i'm in revisions...
for hire. will tend to feminist issues, academic careers, social justice, children, and IKEA storage units.
-
Leading Men Age, Leading Women Don’t | Vulture
There are more charts if you click through.
I’m so glad this...
-
“Male privilege is “I have a boyfriend” being the only thing that can actually stop someone from hitting on you because they respect another...”
-
Daisy on rap. (x)
-
-
(I feel like I’m stepping into a fire every time I comment anything like this, but here goes)
The original post bugs me in a great number of ways. How the OP seems to believe that rape, sexual assault, and sexual entitlement is exclusive to men or are even committed by an overwhelming majority of men. The implication that “masculinity = rapist” doesn’t sit too well with me, either.
Not to place blame on the OP: The abysmal legal definition of rape and the metric fuckton of false statistics/myths making their way around are no doubt the leading cause of all these misconceptions (although looking into things a little further wouldn’t hurt).
How about we condemn all rapists instead of just the ones with penises? Can that be a thing?
Reblogging again for added commentary, because it isn’t wrong. However, the project itself aims to be inclusive of everyone who has experienced sexual assault — not those who were assaulted by males.
I am the original poster, and I just completed 4 years of study in the realm of sexual violence prevention, with an emphasis on masculinities studies, feminist social movements, and dominant media discourses about gender and violence. I say this not to shut down conversation or “pull rank”, but to simply indicate that I’ve read a wide body of literature on this in different fields (stats, psychology, feminist law, cultural studies, public health), focused on Canada and USA, and a two year stint in South Africa. That said, this is my personal blog and I didn’t put hours into crafting that particular post, so there’s no doubt I could have worded it differently or cited things more vigorously. My point wasn’t to cite the literature though (that’s what I had to do in my MA thesis), but rather to just speak freely (while nonetheless drawing implicitly from years of study) about a survivor project that I wholeheartedly support and want others to know about. I had no idea it would reach so many people. Consider that my belated disclaimer as the OP. (And a thank you for signal-boosting Project Unbreakable).
Some clarity. I purposely referred to sexual domination, aggression, traditional masculinity, and the “boys will be boys” mentality together because years and years of research show that sexual violence is rooted in cultural norms that celebrate violent masculinity and men’s sexual prowess, while taking for granted women’s victimhood as natural and inevitable. In short: the patriarchy. The problem isn’t that sexist oppression and sexual violence is this freak thing that happens because of a few deluded psychopaths (though they do exist) - it’s altogether normalized!
Moreover, we can’t ignore the statistical evidence, which shows time and again that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators (like 95%) of sexual assault, and women are overwhelmingly the victims of such crimes. For example (from my thesis)…:
One of the fundamental feminist contentions about rape is that it is a violent act of power and control that occurs along gendered lines. A wide array of statistical evidence about perpetration, victimization, police reporting, and conviction rates demonstrates this gendered pattern. For instance, the most recent report from Statistics Canada shows that between 2004 and 2007, reported sexual assaults were overwhelmingly perpetrated by men towards women, the attacker was known to the victim in over half of the cases, and the attack was most likely to take place in a private residence. Fewer than one in ten victims of sexual assault reported to police, compared to close to half for robberies and 40% for physical assault. Police were less likely to lay charges for sexual offences, which in turn were less likely to lead to a conviction when compared to other violent crimes (Statistics Canada, 2007).
So to answer your request, we can definitely condemn all rapists (thought that’s what I did in my post), but we mustn’t ignore the fact that the majority of them have penises and male privilege. That is not the same as saying that all men are rapists and all women are victims. My approach is based, in simple terms, on social constructionism, which refutes notion that any given behaviour or attitude inherent or reducible to biological causes. So gender norms are highly contingent on social and historical processes. The other longstanding statistical trend in violence? When we examine patterns of all forms of violence (physical, wars, sexual etc), then it’s still men who are overwhelmingly the perpetrators, but they’re also the majority victims. My point being… the goal is not to paint men as bad people but to examine the social-cultural-political-economic factors that reproduce (and profit off of) violence as inevitable part of manhood.
So… having said all that, I could have changed my wording to allow for the fact that women participate in patriarchal violence as perpetrators themselves (against men, women, and children*), just as they also experience internalized sexism and participate in slut-shaming. Even when taking into account this small percentage of female perpetrators… the fact remains that the wider cultural system at play is patriarchy. The biggest change in favour of ending sexual violence will come with the transformation of masculine gender norms (such that many diverse types of masculinity would be accepted and valued in wider society).
