Context is Everything

I have a confession to make. Despite the fact that Donald Trump is a terrible businessman, a ridiculous politician, and just not a good person… I have been addicted to The Celebrity Apprentice this season. The Next Great Restaurant (and my enduring love of terrible reality television) already had me watching NBC on Sunday nights and, before I knew it, I was tuning in to the Celebrity Apprentice each week too. It’s a terrible show that rarely makes sense (why was tonight’s episode three hours long?!) but I enjoy the mental vacation it allows me to take so I continue to watch week after week.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, I have a few things to say about tonight’s episode.

After losing their challenge this week Star Jones, Marlee Matlin, and Meatloaf were sent outside so that Trump could consult with his two advisers. While outside, Meatloaf and Star continued the argument they had been having in the boardroom. When addressing Star during this conversation (which was not friendly or positive in any way) Meatloaf called Star Jones sweetie. I immediately cringed when this happened, and I am so happy to say that T did as well, because we both recognized how condescending this interaction was.

Upon watching this my mind immediatley jumped back in time, to the job that I was working two summers ago. One day a Professor came in and needed help using the stapler, so I showed him how to do it. He most likely felt embarrassed that he needed help using the stapler, because once he was done he made sure to throw a big, “Thanks sweetheart!” in there. Now, I know this is one of those scenarios where I’m going to have people coming out of the woodwork to call me an angry, humorless feminist for being annoyed by this… but I was. In that context, with the tone that was used, sweetheart felt like a tiny reminder that I was still somehow beneath him. Even though I had just taught him how to use the stapler.

Maybe if I had known this man I would have felt differently.

Maybe if our interaction hadn’t been one that threatened his authority (just a little bit) by making him look silly, I would have felt differently.

Maybe if there were any kind of equivalent to this type of comment that men regularly deal with, I would have felt differently.

But as this situation stands, I was left (just a little bit) annoyed, feeling like I had witnessed another (tiny) instance of sexism that plays into the web of  (just slightly) frustrating events that build and build and build into the brick wall that is oppression.

The scenario on the Celebrity Apprentice was much less ambiguous than mine. Honey, sweetie, dear, darling… these terms of endearment are all lovely when used properly, in the right context. An argument, however? That is not the context. Meatloaf knew this, on some level, because in an argument when someone calls you sweetie the implication is calm down you silly sweet thing, you’re getting all riled up for nothing. Isn’t it?

A random tweet on the episode: Star Jones wanna get mad at Meatloaf calling her “sweetie” but they done called you “fat”, “turkey neck”, and “payless queen” before?

Clearly, the way to render feminism obsolete is to take the glass ceiling down and use it to replace all doors with automatically opening glass doors!

To me, honestly, sweetie is the most frustrating out of all of these. Why? Because other people will acknowledge that being called fat, or turkey neck, or payless queen is insulting. Getting people to acknowledge  that referring to you by a term of endearment when you are not close, and not happy with one another in that moment is not okay is a very difficult task, as we saw in this week’s board room. Trump layed into Star for being frustrated by this exchange, but still she stood her ground and ultimately got fired (for other reasons).

I feel the same way about the persistent door opening trope. If you’re opening the door for me because you got there first, or I was carrying something big and you’d like to be courteous… that’s awesome! Despite what you’ve been told about angry feminists, I am not going to get mad at you for helping me out regardless of your sex/gender identity. What frustrates me is the assumption that men must open doors, carry things, pay, etc. for women because women are the weaker sex and men are the providers.

Read This Now: Transmisogyny is Misogyny Against All Women

This post over at Transgression is simply amazing.

Need some proof before you click? Check out an excerpt:

If you hate, dislike, or mistrust trans women, you’re misogynistic. Trans women are included in the big ol’ group known as women. Want proof? Well look at their name, silly. We call ‘em trans women, not trans chia pets, not trans beach towels, not trans schmeggeggies. Remember high school algebra? Oh hush, yes you do. Let me remind you of this lovely little mathematical rule:

If a=b and b=c, then a=c

If trans women= women and hating, disliking, or mistrusting women= misogyny then…then what? Solve for c.

Ok technically that would be trans women= misogyny but you know perfectly well what I mean and I hate that you even questioned my math.

But I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “But Gus, I think trans women=/= women so therefore it’s totally not misogynistic to hate, dislike, or mistrust trans women.” And I understand that. Really, I do. But here’s the thing. Now listen carefully, my little chickadee, cuz I’m about to blow your mind.

You’re wrong.

Not only are you wrong, but even thinking that silly, silly, thing is unbelievably, incredibly, fantastically MISOGYNISTIC. And it offends me as a woman. Yes, yes it does. And here’s why.

Now, go read the whole thing!

Its His Party & He’ll Cry if He Wants To…

As an avid crier myself, I think its time for me to take on the Boehner crying thing. I’ve been trying to ignore this issue for awhile, because it honestly just strikes a bit too close to home, but after a recent episode of the Daily Show managed to stretch the Speaker of the House’s tears into about ten minutes of jokes… I felt as if I had to speak up. This whole situation reminds me of the time that someone told me they were against Palin running for Vice President because she should be home caring for her children. There are so many GOOD reasons to be against her running, and you choose that one? Was my response. Allow me to troth that argument out again: There are so many GOOD reasons to question Boehner, why are focusing on the fact that he tends to cry?

