Misogyny is misogyny: Reinforcing the original interpretation of Blurred lines

           Yep I read this post http://polemiqueoccasionelle.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/blurring-the-lines-of-feminism-a-criticism-of-the-criticism-of-blurred-lines/ . This post is hard for me to speak against as a man. I feel the discourse surrounding women's rights should be driven by women and men have a role in that conversation, but its a reflective one. Men shouldn't be imposing their own privilege on the conversation. I keep quoting the same person, but I really like this expression: "Be mindful of the space you take up in the room." However, when talking to the person who told me that about whether she could speak out for minorities as a white woman, I told her that I personally felt she could. That's because you shouldn't let misconceptions about your friends and family be perpetuated if you could stop it. So I really seem myself as stepping in not for women, but for my friends, my sister and my mother, who don't need to be ashamed for proudly demanding a world where they are respected, not objectified.  The criticism laid out by the author here is twofold. She first argues that feminist have misinterpreted the language of Blurred lines for rape culture rather than sexual liberation. Secondly, she attacked the "Defined lines video", which parodies the song via role reversal. Her criticism of defined lines is that "two wrongs don't make a right" and the parody goes much farther in its objectification of men, then the actual blurred lines does of women. I will start first by defending Defined lines as a clear satire of the misogyny frequently shown in videos with women. Then I will move to strike down some of her interpretation and also draw from other articles, which have shown how Blurred Lines perpetuates rape culture. Finally, I will indict the criticism from the article as perpetuating the negative stereotype of Feminist being self obsessed matriarchal dictators.

Satire not sexism: Exaggeration as a strategy for emphasis 
        To start with the criticism of the "Defined lines" video, she begins by claiming that the song insinuates rape like behavior. What the author misses is that this video was intended as a parody. The video is supposed to be in bad taste because by doing so it brings emphasis to the sort of objectification women regularly see in the media. The exaggeration in the video is meant to capitalize on the already unsettling prospect of seeing this happen to men. What isn't being examined is why the male community seemed to respond with such outrage over the video. If you are full of outrage, good, then you should direct that outrage towards the music companies that do this to women on a regular basis, as opposed to one of the rare examples of this happening to men. This role reversal isn't even akin to that seen in the videos from Beyonce or other singers. Instead it's clearly being used to draw attention to how problematic the portrayal of women in the media is. The song even says this when it states, "What you see on TV/doesn't speak equality/ it's straight up misogyny." Those who chuckled at the video do so because they see the irony and satire at play here. But these chuckles weren't hearty chuckles. Instead people awkwardly laughed as they recognized that anyone who has this kind of stuff done to them is being degraded. The logical connection from that was supposed to be about stopping this kind of portrayal where it happens the most: the music industries portrayal of women. Finally, the author admonishes the creators, claiming that women should empower themselves, not weaken men. Such a statement is true in most situations. It shouldn't be the goal of the women's rights movement to weaken men. However, if women need to hurt patriarchy, then there is a good chance that men might have to suffer the drawbacks from that. It's not intentional. In fact it's usually brought about by the lack of practical strategies to fight against misogyny.

A bunch of naked women is a sad man's fantasy
               The author suggests that the reason the song was misinterpreted is because it misses the mantra of sexual freedom being preached by the song. I could definitely see this if it weren't for a few red flags. First, the video suggests a man's fantasy, not an equal sexual fantasy. It's not the fact that there are several naked women in the video (unrated, actually first think about why an unrated video even fucking exists), but the fact that they find themselves being oogled at by Thicke and his crew (who seem quite comfortable being cloth). This signals to me that this isn't about the sexual freedom of the woman. She's already at this visible state of vulnerability, while the man is still clothed and in control. Those who claim the woman's body is a symbol of power are correct, but not when it's being subjugated by a male dominated environment. Women in this video are clearly attending to men and their needs. They are framed doing menial tasks and are completely silent, while men tell them what their sexual nature is. This is a sad man's fantasy of sexual freedom and unfortunately is a sexual prison for women.

