Why do some women and girls not like feminists?

This morning I was talking to my friend (who's female), and we had a little bit of an argument about feminism, in which she said that she doesn't really agree with it and finds feminists annoying. Why is it that some women and girls don't "like" the people campaigning for their equal treatment of society? Because they kind of know but ignore how patriarchy is objectifying them, because it makes your life a whole lot easier, but with the presence of feminists, they can't ignore it as well. Feminists disrupt the cycle of ignoring that so many women engage in.

People aren't going to like it when you tell them they've been brainwashed or are oppressed without their noticing. Inherently, I think humans all have too much of a narcissistic trend in order to just accept if someone tells them they wrong about something.  And we've been conditioning women and girls not to notice or really care about the fact that society treats them very differently to men and boys. Can you force it onto women and girls to realise how the patriarchy is effecting their lives negatively? If you try to convince someone that their opinions are wrong, they're most likely going to harden their views and be more opposed to changing their point of views.

"I mean boys will be boys, but when they really embrace the LAD Culture, that really annoys me" Does that mean she's beginning to realise, but it's only the very extreme of the spectrum of behaviour that she finds irritating? The reason that you only find lad-culture in boys is that it is based on sexual difference, and objectifying females. You don't find it in girls, because "objects" can't objectify.

Alsop, Fitzsimons and Lennon write in Theorizing Gender (2002): "Until we treat men and women the same socially then we have no way of telling what natural differences there may be between them." They found that the impact of cultural conditioning is so great that it can impacts our abilities. Following that, it seems obvious that if you tell a group of people that they should spend a great amount of time and money on trying to make themselves look nice, and that, physically, another group of people will always outperform them (when in fact that depends on training, not sex), well, then OF COURSE THEY ARE GOING TO START THINKING THAT. If we would start treating sex difference as not important, however, the gender stereotypes employed by out culture would fade and we would see, what we as a human race are truly capable of, not what our men and our women are truly capable of. I hope that the wider acceptance and knowledge of intersex and transgender people will help, because there is (obviously) no fitting stereotype for these people, so people will need to change their ways of thinking.

Society needs to change how we treat women and men, though. At the rate we're currently going, near half of the next generation will believe that dressing up and putting make up on is more important than anything else - with our current issues of for example global warming, with only about half of the scientists that we could have, might not be able to find a solution (but a greater pool of talents has greater chances of success and development).

So, about 30-40 years after Second Wave Feminism, we've arrived at a even more difficult point of view. What does this teach us? Do we need to spread our ideas on how both (or all) genders should be equal more aggressively? I doubt that that would do any good. Instead, we should try to change how we talk about all genders, the kinds of attitudes we express, and the kinds of attitudes that we spread. And if we have an important position in our culture, we should use our ability to reach out to people and just show them a different set of attitudes than the ones that they might currently be applying.

Humanity has such a great variety and diversity in character and thoughts, why do we have to class it by race or gender or sexual orientation? None of these factors detract from our thinking ability. We are able to do so many amazing things, we have built cars that can go up to 300 km/s, triple of the cheetah, the fastest animal. We have left our planet, we can communicate with each other using radio waves. Humanity has such a great potential, well the half that has so far been participating more. Imagine what we could do, if 100% were allowed and able to contribute?

Charlie Crxsh

Sexism in India

Over Easter I've had the chance to visit the country India, and while I have enjoyed it and learned a lot about it's culture and history, I've also encountered a lot of misogyny here. Sexism is common in Europe, too, but it takes a whole new form in India. In Europe, sexism is more passive, and less violent, I feel. Being in India made me realise, why a woman would want to wear a headscarf, or a veil, simply because the way some men look at me here makes me feel more uncomfortable than I've ever felt before. I feel like if they're going to look at me anyway (because of my skin colour), I at least don't want them to actually see the shape of my body. However, I quickly realised, that this is only treating the symptom of the problem, not the cause. The cause would be to teach the men here that you shouldn't objectify and silence a woman simply because of her gender. A large part of society (the conservative part) follow to some degree the rules, that a woman, once married, has to live at her husband's family's house, be a house wife (but it's okay for them to have a job before) and sometimes even wear a full veil in front of her parents-in-law, as a sign of respect. Rules are also placed on women regarding who they can speak with and who not - for example a married woman may not be allowed to talk to her father-in-law, or her husband when in public.

