anythings.org

I read this on DollyMix last week, and I thought I posted it already, but apparently not. The incident which state-side feminist blogs have only now just gotten wind of actually occurred early last week, but we’ll let them pretend they were the first to blog it even though they’re presenting the facts inaccurately.

As I’m sure many of you have already heard, a London mayoral candidate, Richard Barnbrook (via mouthpiece Nick Eriksen), likened the idea of a woman being raped to a woman being force-fed chocolate cake. While I’m not surprised this quote came from the same man that described career women as “unnatural and vile”, I’m sincerely shocked he actually thought putting it into bring on his blog would be a good idea. A direct quote from his blog said:

“I’ve never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime… Rape is simply sex (I am talking about ‘husband-rape’ here)… Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal…To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.

The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors.”

Now, while he was talking about spousal rape, he is still completely off his rocker. So, following his logic: if men enjoy sex, and they are raped (anally, by another man) it can’t possibly be that traumatizing or that terrible of a crime, now can it? You can’t use the excuse that it’s a different type of sexual act: sex is sex, rape is rape, regardless of where you happened to be penetrated and what with.

I thought misogyny of this obscenely blatant nature by politicians was going out of style? Apparently, I was wrong.

Not only is today Leap Year (and another lame excuse for things to be one sale in stores), but today is also Sadie Hawkins Day. Which means, for you ladies who are so inclined, today is the one day every four years where a woman can propose to a man and get away with it.

Now I was under the impression that we were living in the 2000s, but I’ll go with it. I remember when I was reading the Sweet Valley High books (back when I was like, 10) and one of the twins was in a wedding where the woman proposed and it was so obvious that he didn’t want to marry her, he was just doing it because he didn’t want to say no.

I know it’s kind of a big deal for women to propose to men, but I think it’s just as big of a deal for a man to propose. However, I believe that you shouldn’t ask someone to marry you unless you are 100% sure they will say yes. And if you say no, you don’t have the right to get mad at them.

Wikipedia and Cate say this completely chauvinistic point of view dates back to 1288:

In 1288 the Scottish parliament under Queen Margaret legislated that any woman could propose in Leap Year; few parliament records of that time exist, and none concern February 29.[1] Another component of this tradition was that if the man rejects the proposal, he should soften the blow by providing a kiss, one pound currency, and a pair of gloves.

And yet, when women turn men down, they don’t have to “soften the blow” with a kiss, gloves, or money. They just get to say no and continue with their spinster-y ways, forever having to live with the fact that they let down women everywhere by saying no to someone who wanted to marry them.

[Image]

Sexism in media is kind of a big topic. A lot of people research it for a living, and quite a few people have gone to painstaking efforts to observe the sexism that is occurring in the Democratic presidential election and all the publicity that surrounds it. Feministing even has an entire section devoted to Hillary Sexism Watch. I really don’t think there is anything wrong with this, it’s quite nice to have the media’s blatant sexism blasted into the average Joe’s face. The problem is when mainstream media asks the “is the media treating Hillary Clinton different because of her sex” question, they never seem to do it without sexism.

When John Cafferty asked that question, he said Clinton “whined” at the debate. I don’t think he needed to ask that question - he answered it himself. Whined? Seriously? Has that ever been applied to a presidential candidate prior to Clinton? I’m doubtful, and if it is has been, I will eat my words. Cafferty isn’t the only one who has done this, many other media outlets have described Clinton as snide or whiny when trying to determine if the media treats her unfairly.

The problem, of course, isn’t just the media. That’s too simple. It’s a classic battle of societal expectations for women being played out in the media. Society stereotypes women as emotional whiners who cry at the drop of a hat and can’t be relied upon to make decisions in times of stress, we all know this. When Clinton got emotional on the campaign trail, every single media outlet latched onto the story and said she cried. For those of us who watched the video clip, it was evident that she got choked up… but she didn’t cry. The difference between what is being reported and what really happened is sometimes this easy to distinguish, but most of the time it isn’t.

