Call for Posts! Fancy yourself a feminist writer? Have an idea for a post? Want to cross-post something from your blog? I am always looking for guest/cross posters. Contact me with your ideas at youngfeministadventures (at) gmail (dot) com.
|
 The other day I posted this picture on my tumblr which I found on Post Secret this week with the question: do you think having your husband/partner/significant other(s) take out the garbage is unfeminist?
All of the answers that I got were of the “hell no” variety.
What I found interesting about this “secret” is that the sender felt it necessary to qualify the statement with “I’m definitely a feminist” as if having your husband take out the garbage would make this person not a feminist.
This got me thinking about why having your husband/partner/etc. take out the garbage might possibly be considered unfeminist. Chores are traditionally, stereotypically thought to be the woman’s territory. But stereotypically men take out the garbage and mow the lawn. So this is maybe why this person thought that having her husband take out the garbage was unfeminist…
But I don’t think that it has to be unfeminist, and neither do the people who responded to my question. I think that the important distinction is that it could be unfeminist if someone assumes that the husband will take out the garbage because he is the man and that the wife will do all the other chores around the house because she is a woman. I think that it is important to discuss what is expected of each person in the relationship when it comes to household duties and why each person should be doing those duties. The important thing is the communication about what is expected.
For example, if someone does the cooking, then maybe the other does the dishes. This doesn’t have to be the case, but discussing what is expected of each partner for the household duties is, I think, an important part of a feminist relationship. It shouldn’t just be assumed that one partner is going to do certain chores because that is what is expected of women and men. And it also shouldn’t be expected that one person will do all the chores, household duties should be shared, even if it is on a rotating basis. Taking care of the space that you live in together as a communicating team, I think, is important to building and maintaining a strong relationship.
*I should note that I have never been in a relationship where we have lived together, these observations are more from looking at my parents’ relationship and the experiences of friends and their families.
 Oh, Ben. I’ve never really been that interested by Ben and this episode didn’t really make me any more interested in him.
In the flash sideways, we see Ben as a high school European History teacher. We knew this already when we saw Locke’s flash sideways when he was a substitute teacher at that school…and we saw him again in this episode. Locke tried to convince an unhappy Ben that he should be principal of the school because he obviously cares about the school and the students. And guess who one of those students is! Alex, Rousseau’s daughter that he claimed as his own on the island. Ben is also caring for his elderly father. In that scene we learn that his father still was a part of the Dharma initiative but they had decided to leave the island, obviously before it was blown up. Ben’s father seems to think that Ben’s life would have been better if they had stayed on the island. That’s debatable.
Back on the island, Ilana finds out that Ben is the one that killed Jacob and gets really pissed. She ties Ben to a tree and makes him dig his own grave. We find out that Ilana was either tasked by Jacob or believes she was tasked by Jacob to protect the candidates to replace him…we’ll see how that comes in later. Jack and Hurley are making their way back to the Temple when they run into Richard. Hurley gets really confused by Richard not aging. Richard kind of explains this phenomenon as a “gift from Jacob.” Richard wants to die, but he can’t kill himself so he asks Jack to do it for him, who surprisingly agrees. But don’t worry, it wouldn’t be Jack if there wasn’t an ulterior motive. Jack believes that because Jacob picked him and has been watching him since childhood that he can’t die, or something like that. And he doesn’t, the dynamite doesn’t explode.
As Ben is digging his own grave, Flocke comes to visit. Flocke tells Ben that he wants him to take over the island when Flocke and his merry band of followers leave the island and unties Ben from the tree. Ben obviously thinks this is a good idea as he runs away. When Ilana catches up to him, he gives a sappy speech about how he lost Alex and Jacob didn’t care. Ben thinks that Flocke is the only one that will have him, but Ilana is obviously moved by his speech because she tells him that she will take him and walks away. Ben realizes that people do like him and follows her back to the beach where that group also meets up with Jack, Hurley, and Richard.
And the big shocker at the end: there’s a submarine off the coast of the island that has none other than Charles Whidmore on board. I was wondering when he was going to show up again.