I actually met a about 30 y/o Hindi man, who told me that his wife has to fully conceal her face when at home, and is not allowed to talk to his father. When we responded with confusion and surprise, he continued to tell us that this is a sign of respect that his wife is not showing her face to his parents. I really do fail to see how having a veil in front of your face 24/7 is a portrayal of respect. I can slightly understand that wearing a headscarf that covers your hair can be respectful when in a religious place, because it hides an aspect of physical appearance that we usually highly decorate (plus it also protects you from the sun), therefore making a visit to a temple or mosque more about following a religious ritual or prayer, and less about how you look. But it annoys me how men don't have to hide aspects of their physical appearance, because it assumes that women will always be more decorated than men. 

Back to full veils - I've tried wearing one once when I forgot to put sun cream on my face and I was fearing a sunburn. While I successfully avoided a sunburn, I also noticed that the scarf I'd wrapped around my nose and mouth made it difficult for me to really engage in conversation. It drowned my voice slightly, it hid my mimics, if I wanted to be a noticed part of the conversation, I had to put a lot more effort in it than usually. I didn't wear it for long, and sought the shade instead, because wearing a full veil made me feel uncomfortable. This experience made me realise that, having to wear a full veil all the time would probably make whoever wore it feel rather horrible and restricted at first, and then probably apathetic. Why bother engaging in conversation when it is such an effort, and your probably rather traditional mother-in-law probably wouldn't quite listen to you anyway? And you weren't even allowed to talk to your father-in-law? Seems like a pretty good way to make sure that those women stay put. 

Walking down the street here, as a European woman of pale skin colour, you can expect men to stare at you. Take pictures of you on their phones without asking your permission. Point at you and discuss your appearance with the other men around you. Making it obvious they "enjoy" your presence a little more than you'd want. They probably won't stop taking pictures of you even if you've told them through waving your right hand dismissively (or your left hand, which is considered an insult here). The simple act of someone taking pictures might not sound so "bad" if you've never experienced it, but imagine walking down a street and having random strange men of all ages take pictures of you, and you don't even want to imagine what they're going to use those pictures for.. Street harassment takes different forms here. 

As a European, you might not find it odd or invasive if someone brushes past you in a public place, or places your hand on your back, but in India this doesn't have the same implications as in Europe. There are rather strong rules on PDA in India, and even touching a woman in what would be considered okay and non-sexual is not permitted here. Then ask yourself why the men do it to Western women, because they know it doesn't mean anything to us, and they want to touch women, even if it's just on the shoulder or her arm. 

More on this later,

Charlie Crxsh

These Boots are made for Walkin'

A friend at uni recommended me to watch the music video of the song These Boots are made for walkin' by Nancy Sinatra and the cover version by Jessica Simpson. She said that the original song and video was very empowering for women, but the cover version was the exact opposite. After just watching both music videos, I have to disagree. I think both music videos are showing women as sex objects. The video featuring Nancy Sinatra is just not as explicit because it is from 1966, therefore would not have needed to be as explicit in order to provoke the audience. Both videos show women finding empowerment through being a sex object. It is the appealing looks of both the singers that gives them power. This is the fake-empowerment that has been taking place for a while in our culture. It creates the apparent need for women to become even sexier so they can be the ultimate sex object. The woman might observe some kind of freedom, in exploring her sexuality, but because she does so with an audience, it is not really her exploration but the enjoyment of the audience that is really her main focus. 

 The music video featuring Nancy Sinatra begins with just bare legs walking through the screen. The women are not shown in any kind of position of power. In fact they are not even shown as women, they are just a pair of legs, without a body. Nancy Sinatra's body in the next shot is very carefully positioned in order to look pleasing to an audience. Her position pronounces the length of her legs. Though the jumper-like dress is not very provocative to our eyes, at the time of its original release the length of the dress would have been very provocative to say the least. 

