly from my typical pattern of using this forum to call out things I hate (usually sexists, assholes, and/or sexist assholes.)

Instead, let's talk about a few things I do love: namely, movies, acting, and award shows. Needless to say, I just adore Oscar season. Well, that is, when I like the nominated films--last year, for example, was kind of a wash for me, since I didn't particularly care about any of the movies except Juno. And Juno, while hysterical, in my mind wasn't original or groundbreaking enough to merit an Oscar. So: didn't care.

But this year! Ah, this year. So many wonderful movies, many with amazing female performances (always a plus). I haven't seen all the nominees yet, but I'm working my way through, and so far I've thrown money at movie theaters on behalf of best picture nominees The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, and The Reader, as well as acting nominees Revolutionary Road, Rachel Getting Married, The Dark Knight, and Tropic Thunder. Yes, I know I am dreadfully susceptible to Hollywood's brilliant marketing scheme, but I'm just happy they're making good movies for once.

Anyway, that long-winded explanation led to my new, non-enraged feature, Oscar Movie Mania, in which I tell you whether you should bother to see these movies or not, and (hopefully) you then tell me what you thought about said movies. And then we all bet money on what will win, and then you all pay me. Clear? Good.

So, today is the day of Slumdog Millionaire.

First of all, full disclosure: this movie made me absurdly happy. Sometimes, when I get really excited about a movie (even if I'm in a theater) I crunch up my whole body in a ball in the seat and start making a crazy grinning face while putting my hands up to my face like the kid in Home Alone. I did this for almost the entirety of WALL*E, to the bemusement of the friends sitting next to me. I also had this reaction to the end of Slumdog, which may have been a little weirder, since I went to the sold-out movie alone.

This unbridled glee was the result of several factors. First, the movie is gorgeous--everything about the cinematography, even in the several incredibly brutal scenes, is simply beautiful. Second, the story, of the "one epic love undergoes hardships" variety, sucks you in, makes you emotionally invested, and then has one of those fairy tale happy endings. But the film doesn't feel frivolous--because the subject matter is often dark and painful, you really feel like you've gone on a journey with the protagonist, and so the conclusion to the story, although upon consideration fairly predictable and cliche, feels like a triumph for you as well as him.

Perhaps it comes through in this review that as I've considered the film over the past few weeks, my unequivocal love for it has tempered. It's not really groundbreaking, and the acting, while good, is nothing extraordinary. Plus I'm a little uncomfortable with the fetishization of "beautiful poor Indians" that the film, in a sense, seems to be trading in.

So, I'm not quite sure why exactly Slumdog is sweeping all the early awards (the Golden Globes, SAG Awards, etc)--unless it's that all the awards voters felt that same overwhelming sense of happiness that I did when the movie was over. And you know, I'm actually not sure I have a problem with that. Sometimes, it's good to see a movie that makes you feel good, not in a cheap, silly chick-flick way (not that there's anything wrong with that either), but in an epic sort of way. And in the end, that's why you should go see Slumdog Millionaire.

Sporty Sexism!: On Uniforms and Negotiations

A couple of days ago a friend of mine forwarded me this blog post from MomGrind regarding female athletes' uniforms. (That's right, people are now intentionally fueling my feminist rage for their own amusement! Or perhaps because I'm a lazy, lazy blogger.) The gist of the argument is that it may, perhaps, be sexist that professional women athletes wear bikinis (volleyball, running) or tank tops (tennis), while male athletes wear... actual clothes.

Now, this is not a new observation. What is interesting, however, is that this blogger emailed female athletes to ask them how they felt about the issue - and three volleyball players and one runner answered! (How she selected her sample is unclear, but to be fair, it's a blog post, not a research study.) What they said actually surprised me, as a non-athlete: less material is just more comfortable and practical. That is, easier movement, less places for sand to get stuck. I can buy that claim; it makes sense.

MomGrind, on the other hand, seems to be leaning towards a second-wave-esque false consciousness argument when she states:

Do you think these women are refusing to acknowledge they’re being exploited? Are they, as Computer Addict said, willing participants? When they choose skimpy outfits, is it a real choice, or do they feel they’re expected to look a certain way? Am I totally off base here and it’s all about comfort and performance?

Personally, I think it's more complicated than the dichotomy that she sets up. Several of the athletes say that they know these outfits may lead to men objectifying them, or only watching their sport for the sex appeal, but point out that they are going to choose what's the most comfortable to wear, regardless. It seems to me as if, far from being victims of false consciousness, they've accepted sexism as a part of their sports, and have made a conscious decision that they're going to wear what is most comfortable for them anyway. That is, they're not going to be afraid to do what they want because we live in a sexist society. I have trouble faulting them for this.

Now, this doesn't mean that we should stop fighting against sexism in media coverage and objectification of female athletes. Certainly, it is sexist for a legitimate news source to pretend that photos of women like this one are the best way to cover a sporting event:


However, I also don't think that it's very feminist to present these athletes as dupes of a system, unaware or uncaring of the issues that are going around them. There's a negotiation taking place here. As I see it, these uniforms are both fueling objectification of women's bodies and represent a sort of rebellion--a refusal to be afraid of wearing what's most comfortable because sexist assholes may enjoy in a way that was not initally intended.

That said, this argument fails to address my personal pet peeve: jewelry and skirts on women's tennis players. I fail to see the utility of this, and in fact, it seems like it would be a hinderance. I can't see a counter-reading to the obvious here--that these women feel forced to conform to the trappings of feminity even when playing their sport. But if anyone has another take, I'd love to hear it.

Sexist Advertising: An Exciting New Phenomenon!

So, I watched the Superbowl yesterday, for the first time... possibly ever. I've never had much of an interest in this particular American holiday, but, seeing as 1) I was in the mood for beer and buffalo wings and mozzarella sticks (when am I not in the mood for these things?) and 2) I now live in Texas, I figured why not watch some large men in Spandex prove their masculinity by tackling each other in an often oddly sexual way?

But what I really want to talk about is the commercials! Not because they were glorious, as Super Bowl commercials are rumored to be, but because I spent a large portion of every commercial break shrieking "WTF?" at the screen. (When I wasn't busy stuffing my face with taco dip, that is... mmmmm taco dip.) Apparently, blatant, overt sexism is real cool for 2009.

A lot of feminist bloggers seem to be particularly irritated by this gem, where a bouquet of flowers tells a woman that she's ugly and pathetic, closing with, "No one wants to see you naked." ...What?



Insulting to women? Check. Unnecessary? Check. I've never heard of Teleflora before, but I'm not exactly sure who (either women or men) would be motivated by this ad to use them in the future.

However, for me, the terribleness of that ad doesn't quite measure up to this masterpiece from godaddy.com:



Not only does it objectify women and portray us as bimbos or catty bitches, it just doesn't make sense. I'm not even clear what's going on here. Is the clever "play on words" really that enhanced can mean both boob jobs... and other things(!)? Even when women say it! Am I missing something, or have we tumbled into the world of Idiocracy where the mere mention of sex is enough to be funny? (Will a TV show called Ow My Balls! be next?) I especially like that purposeful "Warning! Web Content Unrated" notification at the end. Ugh.

Not to say that there weren't some actually enjoyable commercial moments. In fact, I'll leave you with this one, which features a hilarious British coffee-drinking koala bear and several other moments of delightful absurdity. And isn't that something we can all agree on?