I didn’t think this episode was bad, but it didn’t really impress me that much. It was all about Ben complaining about not being appreciated by anyone. In the flash sideways he has a PhD in European History and is teaching high school at a school where the principal dislikes him and threatens his students. On the island, Jacob doesn’t care that Alex was killed (even though it was Ben’s fault) and Ilana is ready to kill him for killing Jacob. No one wants him around. Oh, poor Ben. Maybe if you actually made the effort to be a good person more often, people would want you around. Ben just felt very complaining throughout the whole episode, which did not endear me to his character any more.
I did like that the show actually talked about the fact that Richard doesn’t age and gave *some* answers to why that is. I also liked that they explained why Ben was in the flash sideways. He would have been on the island when it exploded, but according to his father, they left the Dharma initiative before that ever happened.
And Charles Whidmore. Now there’s a character that I find interesting. Not that I like the character, I just find him interesting. Are we finally going to get to learn what his endgame is? Why is he back at the island? Where does he want to go on the island? Are we going to get to see Penny and Desmond again?
Oh, Lost. You excite me yet frustrate me at the same time. You have (sometimes) interesting story lines but don’t answer the questions that I want answered. Only 10 episodes left now (I think). What is actually going to get answered and what are we going to be left hanging with?
*Note: I found the picture in this post and really like it. The Lost cast in Last Supper-esque posing with Locke/Flocke as Jesus. Great.
this ain’t livin’: Before You Criticize the Food Choices of Others
Food policing is an area in which all sorts of assumptions are made about class and ability status. It goes hand in hand with the idea that people have an obligation to be healthy, that all bodies are the same so there’s only one way to be healthy, and that there is virtue in eating “right” as dictated by current authorities in the food world. Like, say, Michael Pollan, who is editorialized fawningly in numerous publications all over the planet for his “simple” and “helpful” food rules.
Here are a bunch of great posts about International Women’s Day:
Womanist Musings: In the Shadow of Hattie McDaniel Stands Monique
Ms. McDaniel won her award for best supporting actress in the movie “Gone With the Wind” in 1939. At the Atlanta premiere, not only was she banned from attending, her name was stricken from the souvenir program along with all of the other Black actors. Segregation meant that no matter her achievements, she was not worthy to be counted alongside the White actors. She was the first African American to be invited to the Oscars as a guest rather than a servant. What an accomplishment for the daughter of a slave.
feministhemes.com: The Blame and Shame Game
I don’t doubt that the motives here were well-intentioned, but I think that the posters that the students developed are a prime example of how we talk about sexual assault, rape, and domestic violence in our culture.
Criss writes: International ALL Women’s Day: “Feminista”
I was excited to read Erica Kennedy’s FEMINISTA mainly because of the title. I happily bought the book, not just because I could put it on my shiny new eReader but because buying it I was supporting a fellow Latina writer.
The story and characters have turned out to be not be my particular cup of tea, but I wanted to read it anyway. Until the word “tranny” appeared — and didn’t go away.
Also make sure to read Criss’ follow up post: ” ‘Feministas’ and the T-Word: The Aftermath”
Having watched the Oscars this past Sunday and coming to the realization that I had only seen one of the movies nominated for Best Picture (District 9), I decided that I should watch some more of the “best movies” of last year. While there are some that I will probably not see, at least not for a long time (Avatar and The Blind Side come to mind), a lot of them are out on dvd now, so it is pretty easy for me to get my hands on them to watch. So in the next couple of weeks and/or months, I will be putting up my reviews of some of the Oscar-nominated films from last year. I know, I’m a little late to the game, but better late than never I guess!
 So, what better movie to start with than the one that actually won Best Picture: The Hurt Locker.
After watching The Hurt Locker, it became very clear why it won six Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director. I have to admit that while I was watching the Oscars, I was rooting for Kathryn Bigelow because she was a woman and The Hurt Locker because it wasn’t Avatar. I had heard amazing things about the movie, but having not seen it myself, I was more rooting for it because of Kathryn Bigelow.
But now that I have seen it, I wish I could watch the Oscars again so that I could actually root for it for the right reason: because it deserved to win. I know, I haven’t seen the other Best Picture nominees, but it was pretty clear from this movie that it deserved Best Picture.