 
 

 

Throughout the song, the dance moves reveals the dancer's underwear, and the dancers move on the spot like flowers, or lie on their backs stretching their legs in the air. The only dance move where they really move forward, not just on the spot, is when they walk. Then however the camera quickly zooms in on their legs, portraying them as simply body parts, not humans. 

In order to find at least some part of the song that would be "empowering women" as my friend had told me, I had a quick look at the lyrics. The woman narrative character is shown to respond the being done wrong by a man. Even though the woman assumes some form of higher position and removes herself from a bad relationship, she only does so in response to being done wrong by a man - ultimately she is still passive and only reacting, not acting. 

I think my friend fell in the trap that our pop culture has been showing us - that women can be powerful, yes, but only when they are also a sex object, that ultimately being a sex object is what empowers a woman. 



   Jessica Simpson's take on the song

















Ultimately, her take on the song is very similar to Nancy Sinatra's, the imagery used in her music video is just a lot more explicit due to the context it was created in. Jessica Simpson is being shown to make the men in a bar almost dribble because she is so attractive. Then, one of the customers slaps her bum, to which she appears to be responding positively at first, only to then hit the man hard across the face. He falls over and into another customer, which sets of a domino reaction, leading to a bar fight.

Even though Jessica Simpsons is shown to be physically overpowering a man, it doesn't quite feel like she is being empowered.

She then proceeds to dance with a range of of other female dancers in way that makes it obvious that it is intended to be found attractive by a male heterosexual typical audience - they are making themselves sex objects. After she just confronted a man who essentially sexually harassed her, Jessica Simpson continues to objectify herself. The car wash scene at the end? Well… that is the cliché way women are being shown as sex objects, isn't it?

Charlie Crxsh

The Differences in Images

The results of searching "man" and "woman" on google images, pinterest, and flickr:

Google images, a biased search engine, shows images ranked by demand. The most searched for images that are also tagged as man show influential public characters, famous actors, but mainly men in suits. The 5 related searches google offers are: Human, Clipart, Standing Up, Symbol and Stickman. For women however, google offers us photographs of women's faces, all but one are young, and all but three are striking a sexual pose. The 5 related searches google offers us here are: Wonder Woman, Standing, Average Woman, Symbol and Silhouette.  Standing and Symbol are the same related searches for both genders. None of the related searches for men offer a comparison like the search "average woman". You can also barely compare the "Stickman" search to the "Silhouette" search. Though both are simple black on white blockings of colour, the Silhouettes are sexual, the stickmen are not. The "Clipart" search shows stylised drawings of male characters, none of which seem sexual in any way. Wonder Woman? The only female superhero in the Justice League? She is still a very sexualised character, dressed in little more than a bathing suit. The "human" search google offers for men is also a rather neutral search, and seems to be more focused on anatomy. 

"A man in a tux to girls is like a woman in lingerie to men" - meaning: a tux, a symbol of authority, success and power is equal to lingerie, "undergarments which are designed to be visually appearing or erotic". This statement means that the only way women can achieve power is through being a sexual object and erotic.

"Be a girl with a mind, a woman with attitude, and a lady with class" "You can't rely on how you look to sustain you. What is fundamentally beautiful is compassion..." "A woman should never.." 

Instead of visual images like above we get rules for women how to act, how to achieve true beauty (by being a snow white character). These images police behaviour, however they do so in a subtle and sneaky way. 

Model shoots, panoramic landscapes, close ups of faces - the results on flickr are probably the most similar. Still we get a crude anatomical drawing of a man, and nothing comparable for the search "woman". Also noticeable; all the woman are universally attractive according to cultural standard - skinny, symmetrical faces; whereas the men are less so. Come to think of it, is there even a cultural standard of beauty for men?

Thoughts on Chris Brown's new song "Loyal"

I just watched the video to Chris Brown's new song, Loyal, a collaboration between Chris Brown, Lil Wayne and Tyga, it was released on 24.03.2014. There's a couple of things I'd like to say..

The video starts by showing Lil Wayne in typical hip hop scene jewellery and clothes.