Disentangling sexual freedom from the hypersexualization of women: a woman is not an animal
            Even if you disagree with me that the author's framing of the video is awry, hopefully you can see that the interpretation of Thicke's lyrics are completely off the mark. The author claims that this verse: "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you/But you're an animal, baby it's in your nature/Just let me liberate you/You don't need no paper/That man is not your maker" is a "women's lib anthem." First, before we start interpreting the lyrics, we need to interrogate the narrator of the lyrics. This is Robin Thicke, a white well chiseled man, who clearly wants to have sex with this girl. His end goal is for some sort of sexual relations and so his rhetoric is going to be for that aim. So when he says, "Ok he was close, tried to domesticate you", I'm immediately suspect of what this "domestication" entailed. Perhaps domestication is Thicke's way of putting a negative spin on a faithful relationship. It would certainly behoove Thicke to portray the woman's relationship as limiting, regardless of how true it is. If anything Thicke is using the woman's sexual freedom against her, by suggesting that she is less of a woman for engaging in a monogamous relationship. But even if we ignore the clear conflict of interest with the narrator and assume that Thicke was being truthful (i.e. the woman's love interest was indeed trying to limit her sexual freedom), then one must immediately be off put by Thicke suggesting that the woman is animal. To compare her to an animal completely takes away her control over her sexual drive. Animals don't have sex because they want to, but because they need to (except for dolphins apparently). By suggesting that her engaging in sexual relations with Thicke is her state of nature draws connotations of a primal like sexual appetite (which is also visually represented in the song via the goat and humping of the fake goat). A good example of this is when one of the singers points at the goat being held by the woman and says "you the hottest bitch in this place" directly towards it. In that small second the woman is being reduced to the animal and to make matters worse that is when they feel comfortable invoking a derogatory designation for the woman.
         But I'm not even done, there's still more poor interpretation to be dealt with. The fact that the woman needs Thicke to "liberate her" is a clear position of subjugation. The woman isn't a free entity without Thicke's sexual liberation in this universe. The author doesn't even address this, in fact the author seems to take no issue with it, citing it as an example of pro women language in the song. I don't see how being reliant on a man to gain sexual freedom is in any way pro women. Then we return to the final line, which the author claims is Thicke's claim to a pro woman platform. Given all the context of the previous lines, I hope such a deduction seems laughable to you. The woman has been reduced to a sexual animal. Her relationship has been caricatured by Thicke. And she's given a sexual freedom ultimatum by him. Of course he wants to end it by creating the facade of control in the situation. This has been the new operation of sexism for men. We deal with women not by actually giving them the equality they want, but by appeasing them with fictional notions of equality. So instead of making a statement like "do what makes you happy, or what pleases you sexually", Thicke cleverly frames it as if her leaving her relationship via sex with him will liberate her from her prison.

Lower case f Feminism is a cop out
       I've been particularly free of ad hominems in this post so far, but I think this author deserves to face the repercussions of her writing. When she decided to analogize (insert inside joke here) the accurate feminist critiques of the song to slut shaming, she made herself look like a fool. Her first piece of evidence for this charge was her critique of the "Defined lines" videos, which I already addressed, so I won't do so here. Then she claims the feminist critique of the line regarding spanking, makes that kind of sexual behavior deviant. Again, context is everything. In  a video where the woman is completely in control of her own sexual experience this would be a different story, but as shown in the previous section, women are not in control in this video. So when Thicke insinuates that he could meet the woman's sexual desire via these violent acts, the context isn't sexual, but instead one of subjugation. Finally, her first two points about women never saying yes to sexual advances completely misses the point I made earlier about interrogating the narrator. In Thicke's mind this woman "knows she wants it", but I would bet some money that the woman herself probably feels differently about the situation. Furthermore, to validate Thicke's thinking would be to validate the rationale given by many people who rape women. This article http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2013/09/17/from-the-mouths-of-rapists-the-lyrics-of-robin-thickes-blurred-lines-and-real-life-rape/ shows the connections to rape culture the song has far better than I can, however a huge trigger warning, it uses actual testimonials from survivors.