For those who don’t know, The Hurt Locker follows around a three-person Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team in the Iraq War. Jeremy Renner plays Sergeant Will James, the leader of the EOD team who was brought in after the previous team leader was killed during a mission. James’ behavior is often considered to be reckless, especially by Sergeant Sanborn, another team member, who really likes to do things by the book, but he gets results. Specialist Owen Eldridge is the third and youngest member of the team who struggles with the belief that he is responsible for the death of the previous team leader.
While I have never been in a war, so I can’t speak to it, what struck me about this movie was the reality of it. It felt like these were real situations that EOD teams could be in and real struggles that soldiers face on a regular basis. I don’t mind violence in movies because the type of movies that I watch that have violence in them tend to be sci-fi, which isn’t really realistic violence. War movies have never really been my thing because the violence always seemed gratuitous. Yes, I know war movies are going to have violence, but most of them seem to have unnecessary levels of violence. One thing that I liked about The Hurt Locker is that the violence didn’t seem gratuitous. Yes, there was a good amount of it, but it all seem realistic and not in the movie for the sake of having violence. And for a war movie, there wasn’t actually a lot of violence in it (in comparison). It was all about the tension of disarming bombs rather than shoot outs (which there were). It was all about survival.
War has always been about men (I know generalization, but I am also more speaking to war movies in this case). And yes, this movie was about men. Men blowing things up and stopping them from blowing up, men with their big guns, male bonding, action! In fact, we only ever saw one woman in the movie (who happened to be Evangaline Lily — Kate from Lost) — the ex-wife of James and the mother of his son. But what was also so great about this movie about men was that it was directed by a woman. Kathryn Bigelow showed that women can make art about war, that women are capable of understanding the struggles of war and showing those struggles in a beautiful way.
In the end, The Hurt Locker isn’t just about war, it’s about human struggle. People struggling with the realities of their lives and realities of war. People bonding with each other yet keeping each other at arm’s length. People struggling to survive yet risk their lives from their drug of choice: war. People realizing what they really want out of their lives.
“The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”
This quote from Chris Hedges, War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, was displayed at the beginning of the movie and that’s really what the movie showed: war as a drug. And The Hurt Locker shows us how humans deal with their addiction to that drug. James is shown as the most “addicted” because of his reckless, adrenaline-seeking behavior and his decision to return to Iraq at the of the movie. Sanborn is very straight-laced when it comes to the rules, which is how he manages his addiction. And Eldridge’s addiction (and inexperience) ultimately get the best of him because he is unable to deal with his previous team leader’s death and the horrors that they see on a daily basis.
I would highly recommend this movie to anyone. Even if you don’t like war movies or movies with violence. Like I said, I’m not the biggest fan of war movies. But this movie is so much more than a war movie. It’s definitely hard to watch at times, but it’s definitely worth it!
Also check out the review of The Hurt Locker that is up at Bitch Flicks.
Overall, I was generally pleased with the results of last night’s 82nd Academy Awards.
 The big news of the night: the first woman ever (and fourth ever nominated) won Best Director. Congratulations to Kathryn Bigelow of The Hurt Locker for that amazing achievement!
The Hurt Locker (and Kathryn Bigelow) also walked away with Best Picture! I have yet to see the movie, but it is definitely on my to-do list this week!
Despite the fact that Kathryn Bigelow made history last night for her win in Best Director, women were still not recognized across the board. Out of the 40 total winners, there were only 7 women who won an Oscar (including the awards for Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress). And of the 24 categories, there were 8 (not including Best Actor or Supporting Actor) that did not include a single female nominee (animated feature film, cinematography, original score, original song, animated short, sound mixing, visual effects, and original screenplay).
Women need to be better represented in film making!
I was also not that impressed with Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin as the hosts. They weren’t really that funny. They made a lot of “jokes” about racism and women as objects. Not cool. And they also introduced Kathryn Bigelow with her relationship to James Cameron, because she doesn’t have any accomplishments other than being the ex-wife of James Cameron.
And on a more personal preference point, I was a little disappointed that Sandra Bullock won Best Actress (but she did give a really good acceptance speech in which she recognized all of her fellow nominees). I was really hoping for Meryl Streep or Gabby Sidibe. I’m not incredibly impressed by Sandra Bullock as an actress (but granted, I have not seen The Blind Side) and from the previews, clips, and reviews that I’ve seen of The Blind Side, it just looks racist and like it’s trying waaaay too hard to be inspirational.