My local paper, the Sacramento Bee, had the Ohio debate on the front page of their paper. Each candidate had a picture of them speaking at the debate with a quote underneath it. The story was taken from the Boston Globe.

Obama, when asked if there was a question Clinton needed to answer about her worthiness to be president:

She would be worthy as a nominee. Now, I think I’d be better. That’s why I’m running.

Clinton, no explanation needed for those of you who watched the SNL clip:

Maybe we should ask Barack if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow.

How are those two quotes comparable? Why would you run them side by side on the front page of a newspaper? Are you telling me that in the entire debate that night, the only thing Clinton said that was worth reporting was a remark about the SNL clip? What about the snide remarks made by Obama? They were both particularly snippy in that debate, and yet, the Boston Globe only depicted Clinton’s snide remarks, while they showed Obama as responding to a legitimate debate question. They aren’t reporting news when they talk about Clinton, they are using quotes that reinforce their already negative opinions about her as a candidate, as a person, and as a woman. I call it bad reporting fueled by sexism.

I am sick and tired of people running around accusing the media of sexism in the presidential election, but I can’t help but get ridiculously pissed off when I see things like this. Yes, the sexism is there. And yes, people are more than happy to point it out every single time it happens. So yes, I am sick and tired of people talking about this - we’re beating a dead horse into glue at this point. However, if we’re talking about it this much and it’s still happening, we need to keep talking about it. More importantly, we need to start writing articles that aren’t sexist.

[Image]

The Feminist Wetlbanket is a weekly column where Liz looks at popular culture from a feminist point of view… and then beats it down with her sharp words. This week, she gives you a closer look inside something near and dear to her: Harry Potter.

I should probably preface this by explaining the background of this project. When I was a Women’s Studies student, I wrote a topic for an advanced upper division core course doing a feminist analysis of Harry Potter. While only 6 books were out at the time (and I only had a quarter - 10 weeks - to work on the project), I pursued it with full force. I’m actually in the process of applying to graduate school in the hopes of turning this small (it was 25 pages, so not that small) paper into a thesis or dissertation. With that said, please know that this project involved mass amounts of research and is still an unfinished work.
When I began this investigation/obsession, the last things I thought I would find were rape and gay bashing (among others) … but I did. Because this project was (is!) so intense, I have broken this up into several articles. This week? The rape of Dolores Umbridge.

It has been fairly well document in various interviews that J.K. Rowling heavily researches almost everything - from names to creatures - that go into the series. Nicolas Flamel, from Sorcerer’s Stone, is a real person and the story she used draws greatly from his legend. Many of Rowling’s mythical creatures, names, and spells have a root in some legend, fairy tale, or story that she has borrowed from (something her critics are quick to point out). Knowing this about Rowling, the way she utilized the mythical half-man half-horse centaurs in Order of the Phoenix came as quite a shock.

According to centaur legend, they are not the docile, kind, and all-knowing creatures that Rowling chose to portray them as. The first centaur was a production of rape, and this beginning defines the remainder of centaur legend (1, p59). When invited to a wedding, the centaurs “attempted to rape and abduct the bride and other women” (1, p63). Centaurs were considered dangerous because they had “exaggerated masculinity” due to their “human male element being combined with the sexual potency of stallions, and thus they were characterized by violent lust” (1, p63). There were very few female/women centaurs to use as companions, and this was also blamed for their voracious sexual appetite.

In Order of the Phoenix, Rowling creates Dolores Umbridge: the amazingly unlikable Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher who works for the Minister of Magic. Umbridge searches unwaveringly for ways to discredit Dumbledore and expel Harry. When she threatens to perform an illegal curse on one of Harry’s friends in order to get information about Dumbledore’s whereabouts, Hermione comes up with a plan to save them all: she’ll lead Umbridge into the forest and let the centaurs take care of her. It is worth noting that Hermione, a female character who is extremely intelligent and known for her book-ish tendencies, is most likely sending Umbridge to this punishment knowingly. Rowling has made a point of using Hermione to provide the readers with information because she is considered to be very knowledgeable. It is worth arguing, then, that Hermione would know the violent history of centaurs and took Umbrdige into the forest knowing that she would suffer rape at the hands of a very violent group of half-men half-horses.