Feminism is spelled with a capital F
   Women who have a high standard for the society around them aren't nuisances, they are liberators. They are our mothers, sisters, daughters, friends, aunts. They deal with our male privilege when they shouldn't have to and many of them graciously educate us when we clearly are ignorant to the "space we take up". And when someone attacks these women for being too zealous, then all I have to say is shame on you. Shame on you for not being brave enough to continue the conversation when nobody wants to hear it. Shame on you for being a hindrance to those who want a full equality and who intend to not only change law and policy, but hearts and minds. Shame on you who think that I am less of a man for writing this because I know there is nothing more manly then standing up for the people I love. I write this to draw my lines in the sand. I hope the author thinks about doing the same.
       

The model minority isn't a myth: why people don't want to admit that all prejudice isn't created equal

                         There has been buzz about the recent Miss America winner and I'll admit I was outraged at the enormous amount of ignorance spewed onto the interwebs, especially since Miss America is from my home state and my soon to be Alma Mater. However, people have been making outlandish arguments about racial dynamics in this country by claiming the ignorance response given to her proved that Asian Americans were stigmatized just as much as other minority groups. Many have argued that this is definitive prove that the idea of a "model minority" is a myth that doesn't exist. These statements can be true depending on what someone means by them, but in their literal sense they are are complete falsehoods that ignore white privilege and how white privilege was afforded to Asian and Indian American workers far more than their Black and Latino counterparts. This goes back to policies dating to the late 1800s moving forward all the way to the mid 1900s. Regardless of the perpetuation of whiteness, racial doctrine written at the time explicitly drew distinctions between Blacks and Latinos and Asians, making a hierarchical difference between the two. This can be seen clearly in 1950s as Asians were portrayed to have successfully assimilated into the U.S., while blacks and Latinos were considered to be failed Americans.

Quantifying stigmatization 
           Clearly one cannot quantify stigmatization. It can never be objectively proven that certain minorities are treated "worse" than others and any attempt to do so would be biased and unproductive. Instead we need to make the critical shift of understanding how identities are being targeted, rather than immediately jumping to the results of said prejudice and having an all out statistical throw down. For example, the effects of Islamophobia cannot be translated into some quantifiable number. Attempts to do this in social sciences tend to find a close proxy, but the proxy is never expansive enough for the horrible experiences that stem  from Islamophobia in this nation. To then make the next step a comparison to the systemic racism faced by Blacks is completely outlandish. We need to accept that these are two different forms of prejudice that require different forms of support.

The Model Minority
      I am not arguing that Asian Americans don't face prejudice. What I am cautioning against is this quick instinct to lump all experiences of oppression into one giant collective. Asian Americans don't face the significant economic and educational barriers that African American and Latinos face. They may face educational barriers (i.e. the way policies favor white students over Asian students), but these barriers aren't the same ones faced by African Americans. Furthermore, the sentiment of "never being a true American" differs from the sentiment faced in the black community which unabashedly makes claim to legitimate American citizenry (as they should), but finds themselves forever being a lower standard of American. These two psychological prisons aren't the same. They are both horrible in different ways. The creation of a Model Minority distinction isn't a falsehood, but it certainly isn't a blessing either. Both the Model minority and the downtrodden minority are in positions of subjugation. When an Asian American rejects the label of Model Minority, they are freeing themselves of that subjugation and rightfully so. However, the history behind that label cannot be tossed aside. It needs to be analyzed and scrutinized. It must be acknowledged especially when it had led to institutions giving specific benefits to certain groups and not others.

Together, but distinct 
    Minorities can be allies for each other, but must respect the distinct nature of what each other is going through. Sure we can bond over the similarities of oppression, however as stated by a friend of mine, we need to be mindful of the space we take up and how that could possibly prevent others from having their stories heard. I am not advocating for the disenfranchisement of Asian American experiences. I am respecting the unique nature of the Asian American experience. I think when we can recognize that we are different, then we can take the actual first steps to being allies for each other. 