Overall, I can’t be too upset about the Oscars this year because Kathryn Bigelow won and Avatar didn’t!
 This year, the United Nations has decided that the theme for International Women’s Day is “Equal rights, equal opportunity: Progress for all.”
Gender Across Borders has encouraged us to think about what “equal rights for all” means to us. This seems like a simple question, right? But once you actually sit down and try to think about it, it’s kind of a complicated question. It should be pretty simple, you would think: give everybody equal rights.
But in a patriarchal, racist, classist, ableist, heterosexist culture such as the one that I am familiar with (the United States), equal rights is not such an easy concept for people to grasp. Equal rights as they are understood by the government now, are still mainly just equal rights for white, middle/upper class, heterosexual men.
So what would I like to see in actually implementing the ideal of equal rights for all?
- equal pay for equal work: women still make 70 cents to every dollar than men make.
- equal access to health care for everyone, not just the rich: in order to function in society, people have to have access to quality health care that is appropriate for each individual, including reproductive health care
- equal access to education: if everyone has the same access to education, other barriers will start to fall down as well
- marriage equality: anyone that wants to get married, should be able to get married
- comprehensive sex education for everyone: people need to know how to make the right decisions for themselves with regards to their sexuality and this will only happen if everyone has access to comprehensive sex education
- end all violence against women: including (but not limited to) rape, domestic violence, genital mutilation, human trafficking.
These are all things that would be put into effect by the government or societal institutions, but these are not just enough. In order for these things to really take effect, cultural views of women, people of color, people with disabilities, trans people, gay and lesbian people will all have to change. And this is where it gets tough, because prejudice is deeply rooted in USian culture; people are going to give it up easily. It’s also important to keep in mind that this is not a comprehensive list; these are only some starting blocks and stepping stones.
Also make sure to check out Gender Across Borders’ Blog for IWD BLOG!
I lieu of link love today and in honor of the Academy Awards tonight, I am just going to direct you to the blog Bitch Flicks that has reviews up of all the movies that are nominated for Best Picture.
As I have only seen one of the movies nominated for Best Picture, I cannot really say which I think is going to win based on personal preference, but I do have a feeling it is going to be Avatar. So read through these reviews and make your predictions in preparation for tonight.
 I have been anxiously awaiting the release of Alice in Wonderland. Not only did I think that it was going to be an interesting retelling of the classic story, but it was also a Tim Burton film starring Johnny Depp. And it did not disappoint.
Warning: major spoilers. If you have not yet seen the movie and plan to, please come back later unless you don’t mind spoilers.
I am only going to be looking at a few aspects of this movie, but there are plenty that could be examined. One of many, for example, that I am not going to address in this post is the representation of mental illness, especially through the Mad Hatter.
In this Alice in Wonderland, Alice is now almost 20 years old. She believes that her previous trip to Wonderland is a recurring dream and throughout the entire movie, she has to keep reminding herself that it is only a dream. Alice is feeling pressured to accept the marriage proposal of the son of the man that bought her father’s company. So when he proposes, she runs away and follows the rabbit down his hole and finds herself in Wonderland again.
Wonderland is different from her previous visit. Since then, the Red Queen has taken over Underland (as it is properly named, Alice just called in Wonderland as a child). The White Queen needs a champion in her name to stand up against the Red Queen’s champion. It has long been foretold that Alice is said champion that will defeat the Jabberwocky, the Red Queen’s champion. Alice is very hesitant to accept this destiny. She eventually does accept it and defeats the Jabberwocky in an epic battle that restores the crown to the White Queen.
Before I start getting into my analysis, I want to say that I am probably a little biased because I did really want to like the movie, which probably made me like the movie and miss some of the problematic elements.
I was very impressed with the movie overall and with the message that the movie sent, especially to girls and young women. Alice did not want the life that was being laid out for her; she didn’t like corsets and stockings, she didn’t want to marry the man that she had essentially been promised to, and she didn’t feel like she fit in because of her active imagination that she was not afraid to share with others. But then she finds herself in Wonderland, where her life is also being laid out for her, but in a different way. She is expected to be this hero, this savior that she doesn’t think she is capable of being.
