Friday, November 4, 2011

RIP Rudolph Byrd

Pardon me for being a little late with this, as I've been struggling to keep my head above (grading) water, but I'd be remiss if I didn't post a short note in honor of great Emory University professor, Rudolph Byrd, who died two weeks ago.

Here's an excerpt from his obituary in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Mr. Byrd, an Emory professor for two decades, died Friday at Emory University Hospital after a long-running fight with cancer. He was 58.

He had just finished writing a series of lectures about race and sexuality to be presented at Harvard University. He was writing a biography of author Ernest Gaines, developing a monograph of the early novels of Alice Walker and collaborating with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. on an anthology of African-American poetry.

You can read the rest of his AJC obit here as well as an additional obituary and slide show (the latter put together by my father) here.

I'll leave you with this:

In his moving and powerful essay, "On Becoming a Feminist," Byrd writes,
My commitment to feminism thus began with resistance to the abuse of women. When I ordered my father at knife point to leave our home, asserting “Get out and leave my mother alone,” I was uttering one of the oldest sentences in the world. Other boys had said such things to their fathers. I did not want my father out of our lives because I loved him and needed his protection and guidance; what I wanted out of our lives was the violence. As I would come to realize, it was in that moment that my commitment to gender equality crystallized. Such a commitment placed me, inevitably, in opposition to my father, who held—like many men of his class and generation—deeply flawed, patriarchal views of family and society. Views that he wrongly thought entitled him to abuse, physically and psychologically, my mother and doubtless other women.

[...]

My mother also reared me with a deep sense of egalitarianism. I regarded my siblings as equals in all things while I also fully acknowledged their complexity as individuals. Moving from boyhood to manhood, I valued the insight this rearing produced, especially in relationship to my two sisters who were, like my mother, all women to me. Reconstructing this early period in my life, I understand that my respect for women began with my respect for my mother—an abiding respect born of her feminist consciousness.

I believe that I would have resisted this vital principle, like other men, had it not been for my mother’s instructive, inspiring example and also for my ability to transfer and apply knowledge from the domestic sphere to the public sphere. Always the questions were these: Even though they are strangers, why would you treat women beyond your kinship group any differently from your mother and sisters? Even though they are strangers, why would you not wish these women to have what you wish for your mother and sisters: a life free of male domination and violence? Then and now, I understood that these questions bore the imprint of my mother’s hand, that is, the imprint of her feminist consciousness. And while she did not call herself a feminist, she understood, like all feminists, that the personal is political. For me, this is an insight, born, in part, of family life.

If only more people--men and women--remembered these simple principles about egalitarianism and basic humanity. RIP.

Read Full Post/Permalink...

Friday, October 14, 2011

The Personal and The Political: Feminism on The Good Wife

The online forum In Media Res holds weekly themed discussions between academics, independent scholars and other interested parties on a wide range of topics dealing with popular culture, film, television, and the media. This week, IMR's topic is CBS's television show The Good Wife and yours truly contributed a post about feminism and gender politics on the show ("Between the Political and the Personal: The Lawyer, Her Boss and Their Investigator"), which I conclude with the following questions:
From the beginning of the show, Alicia’s role as Peter Florrick’s wife has been a salable and essential part of her identity as a lawyer, whether she liked it or not. If Alicia is no longer the “good wife,” does that preclude her ability to be a good lawyer? At what point does the political become personal? And, on a deeper level, does the recent scheming and disquietude between Alicia, Kalinda and Diane necessarily evince a “bad” gender politics on the part of the show or can we chalk it all up to episodic television’s compulsive need to disrupt and/or destabilize relationships regardless of gender?

You can read my entire post, as well as access the excellent and insightful posts by other contributors, here.

And here's the Youtube video I made to accompany my post:


Read Full Post/Permalink...