Bitch ain't bad: recognizing male privilege

       It's easy as a man to read a few texts (typically labeled as "feminist texts", I like to think of them as "keeping it real texts") and then profess your personal disgust for your own gender. Ironically enough, instead of professing this disgust to men (you know the people who should probably be educated about these topics), you immediately seek out a woman, typically so you can subconsciously fish for reassurance that men aren't that bad and even if they are, you are now enlightened and therefore exempt of all negative association. Well you aren't.
      Male privilege is a thing and whenever men make statements like "I get it, but..." or "I don't think it's that bad", I know to just ignore them because typically something ignorant is about to be said. And that's not to absolve myself of this ignorance. I say stupid shit like this all the time and while I typically catch myself and backtrack, there are sometimes where I (and even some of my friends who are women) miss how my patriarchal framework blurs out my male privilege.
     For example, let's take Lupe Fiasco's popular song "Bitch Bad", which received mix reception among people. Some people thought Lupe was simply telling it how it is and was actually doing a service for African American women by making necessary commentary on how African American women were negatively perceived and expected to act in the current culture. Many feminist disagreed vehemently (with good reason too), but were promptly ignored. This is because on it's face, "Bitch Bad" is a song that rails against the negative stereotypes typically ascribed to women and instead advocates for a positive outlook. However, if one were to listen to the song a few more times it's clear that the song was written by a man for women.
    I won't give an in-depth analysis of why this particular song is problematic, but I'll leave this here http://www.policymic.com/articles/16236/lupe-fiasco-bitch-bad-sexist-single-makes-hip-hop-women-look-bad for anyone who's interested. Hopefully you've read the article and agreed (if you just took my word for it, then that's pretty foolish of you) and realize how problematic Bitch Bad really is. Now to be fair, Bitch Bad is more than just making commentary on women, but more specifically African American women. I think this key difference changes some of the rules of engagement rhetorically, but doesn't do much to blunt the clear misogyny or as one critic described it "mansplaining" that Lupe engaged in.  And yet when I first heard this song I thought it was incredibly progressive. One might wonder how could I? Raymond clearly women are made powerless in this song, why couldn't you see that? That's because when oppression isn't overt, it's essentially invisible to those who aren't looking for it.
   So I guess this a charge to the men who aren't being morons. We need to do better and be better about having a critical eye. A part of wrestling with our male privilege is taking an impact calculus on how it affects the world around us. Furthermore, we cannot look to women for explanation. An ally doesn't offer support, then immediately ask the person being assisted to do it for them (well sometimes this does happen, the mantra typically goes "help me help you", but that's besides the point). Still, even with all of this, I know that it will be a struggle. There will be slip ups and times where we let ourselves down. To say that's ok and we could try again next time is unacceptable. We need to be better. Plain and simple.

A note on the title: The title of this post can be read in various ways. First I could be saying it in a literal sense, insofar that the individual in question isn't bad. Or I could be siding with women who aim to reclaim the word bitch. The final explanation is a simple repudiation of Lupe's song title. I won't admit to which one I intended as I think that all three of those interpretations can provide for good discussion alone.

A simple break down of the misogyny of the song:
I realize that many of you won't read the article so to explain misogynistic nature of the I'll just give two key examples.

First, the chorus blunders through feminist issues in order of magnitude from slight ignorance to complete disregard for agency. The first line, "Bitch Bad", again comes into conflict with any attempts to reclaim the term. Women good being spoken by Lupe reaffirms the patriarchal tendency to ascribe value to women as if they were an object. Continuing with this trend of objectification, Lupe imbues the normative lady, by stating "lady better", but what constitutes a lady is never explored, leaving only the prototypical explanation for lady as the only possible interpretation. Finally, he says "they misunderstood, primarily talking about the women in the song. Why can't men be included in this. Why isn't it we misunderstood, signifying society's disillusioned state?  Then he completely butchers it with "I'm killing these bitches", continuing the unfortunate tradition of violence being directed at women who have been determined to be sub-par.

Second, the premise of the song is a young girl and young boy meeting later as young adults. Both go through this disillusionment process as children. But for some reason the girl is the one that is "caught in an illusion", but the boy miraculously was able to pick up what a positive woman is supposed to be. This is an unaware microcosm for the ignorance of this song. Just as Lupe thinks he knows what a woman should be like, this young man also thinks he knows what a woman should be like, with any input being given my woman either being completely discounted or ignored. 

I'm not Detroit and neither are you.

