Barnard College President Spar on How Young Women are Embracing Feminism

This is a re-post, courtesy of Barnard College. The original can be found here. All words ©Barnard. 

Dare to Use the F-Word is a new monthly podcast series created by and for young feminists. Street harassment, food activism, body image and slut-shaming are among the diverse issues discussed in the series, which is produced by Barnard College and the Barnard Center for Research on Women and aims to spotlight contemporary issues and activists. The podcast is available for download on iTunes, where you can also subscribe to the series.

In a recent episode, Barnard President Debora Spar, author of Wonder Women: Sex, Power, and the Quest for Perfection, talks with feminist media activist Jamia Wilson about the drive for perfection affects young women today. Following the interview, President Spar shared her thoughts on the direction of feminism for the next generation.

jamia wilson and debora spar (©Barnard)

Do Social Justice Movements need Mainstream Appeal? – The Problem with “Rebranding”

According to the findings of a new study, activists such as environmentalists and feminists tend to be viewed in such a negative light that they trigger resistance to social change rather than support of it. That, of course, contradicts the goal of many individuals who engage in political activism. But why are many people so offended by activists that they shut down and become defensive?

Dear Ladies (an intervention)

Ladies, it’s time for an intervention. I know, I have been defending you up to this point, but your behavior in the recent decade or so has become a menace to society and as a lefty, I will not stand for it!

War – Feminism’s Final Frontier?

Not too long ago I attended an event hosted by a women’s association advocating for women’s equality in the workplace. They had invited an army general as a speaker to elaborate on the military’s investment in ensuring women’s equal representation. The irony of this situation did not escape me.

image by israel defense forces via fotopedia

The business of war – is it feminism’s final frontier? After all, we are fighting for equality in all other aspects of society – politics, media, academia, family, religion – so promoting women’s equal role in the army seems like a logical step. But for what purpose?

Interview for Internal Voices

Internal Voices, the magazine made by and for UN and EU interns in Brussels, has interviewed me on the occasion of International Women’s Day. You can read my answers here.  Many thanks to @SigurdTvete for making it happen!

Positive and Negative Feminism in Campaign Ads

Recently, I have been thinking about the context in which feminist activism presents itself and the rhetoric used to frame the issues.  I have identified two camps, which I would call positive and negative feminism, that sometimes oppose each other and sometimes overlap. To be clear, I don’t mean to hierarchize the two via this labelling, but I am curious which approach would be better suited to aiding certain causes.

What do I mean by positive and negative feminism? Positive feminism to me is the kind of feminism that emphasizes the positive outcomes and benefits of gender equality, the achievements of feminism, and the particular qualities and contributions of women within society.

Negative feminism, then, would be focussing on the problematic issues of an unjust society, would draw particular attention to the discrimination and suffering faced by women and minorities, and would be more accusatory rather than celebratory.

Online Dating in France: more (or less) progressive than you might think

Dating is hard, but it can also be a lot of fun. By dating I mean meeting and getting to know people one is interested in sexually and/or romantically. Young people generally do this by going to bars and clubs, meeting people at work, at university or through shared interests and hobbies. However, this doesn’t work for everyone, for example those too shy to approach someone in public or those who feel they are too old to go clubbing. Some just don’t want to take any more chances when it comes to going on dates with people, and they’d like to have a bit more information about their object of desire before risking a tête-à-tête.

That’s when online dating became the latest fad. In the beginning people had a hard time admitting that they had a profile on one of those dating websites. The general belief was that only socially aberrant freaks and other hopeless cases would have to resort to such “desperate measures”. But lo and behold, online dating is more popular than ever and has lost much of its sad reputation. One of the most popular dating websites today, OK Cupid, claims to have 7 million active users to date; that means literally 7 million users to date.

But online dating also has its downsides, especially for heterosexual women. I would estimate that about 90% of the men who get in touch with a woman online are total creeps, sexual harassers and misguided “pick-up artists” (yes, I know, the latter is a tautology). And that is not based on the woman simply being not interested, but on the completely uncalled-for messages, for which there are many wonderful examples on the internet.

And so the French, no strangers to chauvinism and misogyny, especially when it comes to dating, came up with a great idea: Let’s have women decide who gets to contact them for potential dates. The concept is fairly simple: every man and woman on the dating site gets to check out the profiles of everyone else; however, while women can send the men messages to evince interest, men are only allowed to “launch a charm” (lancer un charme), to which women may react or not. The dating site is called AdopteUnMec.com (AdoptAGuy.com for Americans) and functions as a virtual supermarket where women can “buy” men by dropping them in their shopping carts. (Yes, the capitalist analogy is quite blatant.)

So far, so interesting. Even though the page’s pink design and supermarket idea are not exactly original, the concept of leaving women in charge of the pick-up may be very appealing to both men and women. Men have less to worry about finding interesting things to say to impress the women, because they already know that the woman who contacts them is at least interested in their profile. Women on the other hand will feel more at ease in an environment that allows them to be in control of who gets to interact with them. That is, not ALL women.