Friday, October 7, 2011

Monday, September 26, 2011

Person of (Dis)Interest

Check out my review of the pilot for the new CBS series Person of Interest at the Ms. Magazine blog:
I’m not one to turn down a new crime show. Give me a detective, a forensic team or a vigilante out for the truth and I’m pretty much a happy camper. So I was expecting to enjoy the new CBS procedural “Person of Interest” (premiering tonight at 9/8 central), particularly since it’s the brainchild of “Lost” producer J.J. Abrams and Dark Knight/Memento screenwriter Jonathan Nolan. Unfortunately, after watching the pilot I’m feeling robbed–and not in the good way that’s followed by philosophical one-liners from street-hardened detectives.

First off, what could have been an interesting meditation on surveillance culture suffers from heavy-handedness and an out-there premise. The show hits viewers over the head with dozens of clips of gritty security camera footage, allusions to September 11, and images of cameras peering menacingly with their glowing viewfinders, like 2001‘s Hal, from every lamppost and stoplight. Instead of a subtle questioning of our Big Brother society, which might be interesting, the show goes with a convoluted sci-fi premise: A computer program gathers information from all this surveillance and predicts which members of the public will be involved in a crime. Yet this sophisticated program cannot tell whether they will be victims or perpetrators, or where, what, when and how the crime will occur, giving our team of human protagonists their mission–to figure it all out and stop the crimes before they are committed. As a premise this makes about as much sense as that 2008 Angelina Jolie film Wanted, in which a band of weaver-assassins receive instructions about who to kill from a mysterious loom.

You can read the rest here.

Read Full Post/Permalink...

Monday, September 19, 2011

Jane Lynch and the Emmys

I didn't have a chance to watch the Emmys last night because I'm trying to finish a stack of grading, but I thoroughly enjoyed Jane Lynch's opening number when I saw it floating around the internets this morning:



I especially love the Big Band Theory skit and Lynch flirting with Peggy in the Mad Men office.

Read Full Post/Permalink...

Sunday, August 14, 2011

On generational tensions and the third wave

I know this blog is called "Fourth Wave Feminism" and, as such, I should probably be claiming some sort of transition away from third wave ideologies and into a hypothetical fourth wave. The problem, of course, is that even after writing this blog for three years, I'm still not quite sure what the fourth wave might look like. That said, I do have some ideas, most of them revolving around a reapplication of feminism for the future while not denying or forgetting its past, which leads me to my reason for posting today...

Yesterday, my good friend L. sent me an article from The Huffington Post. She was curious about my opinion, she said, and, after I'd read the article and devoted an unnecessary amount of Facebook wall space to typing out a response, I decided I might as well turn my response into a blog post, as it so typified the kind of debate that I often see in generational disputes over feminism's relevance, efficacy and enactment.

The article in question is written by filmmaker Dawn Porter, with whose work, I'll be honest, I am not terribly familiar. For the purposes of the case she's making and my reaction, however, knowing her work isn't essential. My response is to her article, not her work (although now I'm curious and will make an effort to track some of it down). Porter's article is intriguingly entitled "Women Like Me are not Like Women Like You, Does That Have to Make us Enemies?" and in it she discusses the negative response she received from an unnamed, presumably older, feminist journalist regarding her latest film Dawn Gets Naked in which, you guessed it, the filmmaker gets naked. According to Porter, her film chronicles women's body image issues in today's society, specifically "challeng[ing] the media's idea of perfection and the pressure that it puts on women."

Porter expresses frustration that her unnamed critic "drew the conclusion that [Porter] presumed that feminism is just about getting your tits out" and "didn't like it one bit." She goes on to argue that feminism can mean a lot of things to different women and, essentially, that's it nobody's business if she chooses to trim her pubic hair, wear stiletto heels, and still call herself a feminist.

I wholeheartedly agree. She points to some of the same problems in the ongoing clash/debate/tension between feminist generations. Obviously, you can't expect a movement or an ideology not to shift as time passes, and for people not to enact its principles differently. (For further reading, Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards' book Manifesta addresses these generational dynamics really well.)

But...

I do take serious issue with one thing Porter says (although its worth noting that maybe she doesn't mean it the way it sounds or she wasn't really thinking what it could mean when she wrote it). Towards the end, she writes, "But I do think that as feminism is having a golden moment and there is a chance it might really go somewhere this time, women who want to attack others should pick their arguments more carefully." The latter part is all fine and good. Nudity in a documentary that purports an interest in building self-esteem and interrogating media representations of body image does seem like a rather silly thing to get worked up over vis-a-vis feminism.