If a female politician cries she gets mocked and her credibility gets questioned because her tears are seen as a sign of feminine weakness, indicating an inability to handle the tough world of politics (then again, sometimes if she DOESN’T cry, its seen as a sign that she is a “bitch.”) If a male politician cries he (sometimes) gets a pass if the situation holds enough gravity, and his tears are stoic enough… but not if he cries as often as Boehner has. Basically, crying in politics is really complicated and not often something a politician can do without criticism. But, why?

In a recently published study at Penn State, researchers sought to explore differing perceptions of crying in men and women, presenting their 284 subjects with a series of hypothetical vignettes.

Reactions depended on the type of crying, and who was doing it. A moist eye was viewed much more positively than open crying, and males got the most positive responses.

“Women are not making it up when they say they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t,” said Stephanie Shields, the psychology professor who conducted the study. “If you don’t express any emotion, you’re seen as not human, like Mr. Spock on ‘Star Trek,’ ” she said. “But too much crying, or the wrong kind, and you’re labeled as overemotional, out of control and possibly irrational.” […]

For a little historical perspective, says Lutz, author of “Crying: The Natural and Cultural History of Tears,” it’s helpful to look back to the 19th century, when skillful politicians like Abraham Lincoln used tears as a natural part of their oratory.

The tide later shifted against male crying, but in the past 30 to 40 years male crying has gained in acceptability. “Every president since Ronald Reagan has used tears at some point,” says Shields, the Penn State psychologist. [Source]

I don’t love Boehner for many reasons. Off the top of my head: I feel he is hypocritical, he is against legislation that would prohibit job-discrimination based on sexual orientation , he is anti-choice when it comes to reproductive rights, and I find the need for a GIANT gavel just silly. (That last one was a joke!)  However, the fact that he sometimes engages in a perfectly natural bodily function just doesn’t strike me as a valid reason to dislike him.

When I’m trying to give an important presentation, or trying to talk in front of a group, or whatever and I start crying it happens because I can’t help it. I could be wrong, but I am fairly certain Boehner would rather get through his interviews without invoking the mockery that comes along with crying, so he’s probably like me.  The best thing that I, personally, have started to do in these situations is to simply assure the people around me that I am fine, my body just doesn’t seem to realize that and request that they simply ignore my tears. I am lucky that I am typically surrounded by people open-minded enough to see past my body’s involuntary reaction and listen to what I am saying. The more directly  I address the tears, the  less crying I actually do because suddenly I have gone from thinking don’t cry, don’t cry (does that ever work?) to not thinking about the tears at all.

Now, Boehner’s tears could be a total strategy (though I’m pretty sure he is capable of coming up with something more effective than that as a political strategy) but its just as likely that they are something he has serious trouble controlling, like I do.

Do his tears alter the quality of his ideas and words? Nope.

Do they change his political viewpoints? Nope.

Do they effect his ability to do his job?  Only as much as we let them, by blowing his tears out of proportion and making mean jokes.

Successfully Confronting Privilege – Is It Even Possible?

I feel intellectually paralyzed today,  unable to write. Part of it is the ongoing coverage of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani [the link has information and a petition you can sign!] an Iranian woman facing death because she was accused of having an affair. Part of it is the new Time Magazine cover everyone on the blogs that I read is talking about. I want to write about what’s going on, obviously, because these are human rights issues that demand attention… but I honestly don’t know where to begin. As someone who has never lived in a society like that in Iran or Afghanistan, how can I even begin to speak about it? I’m not qualified. All I can do is read and hope that things get better; and by better I mean better based on what the women in these countries want, not necessarily based on Western standards and ideas of liberation.

Closer to home, part of my paralysis is the weight of the discussion that I participated in yesterday (mostly as a listener) at a Diversity Panel  at my college. As person after person brought up the challenges that they have faced as people of color or members of the queer community I felt my mind being blown over and over again. At first I was compelled to speak out, to make it known that although many white students at the school are clearly ignorant or just downright hateful, we were not all like that, I’m not like that… that instinct lingered for a few moments as I forced myself to remember, as I have many times,  this isn’t about me. The discomfort I was feeling was a tiny thing compared to the discomfort that many of my peers, sitting in this circle with me, face on a daily basis. My discomfort was voluntary, a result of confronting my privilege; their discomfort was not a choice, but rater a function of the same privilege that has allowed me to be ignorant for so long.

Basically: it was time to shut up and listen and learn just a small bit of what the classrooms we share look and feel like for some of my fellow classmates. I don’t know exactly what to do with this new knowledge just yet, but for now it’s enough to hold it and let it continue to create that discomfort in me so that I am constantly reminded that SOMETHING has to be done, so that I can’t just back down and hide yet again.

Finally, on a personal level, part of the paralysis stems from the silencing nature of fear; the fear of saying something wrong, something unintentionally offensive, something that makes me look stupid. Still, letting that fear silence me means letting my ignorance win and never growing, so I’ll write and talk and try to learn something.

I have confronted privilege before, but not very well. Sometimes I creep up on it, and talk a good game for awhile… but always I feel as if I am left standing there, unable to move, because what comes next after calling it out? Too often I feel as if I try to gloss over this issue and ignore it because I hate the way in which my privilege effects my activism, I hide from it rather than calling it to the center of my mind because being forced to stare it down leaves me confused and useless.