Around him there are four women, of different ethnicities, wearing all black suits and high heels. The dance moves in this scene only have impact because the women are sexually provocative. The female dancers are being the decorative sex objects in this scene. Slightly before this, we get a close up of Lil Wayne - he is really not that attractive, compared to the dancers.

His teeth look rather unhygienic, the tattoos on his neck make him look like he has some kind of problem with his veins, or like the neck of an 80-year old. His dread locks are not in good shape and look very ragged, good dread locks look different. This shows that this man, who doesn't have to try to look attractive, yet he can get these four attractive women because of who he is. This scene also shows that women have to be sex objects, but men don't, in order to find a sexual partner. 

I don't think there's a lot I can really add to this screencap.. the dancers are now walking backwards on their hands and feet while bouncing their bums in the air. This makes the dancers look ridiculous, reducing them to animals who walk on all fours. The fact that the dancers are facing away from the camera also removes any confrontation, and the viewer is free to look at their uniform bodies without even knowing who they are. 

This reminds me of the "Full Body Gaze" Experiment (pp.184) that McGrane and Gunderson talk about in the book "Watching TV is not required". Students were asked to pair up, and take turns to observe the other for two minutes, both front and back. All students reported a great feeling of discomfort when looking at the other person's front, because the person they were looking at could observe them looking. When the observed person had to turn their back, the observing students found it a lot easier to just observe and "enjoy" looking at the other persons body. The male students in this experiment related this exercise back to their experience with pornography and looking at naked women, while the female students just observed a "body", with "imperfections and perfections", and wondered whether they felt as "awkward or embarrassed or violated as [they] had" (the male students did). 

Looking back at the above screenshot, we now know that the dancers are shown from behind so that the male audience can comfortably look at their butts, while the dance moves make the dancers look both ridiculous and animalistic at the same time. All the while Lil Wayne just moves slightly with the beat acting like he is on top of the world.

Chris Brown now gets his first solo shoot - he is shown walking down a street, seeing a small group of young women in tight clothing, which causes him to turn around, stare at them and arch back slightly. We barely see the women's faces, only seeing them from the side or back, which again is a less confrontational view of a woman. Chris Brown's body language clearly shows that he finds these women very sexually attractive, and that it is okay to show this in an obvious and graphic way in the middle of the street. This kind of behaviour is otherwise known as street harassment, if you want further examples, look at the twitter account of @EverydaySexism. Since this is a carefully shot video, we can also analyse the people in the background of this shot. The women's bodies are facing the camera, with their heads tilted towards the men, while the men's bodies are facing more sideways towards the women. Both men are wearing baggy clothing, which is not revealing at all. The women however are wearing shorts, a tight skirt and a cropped top, all items of clothing which are revealing and very tight fitting. The slight exception to this is the jacket of the woman on the right, which isn't figure hugging. All the women in this shot are revealing their bodies, even though we can tell from what the men are wearing that it is not necessarily that warm. The subtext of this shot is clearly that the women have to show their bodies, and be sexual, while the men can dress in more baggy clothes. This shot also shows Chris Brown doing casual street harassment, but it is made to look okay and make him seem like a "lad". 

Chris Brown then takes the hand of a random woman walking down the street with her boyfriend, she welcomes the gesture and leaves her boyfriend, who gets angry but is constrained by the men in the background. The lyrics explain that he just "took a broke nigga bitch". This suggests that the reason that this woman leaves her boyfriend within a second, is because she is offered the attention of Chris Brown, who has more money and a better status than her current boyfriend. The fact that the boyfriend in this scene is white and Chris Brown black follows the usual text in hip hop culture about skin colours. It also shows Chris Brown as part of an ethical minority asserting his dominance over the ethical majority in America. The boyfriend is also clearly not part of the hip hop scene, as we can tell through his clothes, which makes him less appealing to the girlfriend when compared to Chris Brown. This shows that being part of the hip hop scene also makes you "better" than the rest (which is also a common text found in hip hop culture).

I'm also slightly confused why the face of the guy to the left is covered up with a cartoon teddy bear, you can just see him behind Chris Brown in the above screenshot. If anyone reading this has any ideas, let me know.