It is surprising that Rowling, known for the intense research of things she puts into her books, would use centaurs to “punish” Umbridge. Some evidence provided by Rowling helps to point us in the direction of discovering Umbridge’s true punishment. Umbridge’s usually neat appearance is changed in her hospital bed: her “mousy hair was very untidy and there were bits of twig and leaf in it, but otherwise she seemed to be quite unscathed” (2, p849). Despite lack of physical evidence, the students know something terrible has happened to her because of her physical and apparent mental states. When Ron jokingly makes the sound of hoof beats, Umbridge frantically sits up in her bed and looks for the source of the noise. Her reaction to this sound and her shock like state are symptoms commonly experienced by rape victims (RAINN). Why Rowling chose to punish Umbridge this way when she could have used many other means is unknown. The rape of Professor Umbridge is perhaps one of the most horrifying instances of violence against women in the entire series.

Please note that this is a feminist reading of a text. It does not mean that I believe Rowling intended for these things to happen. When a work is published, it becomes something that is up for interpretation by many different disciplines. A feminist reading of a text finds hidden meanings and reads against the grain - it does not say anything about the author’s intentions.

EDIT: 10/21/2007
I feel that a clarification about this article needs to be made. My article was not in any way claiming to be about - or even know - Rowling’s intentions as the author of the series. Let me say it again: I am not writing a piece about what J.K. Rowling “did” to Umbridge, nor am I writing one about what she meant to do. I am writing a feminist analysis of the series from my feminist perspective (which probably differs from yours). For me, this means I am reading the book against the grain (not how it was meant to be by the traditional reader) regardless of what the author’s original intentions were. I am also uncovering hidden meanings and symbolism. When a book is published, or a any other work is created, that work becomes something separate from the creator’s intentions that is up for interpretation. When you do close readings or try to uncover hidden meanings, you are not claiming to know what the author meant to write, say, or do. This type of analysis has been applied to some of the greatest works of fiction, such as Dracula, and other less prominent, but equally as important books and movies (such as The Baby Sitter’s Club and Pokemon).

If you do not understand my intentions in this piece, I encourage you to not read it. You will only be angered or confused about what I have written, and you will try to argue against it based on the things Rowling herself has written or said. This is not about J.K. Rowling. This is about Harry Potter, which is a separate entity from her altogether. To prevent the idiotic responses than ran rampant before I closed the comments, you must register with a valid email address to comment. To clarify, one final time, this is not about Rowling’s intentions. This is about uncovering hidden meanings and analyzing them from a feminist perspective.

References:
(1) Lawrence, Elizabeth A. “The Centaur: Its History and Meaning in Human Culture.” Journal of Popular Culture 27.4 (1994): 57-68.
(2) Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2003.

[images from getty]

The Feminist Wetblanket is back (a day late and a dollar short - what does that mean, anyways?) with an article on plastic surgery and what exactly we’re losing when we go under the knife.

Beauty and youth are perhaps the two most valued attributes in US society. While one could argue that money, fame, power, kindness, etc, are more valued that beauty or youth, it is difficult to argue against the facts and figures. The cosmetics industry alone spends about $18 billion a year in the United States alone marketing and creating products. Compare this with the statistic from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons: in 2006, almost 11 million cosmetic plastic surgeries were performed in the United States.

Whether it be a fear of growing old, losing a significant other, or not being valued anymore, tons of Americans are lining up outside of Dr. 90210’s office to get their labia reduced, breasts and butts augmented, and noses chipped away. It may not even be fear, it may simply be the desire to be “beautiful”. But with all this plastic surgery, what are we losing?