We can zoom out even further and think about how, in the Western world, we value domination as a way of ordering society. It goes from colonization of Indigenous peoples to factory-labourer relations to the master-slave relations of pet owners and pets. Consequently, many feminist anti-racist scholar-activists (I’m thinking Andrea Smith, bell hooks, off the top of my head) advocate for approaches to ending sexist oppression and sexual violence that are part of a wider effort of ending all violence. That is… we won’t end sexual violence until we dismantle any and all interrelated systems of domination that involve one group or person profiting (socially, economically) by dominating another group or person.
Okay, it’s approaching 2a. I must cut this short for now. I will keep my eye on the dashboard for a response, should you have any comments or questions or concerns…
In solidarity,
Lauren
*It’s worth me saying that my area of expertise is not in child abuse advocacy and prevention, though I’ve read some of that literature too.
“And if I have to listen to one more grey-faced man with a $2 haircut explain to me what rape is, I’m going to lose my mind.” — Tina Fey speaking at the Center for Reproductive Rights Inaugural Gala.
(via mattwilstein)
I really really dislike discussions where my having two degrees in a field gives me little sway in a conversation about a topic in that field. Yes, there are problems with academic elitism and expertise. Yes, we should think critically and expand our minds beyond our immediate area of interest and employment. and for sure we should not overstate the authority of university/research centers as hubs knowledge production.
It’s just… at what point in time will it matter that I did like 4-8 years of coursework and projects and research trying to understand something better that another person just read a few op-eds about? And full disclosure, I’m sure I’m guilty of overstating my knowledge of different topics outside my range. I know this issues stems partly from how I approach such interactions. It’s partly my problem.
Still, what the hell is wrong with some people (and by some people, I especially mean university students on facebook)? If someone steps up, in a non-condescending way, and says “hey peeps, I studied topic xyz for several years / it’s my thesis topic / my close colleagues study this… here’s how I make sense of it.” and then everyone else carries on with zero regard for that contribution, an carries on offering their opinions (note: not arguments)… where’s the respect? the curiosity for new perspectives? taking advantage of knowledgeable people by asking challenging questions of them?
I feel freaking invisible and dejected, like I’m never gonna get respect. Why did I study it?
This is largely a problem I’ve experience as someone from more of a humanities and social sciences background. I feel like “scientists” don’t get this rude dismissal as often. Like, if I was talking about blackholes or space ships or something, and someone in my network with a physics degree or an internship at NASA offered some info, I’d shut up and listen. I’d switch to a question-asking mode. I’d probably do some research and challenge them… but I’d keep in the back of my head that this person spent several years thinking about this shit.
ALL NDNS EVERYWHERE KNOW THIS TO BE A FACTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ugh. there have been at least two domestic violence calls on my block (/my brother’s block) in the last 6 months. three police cruisers visited down the street house last weekend. i thought maybe it was a drug bust. my sister-in-law walked the dog this morning, and was joined by the neighbour who lives at the end of the row houses. He had a scratched face and bruised fist. he said his wife is “away for a while”. I know that we live in a rape culture, I know domestic violence and all forms of sexual harassment are more intrinsic to heterosexual relations than we like to admit. I know it happens too often in too many households (obviously, as a GBV-prevention researcher). Just… something about the proximity of such an incident makes me feel helpless to stop it. I’m barely acquainted with the neighbours on the immediate left and right, let alone the street. advice?
rljd:
Adam: Can you imagine how unproductive/combative discussions will be in a mandatory women’s studies class?
Me: This is a really weird idea! I am pretty sure that rapists aren’t spreading sexual violence because, like, they lack a solid…
I wanted my first-year film students to understand what happens to a story when actual human beings inhabit your characters, and the way they can inspire storytelling. And I wanted to teach them how to look at headshots and what you might be able to tell from a headshot. So for the past few years I’ve done a small experiment with them.
Some troubling shit always occurs.It works like this: I bring in my giant file of head shots, which include actors of all races, sizes, shapes, ages, and experience levels. Each student picks a head shot from the stack and gets a few minutes to sit with the person’s face and then make up a little story about them.
Namely, for white men, they have no trouble coming up with an entire history, job, role, genre, time, place, and costume. They will often identify him without prompting as “the main character.” The only exception? “He would play the gay guy.” For white women, they mostly do not come up with a job (even though it was specifically asked for), and they will identify her by her relationships. “She would play the mom/wife/love interest/best friend.” I’ve heard “She would play the slut” or “She would play the hot girl.” A lot more than once.
For nonwhite men, it can be equally depressing. “He’s in a buddy cop movie, but he’s not the main guy, he’s the partner.” “He’d play a terrorist.” “He’d play a drug dealer.” “A thug.” “A hustler.” “Homeless guy.” One Asian actor was promoted to “villain.”
