Skip to content

She’s Accomplished, But Is She Hot?

This article by Peter Howell should not be evoking any type of strong emotions; it should be a movie fluff piece.  But cripes!  It makes me want to throw up.

What the article is theoretically about:  Kathryn Bigelow, nominated director of the nominated Best Picture winner of the Best Director award for the Best Picture, The Hurt Locker, wants to be recognized as director, not a “female director”.

What it becomes is a whirlpool of sexism as Howell decides to comment on how attractive she is and how, hey, isn’t she James Cameron’s ex? Basically buying into every trope that Bigelow is probably trying to avoid by asking to be respected for her talents as a director and not what her reproductive organs happen to be.

It is so damn frustrating!  Here is an article, supposedly about Bigelow’s talent and her want for respect, but we can’t cover that until we talk about how purty she is, can we?  Or comments about her “girlish laugh”.

This has to be the most interesting part however:

She has no desire to be the poster girl for female empowerment, even though – and perhaps because – she came of age in the 1970s, when shouting such achievements from the rooftops was de rigueur.

I think Howell is confusing the 70’s equality movement with the 90’s Spice Girl albums.  I’m sure Bigelow shies away from being associated with uteruses because of the big scary feminists of the 70’s. (*GASP* They might have hairy legs!) Or if one bothered to look beyond the bra burning, one might realize that Bigelow’s request to not be judged by her gender is and has been the same request feminists have been making for decades.

Thankfully Bigelow bears this out in the very next paragraph.

“I wish there were more women (who direct films). But to me, it’s like talking about `a woman mathematician’ or `a woman astrophysicist.’ We don’t refer to them that way. And we don’t say, `Oh, I’m going to be interviewed by a male journalist today.’

Unfortunately I can think of many ways of how those professions may be warped to show women as an oddity, but her point still stands. Referring to gender in a job description only serves to try to demonstrate how an individual deviates from the norm.  It can be used against men as well, the “male nurse” is an ever popular example, but it is overwhelmingly used against women.

How can we possibly have equality if a woman cannot hold a title without her gender being a prefix?  Or commenting on how well she has aged before her professional accomplishments?

Posted in perception.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By hypatia – March 8, 2010


Misogynist Females

Reading the Metro on Thursday I discovered that Barbara Kay is at it again.

Candice Leung of her column “Fourth Wave” in the Metro went for the high road in confronting Kay’s assertions that feminists are man haters and that we women now apparently rule the world, crushing testicles under our spike heels.

Unlike Ms. Leung however, I don’t have an editor.

Barbara is the 80 year old grandmother who clutches her pearls over anything other than missionary, in the dark, under the covers.  She’s the one who makes you uncomfortable when she states that Martin Luther King Jr. was a well behaved “darkie”.  Think the grandmother in “The Wedding Crashers”, the one who refers to Eleanor Roosevelt as a “big dyke”.

On to the quotes!

And if there is any nook or cranny in this nation where equality of opportunity is not available to women, I would welcome the enlightenment and be the first to insist that be rectified

Well Kay, let’s start with the newspaper you work for!  The National Post has 42 listed columnists.  Take a guess how many women are among those columnists?  Less than 20%, only seven columnist are female.  Of course one of those is Lynda Reeves, so its all about colour coordinating and, you know, girl stuff.  Personally I find it hard to believe that the Post just somehow only sees 1 qualified female for every 4 qualified males.  And we are not talking about some kind of field like auto mechanics here, journalism is a field filled with female graduates and most newspapers specifically shoot for a range of columnists from a wide range of fields.

I’m sure Kay would try to weasel her way out of this one claiming women just don’t write well or don’t like sharing their opinions, or something.

Kay then moves on to attack the hiring of people who are educated in their field.

Applicants may not have to sign actual declarations, but anyone applying to teach at a Women’s Studies program had better believe in the ideology of feminism, or they can take a hike.

Mathematics instructors should also “believe” in pi as 3.14, and professors of biology should also “believe” in evolution.  Unfortunately for the boogey monster Kay is trying to create “belief” in feminism is the idea that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.  That probably should not be revolutionary for any professors in the social sciences.  There are many programs that require an “ideology”.  I’m sure there are not many atheists teaching theology or religious studies, minimal anarchists in the government classes, few holocaust deniers giving lectures on WWII in history.

And no, we are not there yet; even if she would like to pretend that we are.  How she can possibly look at a country like Saudi Arabia, where women cannot leave there homes without permission and accompaniment by male family members, and say “Hey, the women have won!” is pretty unfathomable to me.  As long as there is this kind of injustice in the world, feminism is and will be vital for understanding the issues.

[...] most Canadians understand that feminism is not about gender equality, but about affirmative action for girls and women,  at boys’ and men’s expense.

So much vitriol, not much sense.  See, feminism has done far more for men than the “patriarchy” because it a multi-discipline humanitarian movement.  Feminism has had a hand in and been instrumental in providing rights and care for all humanity.  Gay marriage?  Civil rights? Comprehensive health care? Check, check and check.  Transgender rights, rights of the worker, rights of the disabled.  Also all areas heavy with feminist theory, and I could go on.  Feminism has so many ties with so many movements because so often types of discrimination will intersect with each other  It just so happens that these groups also tend to be on the “people we don’t like” list for the conservative minded.