Of course, in Hollywood, cosmetic procedures are “necessary” to maintain that young and “fresh” look. But even with all of these procedures, older actresses are not getting main movie roles. Save few exceptions in Helen Mirren and others, there are almost no “older” (read: 40-something) women in Hollywood gaining lead movie roles. So really… the plastic surgery isn’t saving their careers as much as it’s proving just how undesirable women like Demi Moore would later feel when they suddenly found themselves out of work. While Hollywood may not be the best play to draw inferences from, it is important to ask how does this influence those living outside of Tinsel Town?

Models, actresses, singers, and other entertainers are looked to as trend setters for what’s hot and what’s not. The ongoing debate over who brought leggings back - was it the Olsen twins or Lindsay Lohan? - is just one example of how something so frivolous as legwear can cause the fashion community to ignite. But what about when it comes to more important - and potentially dangerous - trends like botox, breast augmentations, tummy tucks, and face lifts? What message are these trend setters sending?

It’s highly unlikely that any person attempting to peruse the magazine section of their local bookstore can find a glossy without a section devoted to plastic surgery. Whether it be a “then and now” comparison of celebrities and their plastic surgery denials or an article weighing the benefits and consequences of the latest liposuction technique, it’s guaranteed to be there. It’s in our faces and we can’t hide from it.

Now don’t get me wrong, plastic surgery can have its benefits - it can save burn victims or be used to remove big scary scars. But when plastic surgery is used to remove that extra bit of fat from your ass and implant it into your cheeks or lips I’m pretty sure the only justifiable reason for that is vanity. You’re doing more than just distributing fat when you’re under that knife: you’re telling yourself just how much you dislike your physical appearance. Who can blame you, of course, with all the pressure from advertisements and the media pushing slim bodies and large breasts onto you from an early age?

I’m not a fan of plastic surgery and would never dream of getting a procedure done because I’m grateful for the body I have and I love all the woobly bits and its squishy-ness. I can understand the desire to remove scars or a birth defect (which some may consider unsightly, while others consider it a part of themselves) or even undergo a breast reduction for health reasons, but I can’t understand going from a B cup to a D cup, or getting a new nose. But for the women who go in to have their noses reshaped or their chins adjusted, can they really say they love their body? There’s a huge difference between being concerned about your appearance and getting the occasional fake tan or working out and making an appointment to have your breasts redone or your tummy tucked in.

As a feminist, I can accept that there are different kinds of beauty of there and not all of them may be culturally acceptable. While there may be some feminists going under the knife to get a bigger x or a smaller y, they probably have a different prespective on things than I do. In reality, this is all about perspective: whether or not you truly love your body and yourself or whether or not you can withstand the pressure of the full-frontal assault of the media and entertainment industries. When we go under the knife, we’re not just solving those little physical imperfections, we’re losing self respect.

[image from getty]

Liz is back from a short hiatus with The Feminist Wetblanket: a weekly column that combines feminism and two of her favorite things to poke fun at: media and popular culture.

I think it is very necessary to begin this week’s column by pointing out that I love Ugly Betty. The witticisms are amazing, and it is just so deliciously evil at times that I want to explode with joy that someone finally managed to get good programming on television. But after I explode with euphoria, I realize that no matter how much I love the show (and America Ferrera), I can’t get past the fact that it perpetuates terrible stereotypes of both men and women in pretty much every episode.

Now, part of the problem with Ugly Betty is that Selma Hayek borrowed (ok, took) the show’s premise, characters, etc, from a Brazilian* telenovela. So part of the blame for the stereotypes portrayed in the series rests with its original creators. Since I live in the United States and don’t speak a language other than English, I’ve never watched the original Ugly Betty. I apologize for my ignorance.