     I don't have course hands, so I won't be laying brick. Yea, I'm a fucking coward and a weakling at that. Instead I have an imaginary pedestal, hoping that some ignorant soul stumbles upon my site and reads about the minority's plight through the eyes of a sheltered college student. I am not good enough to be their speakerphone, yet I find myself cringing with every "well intentioned" white girl who wants to announce to the world how amazing Detroit is going to be once gentrification has taken it's full course. Of course they won't be the ones laying the brick for that either. And when I step back I realize how foolish this entire engagement is. Two people, far removed from the very community and people we claim to be advocating for, are indirectly clashing over who has true agency. Neither of us has agency. So I guess if we're going to call me a fraud, then we'll call both of us frauds and I'm ok with that.
    Instead I want to hear from my friend Samantha, who has been laying brick since she stepped on this campus. Why not have her write an opinion piece where she talks about the people of Detroit? I don't even know why I ask stupid questions. There is no answer to that question that makes anyone happy. So we'll keep it unanswered and as long as there's a bone thrown every now and then, our newspaper can continue to uphold the Michigan facade of diversity. And just to be clear it has everything to do with race.
   We can toss the blame on minorities. Perhaps they have no journalistic drive or interest. A theory I hold is that the journalistic space has always been printed in white and black and minorities don't easily fit within normative culture. We are forced to take rigid spaces and creatively conform to them, while maintaining our out of bent message. Clearly what is produced is akin to watered down soda (or pop), so no one wants to read our writing. Once in awhile, if the stars align and several blue moons and double rainbows fill the sky, a minority is given a soapbox, while a non minority audience gathers around to be moved by a pathetic appeal. If logic and scathing criticism is given, then expect them to be labeled deranged and bitter (as I expect many of you will think of me after this).
   Still, the fact remains that Detroit, New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Dallas, Flint, etc are never talked about by their true inhabitants. This is especially true of New York, where you'd have a higher likelihood of finding someone like me rather than a typical New York Michigan student, among a random sample of New York City youth. Does that mean we need to get into a shouting match of the true New York experience? Probably not, but the fact remains that the experience a majority of people live through is kept silent, while I read article after article (and this isn't only in our Newspaper) written from the perspective of a one percenter's offspring (or at least someone trying to be). I'm sick of it.
    Ignore me please. Ignore her please. Listen to the people of the city. Let them decide whether they're city moves them. Make them the builders and the architects. And please ignore the prattle given by us.
    

A higher purpose

        I can't give you an adequate break down of the pros and cons of a strike on Syria. While I know a lot, I am not well versed in the military, political and economic factors that go into making a fully informed decision. So what I can only talk about is the moral implications of a strike (or refusing to strike) as I see them. The Geneva protocol is a protocol that finds its roots in the Hague conventions, which was one of the first modern day attempts at brokering peace and setting limitations for war. One of these limitations is a strict prohibition of projectile objects being used as weapons for the purpose of suffocation (i.e. chemical weapons). This was passed in 1899, 114 years ago. The Geneva conventions adopted it as protocol and the general assembly has passed several resolutions reaffirming the United Nations commitment to this particular piece of doctrine. In other words, most of the world is in pretty much agreement that chemical warfare is simply unacceptable and inhumane. Yet Assad has been allowed to amass large amounts of chemical weaponry and use said weapons on his own people. This is unacceptable.
        I don't know what the United States is going to do, but the world needs to respond to this travesty. If the United States is the only responder, then shame on the world for not responding. As humans, chemical weaponry should be taboo. If we idly look the other way as these weapons are used right in front of our faces, then why do we even have a Geneva protocol? Why do we have any sort of international code, if it can be nonchalantly broken with no expected penalty? This is possibly one of the most clear cut decisions out there. Either we are a country and a world of ideals or we aren't. If we find ourselves in the former group then we must strike. If we find ourselves in the latter, then a strike isn't in our future.
     We need to strike for our ideals. Have there been chemical attacks where the world has looked the other way, yes I'm sure there has been. But this is different. We can watch people dying on video from these weapons. We aren't just looking the other way with blissful ignorance. We are abandoning what has been considered a moral standard all around the world. So please, don't talk to me about petty politics of this "being another Iraq" or "none of our business" because it is our business. It's everyone's business. And the entire world should be doing something about it. Unfortunately America and France seem to be the only two countries at the vanguard of our humanity.