Alice will not accept either of these lives that are being laid out for her; she wants to make her own path in life and isn’t afraid to do so. While at first she does not accept that she is capable of being the White Queen’s champion, she later accepts this responsibility and finds the courage that she needs to defeat the Jabberwocky.
The movie also speaks heavily to believing in the impossible. In the “real world,” Alice is often criticizing for believing in the impossible, yet she is hesitant to believe in the “impossible” world of Wonderland, trying to convince herself that it is only a dream. In the end, it is believing in the impossible that gives Alice the courage that she needs to defeat the Jabberwocky. Her father often told people that he thought of six impossible things before breakfast time. So Alice listed off six impossible things that were proven possible in Wonderland, ending in her defeating the Jabberwocky.
In the end, Alice finds herself back in the “real world” where she refuses the marriage proposal of Hamish, tells people what she really thinks about them, and gains an apprenticeship at her father’s previous company after impressing the new owner (Hamish’s father) with her unconventional and imaginative ideas for expanding the company.
I am really glad that this movie was rated PG because I think it gave girls and young women a good role model in Alice. Alice shows girls that you don’t have to accept what is being laid out in front of you if it is not what you want and that you have the power to choose what you do with your own life. The movie also shows us that good things come from believing in the impossible and believing in yourself.
On top of the great themes and messages that Alice in Wonderland, there was some great acting and directing. I’m a really big fan of Tim Burton’s work, ever since The Nightmare Before Christmas. And this movie didn’t disappoint. Johnny Depp was great as the Mad Hatter and Helena Bonham Carter did not disappoint as the Red Queen in all her quirky, complicated goodness. And Anne Hathaway perfectly portrayed the good-hearted, idealist White Queen. And relative newcomer Mia Wasikowska was brilliant as the naive day-dreamer, Alice. And anything that includes the voice on Alan Rickman (the caterpillar) is good in my book.
And I’d just like to say that I really want the wardrobe for Alice. I would totally wear all those costumes if I could pull them off.
 I keep seeing trailers for the new movie She’s Out of My League (which can be viewed here). Movies like this really irritate me. Women can date someone who is less attractive than them and it’s because he’s a “nice guy.” But guys never date (in movies/tv) a woman who is less attractive than them. And if they do, they try to make them over so that they are more attractive (I am thinking She’s All That type movies). Even in movies where a man is deemed to be “slumming it” and dating someone “below his standing” (as in movies where a rich man dates a poor woman), the woman is still very attractive.
This trend is evident in looking at popular actors and actresses as well. Male actors who are less attractive can get by with being funny or a good dramatic actor. But there are few examples (yes, there are some, but not many) of female actors who is not physically attractive but is still popular because she is an amazing actress.
This doesn’t really leave a lot of hope for real life. In real life, it’s not questioned as much when an attractive woman dates someone less attractive, because that guy must be a “nice guy” and “treat her right.” But a man who dates someone who is less attractive than him is almost always questioned by friends, coworkers, even family. How can an attractive man date someone who looks like that? She must be good in bed…
*Note: in this post I am mainly talking about heterosexual relationships. I know that that is not necessarily fair of me. But the trend that I see in movies and tv usually tends to deal with heterosexual relationships. And this probably has to do with the limited number of homosexual relationships that are accurately portrayed in pop culture. And I am talking about heterosexual relationships because those are the kinds of relationships that I am most familiar with personally, both in my experience and experiences of friends.
This week’s episode of Lost was Sayid-centric, which made me happy as Sayid is one of the more interesting characters.
Let’s start off with the flash sideways this time. In the flash sideways we learn that Nadia is married to Sayid’s brother, Omar. But it is obvious that Sayid and Nadia have feelings for each other. At one point we learn that Sayid actually pushed Nadia towards his brother instead of himself despite their feelings. This makes me think that the reason Sayid did not end up on this island in this timeline is because he didn’t lose Nadia; that losing Nadia is what pushes Sayid (or makes him make the choices) towards the island.