Unfortunately and quite surprisingly, Adopte Un Mec has failed to acknowledge that not all men and women out there are interested in dating the opposite sex. The entire concept is obviously designed for heterosexuals, but I don’t see why it has to insist on it exclusively. After all, users can search for non-smokers, vegetarians and bisexuals, just not of the opposite sex. Don’t get me wrong: it’s great to see women in charge, but why not try some more inclusive options? For example, men and women who identify as homosexual or bisexual could be allowed to message people of their own sex freely. I understand the difficulty of adapting a concept that is based on gender difference to a more heterogeneous clientele, but it seems to me that there has never even been the attempt.

The advertising is clearly directed towards men looking for hot girls, which appears to contradict the whole idea of inverting the objectification. What may have been subversive in the 80’s feels a little too “postfeminist” to me now. As a woman signing up to Adopte Un Mec, the first thing you are asked to do is decribe yourself and state what you are looking for in a man, the same way that you would describe what you look for in a new dress or a handbag you intend to buy. The idea of woman as customer and man as product doesn’t sit well with the feminist online dater, who is looking first and foremost for an egalitarian relationship. Perhaps Adopte Un Mec is not the best online dating service for the truly progressive single, but then again, if I was single I’d probably use it, if only for lack of better alternatives…

Slutwalk Paris – 1 October 2011

They couldn’t have picked a better day: sunshine, 28 degrees, a gentle breeze. Everyone would be outside on this last weekend of summer, so why not walk through the city and make a statement?

Having missed out on this summer’s Slutwalk in Berlin, which drew a large amount of people and even more media attention, I was excited to find out that Paris would have its own Slutwalk and that I would be able to participate. I was curious to see how it would turn out, what impact it would have in the city where Second Wave feminism originated in Europe.

all photographs taken by clemens porikys

Unfortunately, my first impression was disappointing. Not many people had shown up (sixty to eighty perhaps, not counting the press(wo)men) and the gathering of young women in short skirts wearing heart-shaped balloons resembled more a birthday party than a group of militant activists. It stood very much in contrast to my memory of the protest against the media response to the DSK affair, which had been a lot more energetic, unifying and angry, though not aggressive. The cause had been quite similar: fighting sexism and violence towards women, stop blaming victims and trivializing rape. So what went wrong?

I certainly appreciate and applaud everyone taking on the responsibility of organizing such an event, but in the case of Slutwalk Paris it could have been executed a bit more cleverly. What struck me as particularly odd was that hardly any of the well-known and well-organized feminist associations in Paris seemed to be present. Ni Putes Ni Soumises had sent some delegates; others such as Osez le Feminisme and La Barbe did either not know about it or ignored it deliberately…(?) The inclusion of these as well as other activist groups would certainly have been beneficial, not just regarding the number of participants but also to their diversity. The homogeneity of the protesters (most of them young, white, slim and able-bodied, myself included) does not represent the vast majority of victims of sexual violence, which subtracted from its potential significance.

But there we walked, down Boulevard Montparnasse and Boulevard St. Michel, where we did get some attention from pedestrians, including spontaneous participation. When a middle-aged woman asked about the motive for this demonstration and it was explained to her, she immediately expressed her support. Those were the highlights of a protest, that could have benefited from a couple of inspiring speeches to create the passion and energy needed to really get the movement started here in France.

Overall, the atmosphere was good and everyone seemed to have good time, even though I am not sure that that is the desired effect of a protest. In the end, everyone let go of their balloons in an attempt of symbolism, satisfying both the photographers and curious tourists. In any case, there is room for improvement and I hope that next time I can contribute more than just post-event criticism.

Movie Review: The Whistleblower (2010)

Make no mistake: The Whistleblower is a cookie-cutter Hollywood political drama/thriller with little originality. Sure, the film may be based on a true story, and a very sensational one at that, but unfortunately the director uses all the well-known tools of the trade to tell it. However, something struck me as extraordinary, otherwise I wouldn’t be mentioning it here, considering I watch movies all the time.

It’s the lead character I found the most exciting thing about the entire movie. Not the lead actress, mind you. Rachel Weisz is gorgeous, no doubt about it, and she does a great job, but it takes more than the performance to create a character; it takes a concept. In my opinion, the cinematic representation of Kathryn Bolkovac is one of the best attempts at depicting a truly feminist heroine.

Here are some things I liked about her:

1. She doesn’t go to Bosnia because she is naive or thinks it is a great career move; she goes there for her family. Yet, at the same time, she doesn’t always prioritize her family but remains loyal to what she is passionate about.

2. Early on in the film she starts a casual affair with a man she meets at a bar – not your typical morally flawless Hollywood heroine. She has that in common with Erin Brockovich, and I have to say, I prefer a woman with desires to the picture-perfect super wife or Jodie Foster’s weird asexuality in most of her roles.

