It's so simple

I saw this on Facebook yesterday, posted by The Asian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW). I'm not sure why their post popped up on my feed. Probably one of my friends "liked" the picture. But it really made me think.

What's wrong with reminding men that the women they treat so badly are the same (fundamentally) as the women they love? If you'd kill the guy who raped your sister, surely that's a good reason not to rape someone else's sister. 

But it's not a feminist reason. 

The reason you shouldn't rape a woman is because she's a human being, deserving of respect and autonomy just because she's a human being. The reason women should make decisions about abortions, rather than government, is that women are adults. They are capable of making rational decisions based on information that is unique to a situation--and the circumstances surrounding an abortion are always unique--and living with the consequences of that decision. The reason women should get equal pay for equal work is that they are human beings, just like men.

Defining women relationally is just another way of removing their humanity: women should be treated with respect only because of their relationships to men. 

It's not okay. 

Treat people the way you want to be treated. All people. Children, the elderly, people with disabilities, LGBT people: everybody. It's the basis for every religion going, although many religions later define it away.  It's not complicated. Sometimes it's hard, but it's not complicated. Treat people the way you want to be treated.

Feminists

My grandmother was friends with a mayor. A mayor! A LADY mayor, too.

Nana was so pleased that her friend was reinstated for the day so that she could officiate at her son's wedding. She told me all about it.

The whole time, I was thinking, "There are lady mayors who are Nana's age?!" First, I had to understand that mayors can officiate at weddings. Who knew? But I found it completely amazing that Nana was friends with the mayor of a nearby town.

She was a great mayor, too. As it happens, I now live in the town of which she was formerly mayor. When I go to the Town Hall, I pass a courtroom named after her. They're planting a tree in her memory this weekend. And when we first moved here, when she was still alive, every Democrat in town sought her endorsement.

And she was friends with MY Nana.

See, my Nana was a quiet lady. She was, in fact, a librarian. That's how quiet she was. But she was also that smart. Usually, I think of her and her generation as old-fashioned. After all, they were the parents of the Baby Boomers. They defined the Generation Gap. But the women my Nana chose as friends were all smart. Many of them (including my Nana) had careers. And many of them were active Feminists. (After all, Betty Freidan was only a few years younger than my Nana.)

I love to hear about the Vassar alumnae who went out and faced the world, breaking down gender barriers as they went. But I forget about the women closer to home--the Teachers and Librarians and scientists and businesswomen who faced down sexism to reach their goals.

I'm proud of my Nana and her friends.

She's not heavy, and neither is he

I'm still thinking about The Hunger Games, I'm afraid. I'm remembering a controversy last year because some people said that Jennifer Lawrence was "too fat" to play Katniss. They used the wrong word, and they deserved the punishment they got from everyone with a brain.

What Lawrence is is too healthy-looking to play Katniss. And so are her male co-stars.

Suggesting that Lawrence is in any way fat is ridiculous. She isn't. But in the book, when the Hunger Games conclude, Katniss's desperation is palpable. While Cato is dying, Katniss is suffering from hunger, from thirst, from exhaustion. Peeta is also injured and has been sick--although he received medication, he has not had time to recover fully. Neither has bathed since arriving in the arena. Neither has slept properly since leaving District 12. 

And yet, the film depicts both with perfect skin, clean hair, and the ability to stand erect while waiting for the hover planes to get them. 

Given that the books are about suffering, it seems a poor directorial choice to cast beautiful, healthy and strong young people in the three pivotal parts (Katniss, Peeta and Gayle.) All three are meant to be attractive, of course. But all three are also deprived from a life of living in a depressed District. (Peeta less so because his parents are merchants, but still.) Katniss and Gayle hunt squirrels for sustenance and we're meant to believe that they needed to put their names into the Hunger Games lottery extra times in order to survive. Based on the movie, I don't buy it.

I suspect the movie's producers were just cowardly. They wanted to make a movie trilogy from a popular book trilogy, but they were afraid that if they made their stars look hungry, tired, injured and desperate, they would no longer be sex symbols. After all, a woman (especially a young, beautiful woman) can't be expected to appear on screen with less than perfect hair, can she? Never mind that she's been running from fire, struggling with bees, wrestling with knife-wealding enemies and saving Peeta's life--the important thing is that her hair is perfect! And, lest we accuse them of sexism when their real crime is image-ism, let's not forget that Peeta managed to remove every trace of mud and dirt from his body after painting himself in fully detailed camouflage. 

It seems there was a whole lot of shallowness and stupidity involved here. But that doesn't excuse calling a healthy girl fat. 

Introversion in The Hunger Games

There has been a lot of media attention paid to introverts lately, mostly stemming (I believe) from Susan Cain's book Quiet, which I have not yet read. I did, however, listen to Cain's book talk at Poetry and Prose and I found it very interesting. There was also this discussion at Slate.com about introverted heroines in media which mentioned a few great examples, but did not include any mention of Katniss Everdeen, the heroine of The Hunger Games trilogy. I think that was a significant omission.

I've written about The Hunger Games before on my previous blog. You can read those posts here and here. Those posts were inspired when I read the books last year. But this weekend, Hopper and I finally watched the movie, and that got me thinking again.

