After I’ve been ranting about Facebook quite a lot on this blog, I can’t spare you the inevitable: you can now “like” my new Facebook page to get all the latest updates, to post comments or feedback, and whatever else this is useful for.
To all my followers, readers, commentators and accidentally misguided Google users: THANK YOU for stopping by and making me feel important enough to take this step.
I don’t need to tell you about how much feminist activists have done to reveal the proportions of rape culture. How they have fought to make unconsensual sex within marriage a crime, created rape crisis centers and hotlines, and made SAFE kits, also known as rape kits, obligatory in the U.S…. All of these measures were taken in order to help women who become the victims of some men who rape. Unfortunately, that’s well-understood. But can women rape, too?
The short answer is yes. However, those cases are often hard to detect, because they are legally not defined as such. In England and New Zealand, for example, rape constitutes the forced penetration by a man’s penis, which would make it virtually impossible for a woman to rape in legal terms. In most nations, however, a woman having unconsensual sex with a man can be punished for committing sexual assault rather than rape.
Call it whatever you want, I’m sure we can all agree that forcing someone violently to have sex against their will is not right and should be punished, regardless of the victim’s or the perpetrator’s sex. But of course, life isn’t always black and white; there are these damn grey areas, for example when people seem incapable of clearly stating what they want and do not want. As feminists have pointed out over and over again, a sleeping or highly inebriated person cannot give consent. But what about that hot girl you meet at a party, who may have had a few drinks too many but is dying to go home with you? What about the shy one who is too nervous and embarrassed to speak up?
via le-anyblack
These are particular situations many of us will know all too well. In order not to end up in a dodgy situation, feminists have come up with the concept “Yes means Yes”, also known as enthusiastic consent. It takes the saying “No means No” one step further, where the only sure road to consensual sex is asking for it and being explicit about what you want, ideally by saying that you want it.
This concept is not one that everyone can easily agree on, it seems. Some argue that it may kill the mood or the mystery of a sexual situation. Others claim (mostly rape apologists) that it will ruin their chances at sex altogether, because women are socialized/”cunning enough” to say no, even though they mean yes. After all, most of the time the discussion revolves around the question of women’s consent. Apparently, she has to be the one to call the shots, she is the only one that needs to be asked, because men are implied to always want sex by default. This presumption is, of course, just as dangerous as the assumption that women are much less sexual than men. Both open doors to sexual violations, because the specific needs and desires of an individual are completely disregarded.
I am mentioning this, because for every temptation in the shape of a drunk party girl, there may be a drunk party boy; for every young woman too shy to voice her likes and dislikes, there may be a young man too inexperienced and insecure to say no to sexual advances he doesn’t welcome. Some of us women may have been in situations where we violated someone’s boundaries without even realizing it, because both men and women perpetuate the stereotype that men will never mean no, and they certainly will never say it.
As women who believe in enthusiastic consent, we need to make sure we don’t hold up double standards. Education about consent needs to be directed at everybody, regardless of gender. Just like women, men need to learn to speak up, but most importantly, women, too, need to learn to insist on consent and how to get it.
An erection does not equal consent. Agreeing to sex does not mean agreeing to unprotected sex, to sex with other people, or to rough sex. A man can be too drunk to fuck, but a man can also be too drunk to want to fuck. Of course, these guidelines require a certain level of maturity and responsibility from both partners. If this level is not a given, you should ask yourselves whether you should be having sex at all.
After all, who would want to have sex with someone who doesn’t enjoy it? Only rapists would.
If you’re interested in learning more about enthusiastic consent, go here! Already a pro? Here’s the advanced version.
Because of the particularity of man-woman relationships, I have focused on heterosexual relations, but fortunately enthusiastic consent is a concept that works for all sorts of constellations!
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged enthusiastic consent, gender equality, rape, rape culture, sexuality, yes means yes
I’m a little embarassed because I haven’t actually published anything on Gender Across Borders yet, but have a look at my intern profile! My first article is due tonight, so I will keep you posted.
UPDATE: My first article has been published. You can find it here.
In memory of all the anonymous harragas, who perished in the sea on their way to Europe. Continue reading
While the new year relentlessly advances, I dared to look back at the most memorable, most discussed topics in the feminist blogosphere in 2011, as well as on my own humble weblog, and I realized that, while these are supposed to be primarily concerned with women’s issues, they end up talking an awful lot about men.
