Feels Blind

The first thing I remember was the hunger.
Waking up and thinking is this natural? -
the way you fit your hands round my waist
and hold me like a doll, or toxic waste
from a post-nuclear family. - At arm's length.

You said the greed was my fault,
something to do with the biological seed
of what makes me woman. Makes me wrong.

I was told I don't belong here.
I was out of my depth, treading water
with all the other daughters who dared
to speak before they were spoken to;
those who woke and refused
to have the words choked out of them.

You said I was ugly, held down and half-drowned.
That I look best behind glass, or better still, beneath it.
Blow off the dust and learn to trust us, you said.

You tried to give me a new face, subservience,
but I couldn't fake it, couldn't take it - the silence
that lay behind. The binding of all those thou shalt knots.
You taught me my boundaries, gave me a baptism
in your fiction - made me the eve time forgot.


I watched your red tide rise before you pulled me under.
I told you this feels blind. Your words burned
like a lighthouse, guiding in the night:
Out of sight, out of mind.

* * *

With the last couple of poems, I wanted to take a break from all the narcissistic personal stuff I've been writing recently. So here we go, something more explicitly political than I've written in ages.

As always, the formatting's all out of whack, so please view this on my dA page for the proper version.


Inspired by the Bikini Kill song Feels Blind and, less obviously, I:Scintilla's Cursive Eve (although a lot of the original references to that were cut in the redraft). I'd really recommend listening to Feels Blind to fully understand where I'm coming from with this. It's also an epic song, so you're missing out if you haven't already heard it. (:

All Our Fair Ladies

In conversation with the cannibal kids,
cut and paste under city lights,
I began to sense
that something wasn't right.
We’d talked of kidneythieves, broke-
backed beliefs and the stolen babies
of beauty queens, and each of these
the kids seemed to cull out their shells
with an atavistic precision. They cut
their words with care - the reversed
thirst of a drought, turned inside out -
whilst sucking back martinis of mud,
bloody-beaked.

And though the signposts said 'beware',
I never thought the lion’s lair
would be up-market, fashion-knit, clear-cut.
But now, I see these city streets
harbour the secrets of the meat
market; where even the sky tries
to throw off its reflection, caught fleetingly
off the tops of skyscrapers;
those downtown castles
the kids have kinged.

There's no escape:
the kids have run rings
round all our fair ladies -
there's no 'if', 'but' or 'maybe',
just a wall.
Too vast to measure, too tall
to scale; if you stand up close,
you might not realise it was there
at all, though your nose was pressed
against glass: a looking glass
we cannot surpass, that reveals only
the small compass of our prison.

For the cannibals catch their corpses
in the fashion spreads - catalogue
of gaunt faces, matchstick legs
and the vacuous eyes of the latest
post-apocalyptic girl.
The pages cry out perfection:
(immortal and impossible)
the cannibals' lips curl.

I walk in dreams of mushroom clouds,
pallid paper smoke, and choke
on the expectations of a society
that would have me shrink,
silenced.
When, for all their sharp suits,
smooth tongues and fluted throats,
you could almost mistake the lies
these kids promote
as something 'civilised'.

* * *

More feminist / socio-political poetry! This time inspired by Naomi Wolf's 'The Beauty Myth'.
(Plus, 'Duchess of Malfi' reference!)
Again, blogger hates poetry, so please read this in its proper format here.

Yes, I'm back! And I've finished school forever. Now there's just a big gaping hole in my life which I'm meant to fill somehow. Endings are easy, it's just where you're left stranded afterwards that's the hard part.

Mermaiden

‘Good night, ladies; good night, sweet ladies;good night, good night.’ – Ophelia
(‘Hamlet’, Act IV.v)

I’m moving through the mirror again in search of you,
watching shadows of the world appear as the mists clear. I look
upwards through shifting waters, marine gaze
hazed by the chasms of lunarlight drawn vaulted: a litter
of broken jewellery. Quartz-eyed, I watch silted moons
shift beneath the surface, looming blackly like negatives,
a loop of O, O, Os –
holes
in the fabric of the dark. The water’s diaphanous -
a thin skin ravined and seamed by ripples, my breathmarks
that echo as endless spheres – each concentric to you,
my blue muse. For you
are always there, crowned with your
laminaria hair, wraith-voice at the end
of my line, tugging tight. One hand on mine,
the other tearing at the weights
round your throat, you float upwards, unravelling
skeins of myth in your wake. You’re
the lady of the lake, medusa, mother –
paragon heart of pith and chain.
My Other – in you I see
me.

Two-toned, jade-boned, she lies
beneath the tongueless water,
waiting to rise.

* * *

Phew. I was beginning to think I'd run inspirationally dry after last week's little batch of poems...

Now for some explanation:

This was inspired by Emilie Autumn's music and writing, especially her creation of the 'Opheliac' figure - the tragic drowned girl - and her portrayal of the beautiful tragedy of a young girl's death - what Emilie dubs 'the art of suicide'. Emilie mocks these traditional literary/artistic portrayals of women with her wonderful sarcasm and wit, but she also relates to the tragedy 'behind' the tragedy - the true emotion behind the desperate actions of the drowned girls.