For nonwhite women (grab onto something sturdy, like a big glass of strong liquor), sometimes they are “lucky” enough to be classified as the girlfriend/love interest/mom, but I have also heard things like “Well, she’d be in a romantic comedy, but as the friend, you know?” “Maid.” “Prostitute.” “Drug addict.”
I should point out that the responses are similar whether the group is all or mostly-white or extremely racially mixed, and all the groups I’ve tried this with have been about equally balanced between men and women, though individual responses vary. Women do a little better with women, and people of color do a little better with people of color, but female students sometimes forget to come up with a job for female actors and black male students sometimes tell the class that their black male actor wouldn’t be the main guy.
Once the students have made their pitches, we interrogate their opinions. “You seem really sure that he’s not the main character – why? What made you automatically say that?” “You said she was a mom. Was she born a mom, or did she maybe do something else with her life before her magic womb opened up and gave her an identity? Who is she as a person?” In the case of the “thug“, it turns out that the student was just reading off his film resume. This brilliant African American actor who regularly brings houses down doing Shakespeare on the stage and more than once made me weep at the beauty and subtlety of his performances, had a list of film credits that just said “Thug #4.” “Gang member.” “Muscle.” Because that’s the film work he can get. Because it puts food on his table.
So, the first time I did this exercise, I didn’t know that it would turn into a lesson on racism, sexism, and every other kind of -ism. I thought it was just about casting. But now I know that casting is never just about casting, and this day is a real teachable opportunity. Because if we do this right, we get to the really awkward silence, where the (now mortified) students try to sink into their chairs. Because, hey, most of them are proud Obama voters! They have been raised by feminist moms! They don’t want to be or see themselves as being racist or sexist. But their own racism and sexism is running amok in the room, and it’s awkward.
This for every time someone criticizes how characters of color and female characters of color especially are treated in text and by subsequent fandoms. It’s never “just a television/movie/book”. It’s never been ”just”.
(via digitaldesperados)
I loved Topanga then. Didn’t “know” about feminism in an explicit sense as a kid… It all makes sense now.
(via vladislava)
Daily Grace teaches you some ideas for last-minute Halloween costumes on Thursday’s vlog.
love.
(via gracehelbig)
Over at Badass Digest there’s a great discussion going on about the odd kink that accessibility via social media has brought to the author/viewer relationship. I’ve been pretty open on twitter to discussing my intent with various aspects of Looper, from plot details to bigger themes. Is that a good thing? Frankly I don’t know, I’m figuring this out as I go along. I’d love to hear what you think.
I am an avid listener of filmspotting and a burgeoning cinephile. I always want to know more about the film-making process, actors’ preparation, production notes, writer-director’s visions, marketing tactics. I love learning how things work. Some people don’t get it, preferring to sit back and enjoy the movie sort of mindlessly. For me, the dissection of the film is part of the enjoyment. Even if it’s a bad blockbuster, I want to learn about everyone and everything involved in its making. I am fascinated by the filmmaking craft and the movie industry. The more I learn, the more I keep watching. For me, having the filmmakers’ insights just makes me want to watch the film again and pay attention to different elements. I spend hours reading IMDB pages and review blogs, and listening to filmspotting.
On the other hand, I’m a sociocultural critic and scholar. I consume media and pop culture critically, with an eye to its impact in our cultural and political landscape. In that sense, I don’t care so much about authorial intent or the “truth” and conclusive “facts” about the story, but rather I care about the cultural influence of the text regardless of its intended purpose. I want to know what cultural work the film accomplishes - does it offer new narratives about the parent-child relationship? Does it subvert or challenge our understandings of violence? Does it encourage a new way of thinking about certain scenarios and people? Is the casting reflective of diverse peoples, or is it white-washed? Etc. etc. From this perspective, I am actively moving past the notion of “truth” and paying closer attention to the context in which truth is produced.
So… I’m both a cinephile who wants to know more, who appreciates every interview and blog you do, and I’m a cultural critic who wants to put aside your vision and talk about the cultural meaning of the film. I want it both ways!
I say… use your judgement. I totally get that each film is a labour of love, and you’d want to defend it to the umpteenth degree. You will get questions for which you can easily provide straightforward answers. That is going to satisfy some. But you’ll never satisfy everyone, even if you answer truthfully and in great detail. Another way to think of it is to consider that your satisfaction as a filmmaker might not derive from the telling of truths about your process and vision, but in knowing that your work has encouraged dialogues and debates about the truths of the film. I totally think you should participate in those dialogues, but not solely by telling us what we “need to know.” Just… you know, talk about it and work through ideas with the consumers and critics of your films. So far, I think you’re doing all of the above, and you should keep it up!
In turn, I will use my judgement. If there elements of a film that I’d rather analyze on my own, I’ll do so and choose to ignore interviews that offer filmmaker insights.