This hardly comes as a surprise, because when men make up the majority of our political leaders, corporations and media, one cannot help but include them one way or another. However, the main reason for why these men ended up on my blog as well as on other feminist sources has little to do with the achievements or even failures relating to their trade, but rather with the much more profane reality that they were all somehow involved in a “sex” scandal (I use the word “sex” apprehensively in the following text, because contrary to media sources, some of these scandals are hardly about sex but about sexual abuse and rape).
In most cases, these scandals destroyed or severely damaged the careers of the involved public figures. Of course, it should make a huge difference whether the accusations were about sexy pictures and online flirting (Anthony Weiner), cheating on the wife (Herman Cain, Arnold Schwarzenegger), or sexual harassment and rape (Cain, Strauss-Kahn and Assange), but in terms of consequences it really doesn’t: we are losing more or less promising politicians, activists and other leaders.
“Should have kept their pants on!”, some might say, and mourn today’s moral decline. Others criticize the abuse of power and the prevalence of rape culture. Some even go so far as to call for more women in politics and public life, assuming that this would lead to less colleteral damage in the power domain.
I agree: we do need more women in power! But I am not kidding myself. Women lie and cheat just as much as men do, because women love sex, because women can be selfish and careless and devious, and some even ignore the limits of consensual sex. There is nothing that would prevent women in power from making the same mistakes men do. Or is there?
No one can deny that sex and power are often linked. That is not to say that one is essential for the other, but often the two come together, and that can be a beautiful thing, for example in a consensual BDSM relationship, or a terrible thing, for example in a rape case.
Power can corrupt both women and men is similar ways, in that it can lead to megalomania and an increased appetite for taking risks and indulging in deviant, perhaps criminal behavior. However, when it comes to sexual behavior, there seems to be one big difference: women seldomly correlate sex with their own power and status, whereas men often do.
The reasons for that are to be found in socialisation rather than biology. Traditional stereotyping suggests that all women need to attract a male is physical beauty, and all men need to attract a female is power (i.e. status, money etc.). Throughout their lives, girls and boys will be confronted with these stereotypes over and over again, so naturally they will grow up to have a different relationship to power. I believe there is a grain of truth to what Debbie Walsh is saying, even though she sounds a bit too polemical: “The shorthand of it is that women run for office to do something, and men run for office to be somebody.”
the use of stereotypes in advertising
Many men have internalized the notion that power will make them more desirable, and with that belief comes a certain sense of entitlement that cannot be ignored when speaking about sexual violations by men in high places. So yes, I think it is fair to say that more women in power would lead to fewer downfalls of public figures due to sexual violence. Maybe.
Or maybe not. I guess we will just have to wait and see. Or at least I hope that we will see. Because in the end there is no use speculating about whether women’s equal representation will improve the status quo. We have to make it possible to find out for sure. As the Austrian writer Marlene Streeruwitz stated in an interview (and I am paraphrasing/translating here): “I expect to see the truth, whatever that may look like. But it will be the truth, not a hypothesis. We always talk about what could be if women were in power. Now I want to see it!”
Posted in Uncategorized
Regular readers of this blog may have noticed that I really like movies. A lot. I wouldn’t consider myself a nerd, because my knowledge isn’t exactly academically backed and I rarely reach outside of the mainstream (except when it comes to horror), because my interest in a film is often influenced by its potential sociological and cultural impact. And so I like to keep up to date as much as possible.
Recently, however, I haven’t seen many films that I really, really enjoyed. You could blame me for my choice in movies, of course, but I obviously wouldn’t pick anything that I wasn’t at least somewhat interested in. My boyfriend and I usually make the decision together and we also watch most films together, and on average he seems to responds to them more positively than I do. You could say that we simply have different tastes, but that still doesn’t account for the fact that he is satisfied more frequently than I am, and I certainly wouldn’t consider myself more critical than him. Or am I?
Just a few days ago we discussed the film Drive that recently came out and was lauded by many film critics and friends of ours alike. My boyfriend loved it as well, so he was taken a little aback by my hesitation to fully endorse him, and he tried his best to understand why I didn’t like it.
In fact, I had liked it, certainly more than a lot of other ones that had recently been released. After all, Drive has the full package: It is thrilling, cool, sleek, stylistically impeccable, features great actors and actresses and references the 80s – what’s not to like?
lonesome dude on a mission, 2011
In the end, I just didn’t find it that original and it didn’t leave any lasting impact on me. It’s probably not a movie I would recommend to someone several months from now – because I will most likely have forgotten about it. The boyfriend disagreed, and he came up with many wonderful arguments for why this film might be relevant in our postmodern, self-referential condition. I, on the other hand, had little else to say than “I just didn’t care that much for it” and “it just didn’t resonate with me.”