It turns out that Omar borrowed money from some bad men. These bad men put Omar in the hospital (Jack’s hospital, to be exact, as we see him in the hallway). They pick up Sayid but Sayid is able to overpower them. Then Sayid discovers that these men have Jin locked away in a storage room. So in the flash sideways, we have seen Sayid’s connection to both Jack and Jin.
On the island, Dogen believes that Sayid should be dead and banishes him from the temple. But just as Sayid is about to leave, Claire shows up to tell Dogen that “he wants to see you.” Dogen sends Sayid instead as “him” (Flocke) will kill Dogen if he leaves the temple. Dogen wants Sayid to kill Flocke but Sayid cannot let Flocke speak to him as then it will be “too late.” Unfortunately Flocke says “hi”. Sayid stabs him, but it has no effect. Sayid returns to the temple with a message from Flocke: now that Jacob is dead, they don’t have to stay at the temple anymore, they are free to leave. If they want to leave the island with Flocke, they have to meet him in the jungle before sundown and everyone who doesn’t meet him will be killed.
Mass panic ensues. But Sayid has one more task. He kills Dogen at sundown. Dogen’s assistant person runs in screaming about how Dogen was the only thing keeping “him” out. Smokey then terrorizes the temple, killing everything in its wake. Claire and Kate are able to hide in the hole that the Others are keeping Claire in. And Miles, Sun, and the others with Sun are able to escape through the secret passage that Jack and Hurley left through. After all is said and done, Sayid leaves to meet up with Flocke along with Claire and Kate and they head off into the jungle.
In both timelines we see Sayid resorting to violence — he is going back to his old ways as a torturer in the Iraqi army. Is this supposed to tell us that we can never really change? Sayid is always going to be the violent, torturer in some way or another, no matter how hard he tries to deny it.
And I think this episode showed us a little more of how the flash sideways is working. We saw that Sayid was still a tortured in the Iraqi army. But that his life with Nadia never really existed. Something in one of the timelines went wrong. The question that I have is which timeline is it that went wrong? Were they meant to be on the island and the flash sideways life shows how their “wrong decisions” made their lives go wrong and not end up on the island? Or were they never meant to crash but their life went wrong when the ended up on the island? My guess is that it is the first one, but you never really know what Lost is going to throw at you. And I know I mention this every week, but I really want to know how the flash sideways is going to work out in the end. Everyone’s flash sideways shows that their lives are in some way connected to the other people on the island even though they aren’t on the island. Are they doing to start to realize that something isn’t right? Are they going to start to remember things from the island?
So not only was this episode Sayid-centric, it did not have any awkward scenes between Jack and/or Kate and/or Sawyer — that just makes it all better.
But I have now developed a new theory as to the Man in Black (aka Flocke). This may be a theory that others have expressed before, but I just came to it. I think that the previous incarnation of the Man in Black was Christian Shepard. This is why Claire was so willing to trust him when she ran off into the jungle. And both Christian and Locke were dead upon arrival at the island, allowing the Man in Black to take their forms.
And then I just have some remaining questions at the end of this post…
What was the significance of the baseball that fell off the table and stopped the fight between Dogen and Sayid? And then Dogen was holding it at the end when Sayid killed him. Dogen told the story about how his son used to play baseball. Is that how it all fits in? But then why did it stop the fight between them?
Also, what’s so special about Dogen? Why is he the one that is protecting the temple? Most people thought that Jacob was protecting the temple from Smokey (based on Sayid’s message that now that Jacob’s dead they are free to leave), but it was really Dogen’s life that was protecting the temple. Why? What is so special about him? But now he’s dead, so I don’t know if I will ever find out.
And finally, what’s Claire going to do now that she knows that Kate took Aaron? She previously said that she would kill her. And when Kate told her that she had Aaron, Claire looked pissed! So what’s going to happen between them?
As meloukhia points out (who’s post you all should read as well), the season is officially one third over. There’s not a lot left to Lost as a series. How are they going to wrap everything up? Or are they not going to and just leave us all hanging? that is a distinct possibility.
|
|
The other day I posted this picture on my tumblr which I found on Post Secret this week with the question: do you think having your husband/partner/significant other(s) take out the garbage is unfeminist?
Recent Comments