Katniss is an introvert: she spends hours by herself or with one friend (Gale) in the woods, hunting. Her only close relationships are with Gale (with whom she is reserved) and her sister. And she describes herself as having difficulty making friends. But she's not the only introvert in the series: Peeta, Gale, Haymitch, Roo and Cinna can all be described as introverts, too. All of the politicians and of course the TV personalities in the Capitol are extroverts.

So in The Hunger Games, the "good guys" are all introverts and the "bad guys" are all extroverts. In the Capitol, they try to make Peeta and Katniss into extroverts. Peeta succeeds, to some extent, because he loves Katniss so much he is willing to go outside his nature to play the game, yet he expresses concern about losing himself in the process, and we only see the real Peeta when he is alone with Katniss or Haymitch. Katniss, of course, does best when she is alone in the woods, and never becomes the spokeswoman or politician that her handlers would like her to be.

In part, this reticence is seen as negative--Katniss refuses to understand how the game is played and gets what she needs (medicine, soup for Peeta) when she does play along. In some ways, Katniss is seen as petulant. But in the end, Katniss wins because she is smart, stealthy and resourceful. She exploits one-on-one relationships with Roo and Peeta, but does not betray either friend. She uses skills that she honed over years of individual practice. And she is always, always, true to herself. All of these are strengths that most introverts share, and they are celebrated in The Hunger Games.

Conversely, working well with groups, the ability to rally a crowd, politics, following directions and group strategizing are all seen as negatives. These are strengths of extraverts, but they are not celebrated in The Hunger Games.

I think it's true, generally, that introverts are under-represented in media. I suspect that's because unless you select them by lottery and force them into an arena, introverts don't tend to do things that are interesting to watch. Would you want to watch the movie where Katniss practices her shooting every day for ten years? But if we want to encourage introverts to use their strengths, it's something to think about, and I'm glad the issue is in the public discourse.

Maybe they'll make a movie about me learning to knit!

Sexism in the Twenty-Fourth Century

Hopper and I are still working our way through Star Trek: The Next Generation and we're now on Season 4. I'm bothered by a pattern that may be emerging.

I realize that these episodes were written and filmed over 20 years ago, but there's a kind of sexism in them that makes me particularly uncomfortable in some of Commander Riker's story lines.

Riker is, of course, known as a bit of a man-about-galaxy, but in two season four episodes he is taken advantage of in disturbing ways. First, in "First Contact," he is taken prisoner on a planet that is just developing interstellar space capability. He needs to escape from the hospital where he is being held prisoner while he recovers from some injuries. A hospital employee (I can't remember her function, if it was explained on the show) played by Bebe Neuwirth says that she will help him escape, but only if he has sex with her, because she's always fantasized about making love with an alien. Riker demurs, makes excuses, and finally succumbs.

This is rape. If you're unsure of my assertion, imagine the scenario with the roles reversed: an attractive woman is held prisoner, and one of her captors offers to help her escape provided she has sex with him first. Riker was raped.

Later, in an episode called "The Host," Dr. Crusher falls in love with an ambassador who is traveling on the Enterprise. The ambassador is seriously wounded while attempting to settle a local dispute, and when Dr. Crusher tries to save him, he informs her that the body she is trying to heal is only his host. He is in fact a parasitic being that lives inside the hose. He instructs Dr. Crusher to save the parasite and request a new host from his planet. She does this, but the parasitic being cannot survive on its own long enough for the host to arrive, so Riker volunteers to be a temporary host.

Once the parasite is implanted, the ambassador appears to take complete control of Riker's body and mind. Dr. Crusher is understandably confused by all this, but eventually realizes that this is, in fact, the man she loves and she goes to see him and spends the night with him.

This is a teeny bit less clear from an ethical perspective, because it's unclear to what extent Riker is aware of what's going on while his body is occupied by another sentient being. What is clear, however, is that he did not consent to sex with Dr. Crusher.

Raped again? Well, he certainly was beyond consent when his mind was co-opted by another being, whether or not he remembers it. What's unclear to me is whether Beverly raped him or the ambassador did. Or maybe they both did.

Again, reverse the roles: imagine Beverly's mind is taken over by another being and that being uses her body, without her consent, to have sex with Riker.

Makes you uncomfortable, doesn't it?

I'm not sure these episodes could or would be made today, but why did we ever think this was okay to do to a man? Is it because it's Riker, and we know he's kind of a slut? I think it might be. It's a combination of the idea that men always want sex and the idea that a slut can't be raped. And these ideas are completely validated by the show--Riker shows no difficulty with either scenario (although it's unclear whether he's even aware of the second one.) Even I said to Hopper, when Riker volunteered to be the host to the ambassador, "Does this mean Riker gets to do it with Beverly?" And I'm sure that was the thought process of many.

After all, Riker does it with everyone.

I hope we've come beyond this as a society. I hope we understand now that no matter what someone's sex life is like, or what gender they are, a person shouldn't be forced into sex against his will. Ever.

I wonder how Jonathan Frakes feels about it.