After all, focussing on content over style, what’s so special about a twenty-something white dude as the lead character, a lonesome wolf, whose emotional coldness is only briefly undermined by his feelings for a young mom and her son, and who otherwise comes off as a bad-ass violent superhero (he can drive, he can fight, he’s in control) whose only emotional conflict lies in maintaining his independence versus protecting said young family? This type of lead character has been around at least since the 1930s and it has dominated much of American cinema ever since. I’m sorry, but I can’t find anything original or progressive in this uncritical depiction of a man seemingly struggling with his masculinity, but eventually repeating all of the same clichés, and not only does that make me sad, it alienates me from the movie, as it alienates me from film in general.
lonesome dude on a mission, 1946
I’m tired. I’m tired of watching male heros. I’m tired of watching male anti-heros. I’m tired of watching men do things and women watching men do things. In fact, it bores me to death. Drive has simply been the latest example.
lonesome dude on a mission, 1976
I’m sick of having to identify with support roles. I want women to be the center of attention at last, with everything that entails, the good and the bad. When do we get to be powerful, corrupt, invincible, vulnerable, cold and rational, or criminally insane? When do we get to be mothers who fail, daughters who disappoint, lovers who disappear? I know there are wonderful cinematic examples for all of these, but they are just too rare to really have an impact.
Lead characters can sometimes develop iconic qualities. They can set the standards for idealized versions of us, for better or for worse. They can also show us how we’re wrong. But only if we are in fact represented. As a woman represented in film, I find myself reduced to fewer versions, fewer options in life. I find it hard to conceive of myself apart from my relation to a man. I find myself idealized or demonized only in relation to men. I would like to think that this didn’t impact my life in reality but I believe it does. Movies are about imagination and if we cannot imagine women as leading figures and independent personalities on film, how can we imagine them in real life?
I am not asking to always show women as fully developed characters in positions of power and responsibility, who only make good and healthy decisions, because that’s not what all women do, that’s not what all men do. I simply demand to exist in film as a group of individuals that make up half of the population and not as the inevitable trope, supporting the image of a system that puts us in the passenger seat. I want to see women Drive.
I’d watch that movie. And I might even like it.
déjà-vu?
Posted in Culture, Uncategorized
Tagged androcentrism, drive, gender equality, movies, underrepresentation
Blatant racism in advertising, as seen at the airport of Copenhagen:
I haven’t been collecting recent news articles and blog posts for you to read in a while, mainly because Twitter has taken over this function. If you’re interested in what I have been reading and thinking, please follow me by clicking on the headline of my Twitter feed on the side-bar. If you do not have a Twitter account, go and get one asap! It’s the best way to keep up with the news and discover new sources.
I am also eager to find new blogs, so if you have a recommendation for me, please leave a link in the comments. I am mainly interested in political and/or feminist blogs from all over Europe besides Germany that are written in English, French, German or Danish (in order to avoid the perversions that Google translator produces). Thank you!
“Why is feminism still so afraid to focus on its flaws?”, I read on The Guardian’s website this week and my immediate reaction was: It is? Feminism isn’t flawless, just like any movement and ideological system isn’t, but it surprises me that it would get called out for being uncritical regarding these flaws. Moreover, the word “still” in the headline suggests that this has been an ongoing issue for quite a long time. I’m sorry, but I don’t buy it.
Among the social movements that I can think of right now, I believe feminism has been among the most self-reflexive, self-critical of them all, to the extent where it has almost eliminated itself. (Remember the postmodern debate regarding the validity of women as a category in the 80′s and 90’s?) Feminists have always tried to integrate new concepts within academia, such as postcolonialism, queer studies, men’s studies, intersectionality. It has been a struggle, and it has been divisive to a movement that had been split into separate camps from the beginning. That’s why it is hard to speak about one kind of feminism in the first place. Radical, liberal, socialist feminism and others; these strands still exist today, and they differ from generation to generation. This heterogeneity hurts feminism, as much as it would hurt any movement, any political idea, but it has also benefited from it, the most obvious advantage being that feminism is still alive and active today, because it has managed to remain or become relevant in all sorts of societies. Don’t believe me? Feminism has become superfluous in our societies of affluence and equality of opportunity? Just a glance further South at the aftermath of the Arab spring suggests that feminism is more relevant than ever. Reducing feminist influence to improving the comfortable lives of well-to-do European and American women doesn’t cut it anymore. Feminism has not been bypassed by globalization; in fact it has embraced transnational connections from the beginning. It now matters to all of us whether or not a woman is allowed to drive a car in Saudi Arabia or love a woman in Uganda. If you are unaware of feminism’s involvement in global affairs, it’s not the flaw of the movement but your own information shortcomings.