The basic idea behind Ugly Betty is that Betty is a fish out of water at Mode magazine, where she is the Executive Assistant to the Editor in Chief. Betty isn’t Ugly, she’s just not Mode material. The good news is that - most of the time - Betty is happy being a fish out of water at Mode, she doesn’t want to fit in with people she views as deceitful and vapid. She loves her odd clothes, braces, weight, and ethnicity. But what we, as viewers, love the most about Betty is her heart of gold. But what I hate the most about Betty and her Mode cohorts is that they uphold stereotypes that can be extremely damaging.

First off, we have Betty. She’s surrounded by gorgeous men and women basically everyday of her working life. What do we learn from these vapid, cruel, and fashion-obsessed lot? That pretty girls (and boys) can’t be smart. You have to be ugly, like Betty, to be kind and intelligent. While Betty can be slow to pick up on insults from her co-workers, we don’t see this as a flaw in her: we see Betty as innocent and full of kindness.

We see the exact opposite in Amanda, Mode’s receptionist. Amanda is beautiful, but let’s face it, she’s a shallow bitch. Only concerned with fashion, her weight (which she should be, since she binge eats), attracting the right men, and succeeding at Mode, Amanda is exactly the type of person Mode caters to. She’s cruel, heartless (most of the time), and obsessed with getting things her way. She’s just dumb enough to buy into anything anyone tells her is fashionable (even if it is essentially a body condom), and she has surprisingly little ability to think for herself when it comes to fashion and pretty much anything else in her life. She’s the classic “pretty, but stupid” girl we all sat next to in high school. She’s pretty ugly.

And the gays (whom I love dearly) on Ugly Betty are only men, and they’re only flamboyant. While I get that the show is about fashion and a certain type of gay man is attracted to the industry, it isn’t helping the stereotype of the flamboyant gay when Willie tells Mark that something he did was “too gay”. I wasn’t aware that you could be “too gay”. Can you be “too straight”?

The only gorgeous and smart women on the show are Alexis and Willie - both of which have terrible flaws in them. Alexis, well, her intelligence can be attributed to the fact that she used to be a man and she’s just carrying that over from a previous life. Regardless of her intelligence, Alexis is hellbent on punishing her brother and father for their rejection of her. Which is interesting because he brother didn’t have an opportunity to reject her: she rejected him because he was too much like their father. Willie is just as hellbent on getting things her way. She even goes as far to have an affair with Bradford Mead, trick him into divorcing his wife, and again trick him into marrying her. Willie is so busy sleeping her way to the top that we forget she’s extremely talented. Alexis and Willie, while intelligent and beautiful women, are downright evil. The phrase “the devil wears Prada” takes on new meaning with these two women: they further prove that when women are extremely beautiful and intelligent, they can only be evil.

So whether it comes to the ugly girl with a heart of gold, the pretty ugly girl, the “too gay” gay, or the devil in a woman’s clothing, Ugly Betty consistently lets us down with their portrayals of men and women. Even Selma Hayek’s guest spot portrayed women negatively: she lead Daniel on and broke his heart, all for a magazine cover that would ensure her success. I don’t know about you, but that was the worst way I could think of them to portray a feminist in the series. It makes my tiny feminist heart break that Selma Hayek couldn’t managed to put together a show with women who are beautiful, talented, intelligent, and nice with normal flaws. Hey, maybe we could get a lesbian in there? Real women, like us at dollymix (k I realize that was corny, but it’s true!).

The author would like to extend her heartfelt congratulations to Ms. Ferrera for being the first Latina woman to be nominated for - and win - an Emmy for Best Actress in a Comedy. Liz has loved Ms. Ferrera since she first saw her in Real Women Have Curves, and she’s glad to see she’s still rocking the same gorgeous normal body with confidence in a town that values Nicole Richie and Angelina Jolie sized women.

* this is incorrect. The series was adapted from a Colombian telenovela.