3. Most importantly: she is emotional. It’s just so much easier to depict a kick-ass heroine the same way as one would depict a kick-ass hero: cool and detached, always having a witty response to every situation and solving problems with violence, if need be. Kathryn Bolkovac is not like that. She is often close to tears (understandably, considering what she is confronted with), she is aware that she’s just a small cog in the wheel, and while she keeps on fighting, she often is at a loss and doesn’t know what she’s doing. Thus, she makes many mistakes and has to face more than one ethical dilemma. Doesn’t sound so great, does it? But at least it sounds authentic. It makes her a real person, instead of just a flawless fantasy figure. And this is the kind of woman I want to see in a movie: a real person with everything that entails, with emotions, flaws, strengths and weaknesses.

Anita Sarkeesian has summed it up beautifully in one of her Feminist Frequency videos on the lead character of True Grit:

“The feminism I subscribe to and work for involves more than women and their fictional representations simply acting like men. Or unquestioningly replicating archetypal male values, such as being emotionally inexpressive, the need for domination and competition, and using violence as a form of conflict resolution. In my feminist vision, part of what makes a character feminist is watching her struggle with prioritizing values, such as cooperation, empathy, compassion, and non-violent conflict resolution in a world largely hostile to those values. […] I want characters who are subtle, who make mistakes, and who don’t always do everything right.” (Watch it here.)

And here is the trailer for The Whistleblower. As you can see, it doesn’t reveal anything about the main character’s vulnerability. I guess emotional heroines don’t make for good advertising:

Portrait: Niki de Saint Phalle (1930 – 2002)

I was first introduced to Niki de Saint Phalle through my art teacher back in high school, who was a big fan of those “voluptuous feminine qualities” of the artist’s well-known Nana figures. She showed us a documentary about Saint Phalle’s life which, I believe, everyone found rather boring, too esoteric perhaps, or too feminist. I, however, was fascinated, not so much by the brightly coloured, round sculptures my teacher loved so much, but by those wicked collages, the so-called “Shooting Paintings”. Tir à volonté, she called the series from 1960-1963, “Fire at will”.

Niki in action

These works consisted of assembled things, seemingly random artifacts, that hid pockets filled with different-color pigments. The artist then would position them, so that they could be shot at with a rifle. The bullet would explode the pockets, causing the paint to splatter and run all over the collage. Saint Phalle would later describe her motivation as follows:

“In 1961 I shot at daddy, all men, small men, large men, important men, fat men, men, my brother, society, the Church, the convent, the school, my family, my mother, all men, daddy, myself, men. I shot because it was fun and gave me a great feeling. I shot because I was fascinated to see the painting bleed and die. I shot for the sake of this magical moment. It was a moment of scorpion-like truth. White purity. Victim. Ready! Take aim! Fire! Red, yellow, blue, the painting weeps, the painting is dead. I have killed the painting. It has been reborn. War without victims.” (Kempel, Ulrich: The Political Universe in the Art of Niki de Saint Phalle)

Not only is this the statement of a visionary artist, it is also the testimony of a woman, a woman who had to deal with and overcome immense restrictions and suffering at the hands of the men in her life, as well as her health, her faith…

Nike de Saint Phalle was born in 1930 close to Paris and grew up in New York. She got married at the tender age of eighteen and had two children. The marriage was a happy one as long as it lasted, according to her former husband Harry Mathews, but recurring illnesses turned her into an invalid for long periods of time. She suffered a nervous breakdown and underwent electroshock therapy, and she was diagnosed with hyperthyroidism in the late 1950’s, all of which affected her marriage as well as her artistic development. She and Mathews separated in the early 1960’s, around the same time as she started firing at canvases.

Harry Mathews in an interview from 2008:

“During all that period of illness I had to take over everything. I thus developed a habit of trying to run her life for her – something that, when she was healthy again, she didn’t need or like. The subsequent hostility towards men, and me, began expressing itself at this point, and it manifested itself in her work […].”

While Mathews can tell only his side of the story, I see a certain truth at the core of his statement: the artist’s frustration about her lack of agency, which was certainly heightened by her state of illness. At the same time, however, one needs to take into account the constraints placed on her by the society of the 1950s, her conservative family and her catholic upbringing and education, followed by the difficulties of being a female artist at a time that was not at all welcoming towards women’s endeavors outside the home, artistic or otherwise. Later in her life, Saint Phalle also came out about the sexual abuse she was subjected to by her own father.

Niki as an icon of female empowerment

In order to attain her empowerment, she seized a powerful tool: a weapon with the ability to kill all of what was holding her down. However, she did not resort to brute violence, appropriating “the militaristic tools of the patriarchy”; instead she “shot” a painting which only came alive after being shot. The aim of the shootings thus became not only a symbol of her oppression, but also a stand-in for the artist herself who, in the liberating act of shooting, killed herself only to be revived in the process: the (re-)birth of an artist. Her majestic, larger-than-life Nanas can be seen as the result of a successful healing process, generated by the power of creation and destruction, the assertive act of reclaiming agency.