But I’m getting carried away. Deborah Orr, the author of the above mentioned article doesn’t criticize any of the things I have mentioned, even though I would have guessed these were the more legitimate concerns: feminism’s global relevance, its often contradictory and hard-to-reconcile stance between academia and political activism…
But Deborah Orr is on to something else. First of all she mentions feminism’s branding problem. There’s probably a lot of truth to that but then again, I believe this is a problem of the Left in general, not just feminism. The movement is divided, just like the Left is, so branding has to be a problem, if you cannot even adequately label yourself without offending someone. But what Orr really wants to point out is this:
“The fundamental and rather serious problem is the blunt and somewhat stubborn emphasis on “equality”, difficult enough in a society deeply divided by economic inequality generally, even without the added complication that it’s the people with care of children, whatever their sex, whose economic freedom is most compromised the world over.” [All quotes are taken from this article.]
Orr goes on to say that feminism has long seized to focus mainly on the rights of middle-class white Western women, and she certainly speaks the truth. Slutwalks and quotas are important issues right next to reproductive rights, migrant women’s rights, and female labor in the developing world, and all of them are heatedly debated within feminist circles as well. So while (in)equality, social or otherwise, certainly is an issue in our society, feminism cannot be blamed for inadequately addressing it. On the contrary, the Sex-and-the-City version of postmodern feminism has been surpassed; class and race issues are more relevant to feminism than ever. But once again, this is not what the author actually tries to criticize. She is only obsessing over one thing in particular:
“But equal opportunity in the workplace has not resulted in equal achievement, and not all of this is the fault of continuing chauvinism. Women bear the children and, far more often than not, they wish to be the primary carer for those children. At its most strident, feminism can be mistaken for an ideology designed to make women feel they are wrong to want that. Worse, feminism has accidentally promoted the idea that it’s pretty easy to work and have children, with the right support in place.”
Um, no. As one commentator has rightly pointed out, that is a capitalist idea. Feminism may promote that the right support will make it easier, not easy. But working, as the author correctly points out, has never been a choice but a means to survive for most women, and continues to be just that. And here is where it would actually make sense to interrupt with a good ol’ “But what about the menz?” Having both a family and a demanding job is never going to be easy for a woman, but I don’t see why it should be any different for a man? I’m sure we can all agree that sharing the responsibilities helps, and since most families develop out of heterosexual relationships, these or other partnerships are needed in order to sustain a happy family life. Women cannot do it all alone, so if they want that, then yes, I believe they’re wrong in thinking it will work out. A family doesn’t just consist of children and a mother. There can be fathers, life partners, grandparents, friends, a commune. Sadly, in our individualist society people often don’t even consider the necessity and power of communities and solidarity, and neither does Orr. She continues:
“On even an average income, it’s never easy, [...]. Your priorities change. Work is no longer the most important thing, for a while anyway. Ambition can dissipate. For many women, that’s a self-evident truth.”
So it is a self-evident truth for women that their children become more important in their lives than work, but it isn’t for men? I wonder how Orr would substantiate that statement without getting into some fuzzy gender essentialism. Rejecting this kind of stereotyping is not a flaw of feminism, it is what modern feminism is all about. So, Ms. Orr, if you believe that women should always be the primary care-takers of children and should postpone or give up their careers in order to take care of the home and family, while for men in the same situation nothing ever changes, then yes, you’re right not to call yourself a feminist, but don’t worry, we’re not gonna make you.
"Your priorities change. Work is no longer the most important thing, for a while anyway. Ambition can dissipate."
Posted in Media, Uncategorized
Tagged children, deborah orr, feminism, gender equality, the guardian, women's work
 | halfjill on A Cushion Against Reality: gir… |
 | H.D. on A Cushion Against Reality: gir… |
 | Marcus on A Cushion Against Reality: gir… |
Netiquette
In light of recent events (see comments on last post), I have decided to finally add a netiquette button to the top of my homepage. I urge everyone who’s interested in commenting here (or already comments) to read it. It’s not a final version and may be subject to change every now and then. I’m also open to feedback. And yes, it is a bit snarky, but I couldn’t help myself after being criticized on how I manage my own blog…
→ Leave a comment
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged comments, netiquette