Posted in perception.

Tagged with , .

No comments

By hypatia – February 6, 2010


It Exists Even If You Pretend It Does Not

It is sad when editorial writers so obviously tip their hand.  They try so hard to convince you that they are of the right opinion.  Too often it comes across as bitter lemonade as their hard prejudices are added to the mix.

Within the first paragraph of his scribe against the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Mr. Howard Levitt freely pegs himself as an overly privileged dunce.  He boldly proclaims that discrimination, simply, does not happen.

Prodded by like-minded legislators and courts, these government agencies set their sights on ferreting out now illusory workplace discrimination.

Not that he wants to back that up with facts or anything, he just “knows”.  Unfortunately anyone who has bothered to walk outside of the suburbs, or even actually look at earnings divided by race, gender, and ability knows this to not be true.

He also “knows” that the Human Rights Tribunal doesn’t actually help anyone.  It is simply a witch hunt on the employers of Ontario.  He starts ranting about the Human Rights Legal Support Centre with all the expertise of a two year old on advanced calculus.

With little or no disincentive for employees to proceed, no mechanism to weed out frivolous complaints (…)

Of course if he couldn’t actually be bothered to explain the process to get before the tribunal.  That might just show that individuals cannot just walk into legal proceeding for the heck of it.  There is a two tier process before complainants can bring their case.  Which is exactly why case applications are now made through the Legal Support Centre instead of being filed directly with the tribunal.

Continued…

Posted in controversy, life.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By hypatia – February 1, 2010


Let’s Not Be Daft

With the mainstream finally covering the protests across the country over Stephen Harper’s prorogue of Parliament and the Liberals releasing a new plan to place checks on a Prime Minister’s ability to close the house, political discourse is taking an interesting turn.

Call it the excitement of effecting change, but conversation has shifted from, well basically nothing, to how we can actually make our government work for us; make it better.

And this is the section where I piss all over this lovely concept.

The ebullience is temporary.  Let’s face it, 99.9% of the time, this country is just far too apathetic to change this country for the better.

Let’s bring up the whole election referendum that came up in the Ontario elections a few years ago.  Voters were given a chance to choose: Do we stick with the existing First Past the Post system or do we go for a new Mixed Member Plurality.  It was downright hilarious to watch people try to say that voters “chose” the way they elected people.  To me that means people would actually be able to tell you what they voted for, however if you had asked people on the street to describe the two system the overwhelming majority would have no clue how to respond.  The people didn’t care enough to educate themselves, not that it stopped them from making a check in a random box.*

So I have to laugh when people say “Hey! Let’s reform the senate!”  Especially when they think that a party in power has any kind of interest in reforming the senate.  Of course at the moment this refers to Stephen Harper, who people think will reform the senate while he is busy filling its ranks with Conservative because… he is so good at being honest?  Who knows, but the party does not matter.  It would be a miracle if Senate reform ever came from a ruling party.

*OK not so random. Let’s face it, First Past the Post was listed first and was labeled on ballots as the current system.

Posted in perception.

Tagged with , , , , , .

No comments

By hypatia – January 26, 2010


Thing Called Wantin’ and Havin’ It All

Came across an article from Newsweek about and finding a mate (hetero-normative of course).  Julie Baird, herself is responding to the writing of author Lori Gottlieb, makes the argument that women should not “settle” for the first acceptable man that comes along just because of the fear of “being alone.”

Unfortunately Baird added the kiss of death to her writing by daring to suggest that feminism is actually not responsible for your bad love life.  Let the barrage of unenlightened comments begin.  I mean how can feminism not be blamed.  Crazy bunch of women wanting equality? What man could possible want a wife who is well educated with an income potential not limited by her gender? Ick!

This comment particularly stuck out at me however:

“Meanwhile, it is absolutely true that the dominant rhetoric of feminism demands too much. Raising a family, having a career, and having a social life all at once? No men do this. Why must women try to do it?”

I mean, is it true that no man has simultaneously been able to “bring home the bacon”, father children, and hang out with the guys once in awhile?  Of course not, that has actually been the situation of most males for the entirety of the modern age.  Men have been “havin’ it all” for quite a while now.

So why can’t women?  Well the real reason is not because they are asking for too much as many people would like to believe but the simple fact that they are still fighting against a tide.  Women are still earning less than men, they are still not reaching the top in equal numbers, why?  Social expectations.

When a man wants a family and a career, they are applauded, and they are helped to the top… by their wives and partners who will pick up the slack at home.

When a woman wants a family and a career, they are told they are wanting too much.  Who will take care of the children, the home? Your husband can’t, he has his own career. Simply fewer men are willing to put their careers aside to help their partners than vice versa.  Why would they?  They never had too.  When a man does help his wife’s career of course he is looked at as a aberration who is obviously isn’t “man” enough and has no ambition*.

Maybe it is men who want too much.

*As with many issues of sexism against women there is also thread of “sexist” assumptions, often perpetuated by males as well, that men are too inept or not caring enough to manage the everyday family issues.  As they say, “The Patriarchy hurts men too.”*

Posted in perception.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By hypatia – January 24, 2010