So here's me picking my argument carefully: it sounds an awful lot like Porter's saying that feminism hasn't gone anywhere in the past, or anywhere worthwhile, which is a really reductive and naive thing to say (and is precisely what some older/second wave feminists find so disconcerting about the third wave: the elision of history). To suggest that all the advances that women made in the 1960s and 1970s were not worth anything, that feminism didn't go anywhere, is pretty insulting. Perhaps what she means to say is that feminism isn't over, that there are still things left to be done, which would make a lot more sense and, in my opinion, is very true. If that's what she meant to say, it doesn't come across. How about choosing your words carefully?

If Porter does indeed mean to say that feminism hasn't done anything worthwhile yet or ever, I'm not even sure how to respond to that, considering her ability to even make a documentary in which she and other women ride around London in a double-decker bus nude has a lot to do with previous generations of feminists and what they've done for gender equality.

I hope she misspoke, I really do. Although I was deeply disturbed to look in the comments and see that Porter seemingly agreed with one commenter who wrote, "You have equal rights. Now get over yourselves­. Feminism is really now just about narcissism­: debating the finer points of Brazilian waxing, SlutWalk exhibition­ism for Facebook photos, or academic navel-gazi­ng about one's unused ovaries" (unsurprisingly, this commenter's moniker is "Men's Rights Videos"). Yes, women have more rights now than they ever have, especially in so-called first world countries. But, do we have equal rights? No, not by a long shot.

Should women be able to wax their pubic hair, wear high heels, take joy in their nudity and bodies, be super feminine and still call themselves feminists?

Absolutely.

Should older feminists accept that the younger generation might do things a little differently than they did but that doesn't make them any less feminist?

Again, absolutely.

But does that mean that third wavers or fourth wavers or whatever feminists want to call themselves these days should forget that there were women who came before them who had to fight and yell and break all the rules in order to help build the relative equality (in some areas, but still not all) we enjoy today?

No. No. No. Absolutely not.

Read Full Post/Permalink...

Monday, July 18, 2011

World Cup 2011 -- Women's Soccer

I'm not much of a viewer of sports, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching last night's World Cup finale between the US and Japan. Even though the sight of Hope Solo's sad little face afterward was kind of heartbreaking, I was happy the Japanese team won. Not only have they never won or even made it to the quarterfinals before--so what a milestone for them!--but they also really earned it. And, as the German sportscasters kept saying after the game (I'm in Germany right now), what it really came down to was that the Japanese team had better nerves; they simply didn't break under pressure like the American team did during the penalty kicks.

All that said, I was also pleased to see that all the people I've been around seemed pretty much as interested in women's soccer as they were in men's soccer in previous years I've been overseas. Of course, Germany got knocked out of the running several games ago, so people weren't quite as fanatical as I've seen them when Germany's made it to the finals.

In a similar vein, my father just sent me three interesting articles about women's soccer, two of which are German. I've provided brief summary/translations below.

The first, from the NY Times discusses the stigma surrounding homosexuality on the Nigerian women's soccer team.

The second, from the German Bild.de takes a more positive spin on lesbian soccer players by profiling Germany's goalie, Ursuala Holl, who is one of the few openly gay soccer plays on a national team and just married her partner last year. Holl discusses how open and accepting all of her teammates, coaches and fans have been. But, she adds, there's still a stigma around homosexuality in the sport--especially for gay male soccer players--so she wouldn't necessarily advise others to come out since it's more of a personal matter. Still, she's happy hasn't had any negative responses to her coming out or her marriage.

The last of the three articles, also in German and from Die Zeit reports on the rampant sexual abuse and harassment in Nigerian women's soccer. The article considers the fact that most female players and many others will admit that trainers and coaches often ask for sexual favors or require that players sleep with them in order to get a chance of making it on the team, but, do to the fear of retribution and the very real possibility that they would lose their jobs, no one is willing to speak out or against the abusers.

Just some food for thought as we wrap up the latest World Cup cycle...

Read Full Post/Permalink...