[image from getty]

I was not planning on posting anything while Cate is away on vacation, but recent events have motivated me to write an article about the Jena 6. If you have not heard of this case, I recommend you read some of the articles I’ve listed at the bottom of this post to familiarize yourself with the events. Because you often can’t separate racism from sexism, it’s important to increase awareness of them to feminists around the globe. The Feminist Wetblanket will return shortly.

If you haven’t heard about the Jena 6 by now, it’s probably because major media networks haven’t been willing to touch it until recently. I’m of the opinion that the story so classically represents how racism is still alive and well in the United States and, that because of this, networks like CNN, ABC, and especially FOX, weren’t sure how to approach the issue when it was so obvious. I’ve seen dozens of stories that hinted at a racial bias that have been aired on major media networks, but I’ve haven’t seen anything akin to the Jena 6 story in quite awhile.

To the viewer, the attempted murder charges of the 6 black students are obviously racist. While those boys do deserve some punishment for their actions, so do the white boys who hung the nooses. It’s my understanding that expulsion was the intended punishment, but was later changed to a 3 day suspension. A 3 day suspension does not teach a teenager what they’ve done wrong. It gives them time to hang out with their friends and relax. And if there is even a hint of social learning here, I doubt their parents cared enough to punish their children. I could be wrong - their parents could be a paragon of democracy who punished their sons as gravely as they deserved to be. Even if it was a prank, the children should be punished severely enough to make it clear that pranks of this magnitude should not be allowed. These boys are still children: only a child would be stupid enough to do something so hateful and either not realize the ramifications or believe that they could get away with it, either because they knew others felt the same way or because they were cocky.

Everything in the coverage of this is implied. We’re supposed to just know that the nooses were meant to tell the black boys they didn’t belong at this tree. Anyone who isn’t familiar with the KKK and their lovely tactics or the history of tension between blacks and whites in the south wouldn’t know this was the message. Sure, they would understand the threat, but they wouldn’t understand the background and why this is such a shocking incident. They wouldn’t understand just why it is that the nooses were so terrible to invoke 6 boys to beat up a fellow classmate. And anyone not reading between the lines wouldn’t pick up that the charges are biased because they are based on more than just the fact that 6 black boys beat up 1 white boy. They’re based on a traditional view that blacks “can’t do that” to whites because they’re inferior. Not understanding the history of the south and the racial tension that still exists there makes this case feel like it was all a simple misunderstanding. But it’s not just a simple misunderstanding: it’s a frighteningly real chain of events set into motion based on antiquated views of race that relied on violence to send messages of who is allowed access to what and who can and can’t do certain things. Myth of the black rapist, anyone? I’m sure poor Angela Davis is not very happy with the current state of events.

I’m of the opinion that the Jena 6 should receive the same punishment as their antagonizers: a 3 day suspension. Essentially, a slap on the wrist. To not correctly punish an act that sends a message of hatred as strong as the nooses did to the black students also sends the message that these acts of hatred will go unpunished. The fact of the matter is, the white students “hinted” (I would go as far as saying they actually threatened) that they were going to commit a hate crime if the black students sat under the tree again.

But there is a root to this story that I don’t think any of the reporting networks have yet addressed: why did the black students feel they had to ask if it was ok for them to sit under the tree? When you look at the case from this point of view, it shouldn’t come ask a shock that the black students are being tried for attempted murder while the white students faced literally no criminal charges. Louisiana may not be the most liberal of states, but they do have a court system that will hopefully recognize this case as a prime example of racism. The sad thing is, it shouldn’t even have to come to that: the boys should have never been charged in the first place. How often to 6 white boys get charged with attempted murder after beating up another kid at school? I guarantee you the same thing happens with gangs in southern California and they aren’t getting brought up on attempted murder charges.

In the case of black and white, it seems little has changed since 1865. What actually scares me the most about this case is the media coverage. I have yet to hear the word “racist” uttered by any reporter or journalist. It seems as the though the media, in an attempt to remain neutral (as if they ever are), refuses to even say “racist” in their news reports. But by ignoring this message of hate based in racism, are they conveying a message of ignorance and racism themselves?