Here we see the three rappers from a low camera angle, which is meant to make Chris Brown and the others look superior to the viewer. In the background we can see some more dancers, dancing without an obvious choreography. Again, what a surprise, all the women wear short shorts or skirts, crop tops or ripped jeans, while the men wear baggy trousers and T-shirts which reveal next to no body shape. The men also only slightly move to the beat, while the women definitely dance for an audience to appreciate them. The video pretty much continues in this style, we see Chris Brown and a friend "checking out" some more women that they pass, on the street or on an escalator. The third rapper Tyga then begins his verse, first rapping in front of the same group of people as above. He is the man on the left wearing a blue jacket and cap. Next, he is shown as below:

Here we see the third rapper, Tyga. He stands on a pedestal, slightly raised above the camera. He wears thick golden necklaces, big boots, and slightly baggy clothing. He also has a tiger on a short leash, which he has wrapped around his hand many times (as if he had to previously constrain the tiger). The tiger looks a bit like a dog, and it is not until I paused the video that I noticed it wasn't a bulldog or a similar dog, but a tiger, which kind of looks like a stuffed animal toy. So, we get another animal symbol, but this time it is connected to a man. The tiger is positioned and made to look like a dog, shown to be a harmless pet. Well, not that harmless, Tyga has to keep him on a short leash and constrain him. The tiger and the rappers name "Tyga" also are pronounced very similar, which suggests that the animal is representing the animal side of the rapper Tyga. He keeps it on a short leash, but it is still a very dangerous animal. The tiger is shown to pace around him. I'm not entirely sure if it is an animated tiger, or whether they got a tiger baby. Either way, in my opinion even a baby tiger doesn't really make him seem dangerous, but it is still obvious that this is the desired effect. Now, if we compare this to the beginning where the female dancers were made to look animalistic by bouncing on all fours, we see that there, the women were made to look dis-empowered through looking like an animal, whereas here, the animal is meant to show the rapper as a dangerous and strong man. This clearly shows the men being empowered through being wild and like an animal, therefore sexual, whereas the women are loosing power when they look sexual, because they are being objectified. 

The music video continues in the same old way, where the dance moves for the men include a lot of crotch-grabbing and the typical rapper's gesture where they stretch their arms out and point their index fingers (like this) 

Chris Brown then repeats the chorus, while being joined by more and more female background dancers. That makes it seem slightly like they are also supporting what Chris Brown is singing: "These hoes ain't loyal". Do I need to point out the differences in what they are wearing in this scene again? I feel like I would just be repeating myself. 

Another point of interest: All the rappers in this song are male, however a lot of the shots show females starring in them, being background dancers, but they don't get a voice. The females in this video are being spoken for, and they agree to the message that they are not trustworthy and promiscuous. 

I think the only good thing about the way women are represented in this video is that none of them are obviously underweight, but all have very curvy bodies. Women are being objectified in this video, but at least the audience is not being told that they have to be extremely skinny in order to be sexy. They just have to be available.

Official Video  Lyrics 

some comments that struck me: 

Oh god.. where do you even begin talking about some of these comments? The casualty with which Chris Brown's fans discuss him being in Jail, potentially having an alcohol problem, rape jokes, homophobia, racism, and sexually objectify women.... I tried to find any comments talking about how misogynistic this video is, but I didn't get very far.

A quick research into why Chris Brown is in jail showed that he was originally arrested for potentially violating the probation to stay away from Rihanna. He was then kicked out of rehab after violating the rule not to touch any women who were also in the same rehab, as well as making violent statements, and refusing a drug test. After he was kicked out by the rehab facility, a judge then arrested him, and he is to face a trial in April. Especially after his infamous case of violence against his girlfriend at the time, Rihanna, none of these offences seem to be something to laugh about, yet his fans do exactly that. If the charges are true, he should serve a time in prison for his crimes. The use of the hashtag # freebreezy seems a little inappropriate. His fans don't take his offences seriously at all. 

(x) (x)

Again, I'd be very interested to hear someone else's opinion on this music video, or Chris Brown in general, and I'd be happy to have a discussion about this. 

Charlie Crxsh