Since I’ve written this article early this morning, the charges for two of the boys have been reduced.

News coverage:
CNN | Residents: Nooses spark school violence, divide town
Truth Out | Injustice in Jena as Nooses Hang From the “White Tree”
The Observer | Racism goes on trial again in America’s Deep South

[image taken from Google]

Hi I’m Liz, the crazy liberal feminist from California. I’m here today to bring you a new weekly feature here at DollyMix entitled The Feminist Wetblanket. I’m a huge fan of pop culture and the media, and since I spend so much time analyzing it in my head, Cate asked me to put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard) and jot these thoughts down in some sort of coherent manner. So here it is, your introduction to The Feminist Wetblanket and a little look into my brain and what it’s like to analyze pop culture from a feminist point of view (like you don’t do that already!).

Now that I’ve graduated from college and possess a BA in Women’s Studies and Psychology, I find it harder and harder to just sit back and passively enjoy mainstream entertainment. I analyze everything. I may not analyze it out loud or share my thoughts with others, but my brain is working overtime analyzing the gender roles and the ways race and class intersect and create discourses that shape the minds of young audiences.

See what I mean? …

I’ve often been told by my friends that they’re thankful I haven’t turned into a feminist wetblanket: finding something wrong with everything and feeling the need to inform everyone I know about it. I understand that my opinions are fairly radical, so I keep the majority of them within my circle of like minded friends. There are some things, however, that are just so glaring - so jarring - that I can’t possibly keep them to myself. Snickers superbowl ad anyone? Transition from college to work only made my life easier: working for a feminist organization has given me the place to air my opinions that I used to have in my college classrooms.

In these environments, and even with my friends, I don’t feel like a feminist wetblanket by any means. I can enjoy mainstream entertainment, but I enjoy it with a grain of salt - which most people should. I think the most poignant example I have of this is when my boyfriend asked me what I thought about Casino Royale, the latest installment of the James Bond series. He asked me what I honestly thought about it, and it turned into an hour long discussion about the negative portrayals of women in the movie and how the series denies women any agency. I won’t go into the details of what was said here (because, hello, introduction), but I was kind of shocked when I realized how much I had really thought about the movie without even realizing it. It wasn’t even a conscious process for me, my mind just automatically goes to that analysis now. It makes me very giddy to know that my mind just automatically “thinks” feminist.

I am rather thrilled at this idea, mostly because it makes me feel like less of a passive viewer and more like an active analyst of the media presented to me. I am, however, secretly mourning the loss of my ability to just sit back, relax, and enjoy the latest episode of Grey’s Anatomy without going into race, gender, and sexuality stereotypes portrayed on the show. While I’d much rather have the ability to instantly analyze, I still feel I am justified in mourning my loss of naivete. However sad the loss, I am glad for it.

It’s not to say that I didn’t hold these same views before I was a Women’s Studies graduate, because I did. It’s more like my brain is now hard wired to think about the underlying messages of heteronormativity rather than just writing it off as another co-modification by Hollywood. I have to say, it is very interesting when your thoughts and views on the world become so pervasive and so obvious to you that they truly do impact your everyday life. While I’m sure the same can be said about racism, sexism, and homophobia, it’s nice to know that it can go both ways.

Liz Abinante is a recent graduate of University of California, Davis with a double Bachelor’s in Women’s Studies and Psychology. She’s a little baby (only 21) and has been proving that feminists can be in National sororities since 2005. She works in California for the state’s domestic violence coalition and she absolutely loves her job. She met Cate many moons ago (back before they had gray hair and 10 cats apiece) and wants her to return to this side of the pond. She’s currently in the process of writing a feminist analysis of Harry Potter and applying for her PhD in Women’s Studies. She likes to sleep, eat, and ride her scooter.