I hope to replicate that in this poem: the dismissal of culture's misguided portrayal of the artistry of suicide (especially concerning pure, 'virginial' women - hence the references to Ophelia and 'The Lady of Shalott' - the first lines are based on some of the original Tennyson poem: 'And moving through a mirror clear That hangs before her all the year, Shadows of the world appear.') but also relate to the real tragedy behind the theatricality.

In the poem, the narrator is haunted by the image of the drowned woman - or 'mermaiden' - who takes the form of the triple goddess as maiden, mother and crone, and recognises how these culturally-constructed aspects of femininity lie at the core of her own heart, too. The mermaiden is both ghost and reflection - the diametric opposite to life and its embodiment.

Yes, it's paradoxical again - what isn't? - but this time with a feminist theme. :)

It's War - Guerrilla Style

...war on my two greatest enemies, misogyny and apathy, that is!

This year is the 25th anniversary of the feminist group the Guerrilla Girls. Being a fan of popular culture, feminism, and general subversiveness, I can’t help but love the mask-donning Girls. So I thought I’d share the feminist love by spreading the word about these wonderful people and what they do.

The Guerrilla Girls are a group of anonymous ‘radical’ feminists who got together in New York in 1985, unhappy with the state of the art world. They wear gorilla masks in public (because they’re badass, OK?) and take the names of dead female artists as pseudonyms. Through the medium of posters, books, billboards, appearances and general jungle drag craziness, the Girls expose discrimination and corruption in the worlds of art and popular culture. Their work combines texts, facts and snappy graphics that present strong feminist viewpoints in a humorous manner, making it fun and accessible, but no less hard-hitting.

Their first work was putting up posters on the streets of New York criticizing the gender and racial imbalance of artists represented in galleries and museums. They’ve completed many such campaigns over the years, including the one above, whilst also expanding their activism to examine Hollywood and the film industry, gender stereotyping, corruption in the art word and general popular culture. One of my favourite books of theirs, Bitches, Bimbos and Ballbreakers: the Guerrilla Girls’ illustrated guide to female stereotypes, tackles the proliferation of derogatory and restrictive female stereotypes. The final paragraph of the introduction provides one of the best soundbite definitions of just one of the Guerilla Girls’ aims:

‘By empowering women to create their own stereotypes and to reject the ones our culture tries to squeeze us into, the Guerrilla Girls want to do our share toward saving the world from sexists and misogynists everywhere, and have fun along the way.’

But what I think is one of the Guerrilla Girls’ most important objectives is to rehabilitate ‘the f word’ (feminism!) so that people who support the main tenets of the cause – equal opportunity, an end to gender based discrimination, general human rights for women, etc – but are currently afraid or dismissive of the label, will accept the term, and even be proud to call the themselves feminists.

This, I feel (from much experience), is one of the main problems feminism faces today: fear of ‘the f word’ and people’s general apathy. Many times I’ve heard people say ‘I’m not a feminist, but...’ from people who support feminist principles but either don’t make the connection between their egalitarian ideas and feminism, or are just too afraid of the many ‘unattractive’ (and false) stereotypes surrounding feminists. And most of the time, these people voice concern over these issues, but fail to do anything to about them. Apathy, apathy, apathy.

So my message for today: DO something – something for what you believe in. It doesn’t have to be a big thing: maybe just spreading the word, sharing your beliefs, like I’ve done with this post. Or you could sign a petition or join a group promoting your cause (I’d recommend joining the End Sexism on Facebook group that my friend J and I set up!). Or just find out a bit more about it - read a book, browse the internet – cheesy as it sounds, education really is empowerment. You can even do something just by being yourself: by expressing your individuality and refusing to conform to stereotypes. Remember: you're not a bimbo, a bitch, or a ballbreaker unless you let yourself think you are.

So what are you waiting for? Go forth and kick some oppressive patriarchal ass!

Follow Your Heart - to Princess Syndrome

You are a pretty, pretty princess! But which one? Disney will tell you! All major credit cards are accepted.

When you are little, the Disney Princesses seem like the perfect role models. What little girl doesn’t want to be beautiful and utterly lovely when she grows up? These are women that have whole stories based around their dreams and desires – they are main characters in the films that have become ‘traditional’, essential viewing for young girls across the world. Yet there are so many things that are simply wrong about their characters, and they have caused much controversy amongst feminists and media critics.

Much of the controversy stems from the oppressive female stereotype these princesses proliferate to young girls: that superficial beauty is everything, and that their ultimate goal in life should be marriage to a handsome prince.

Of course, the cultural fascination with princesses has been around for ages: many of the Disney films are based on traditional fairy tales and Brothers Grimm tales. But it is Disney’s watered-down, consumerist twist on these tales that makes the contemporary Princess Syndrome so dangerous. As Angela Ndalianis, associate professor of cinema studies at Melbourne Uni has said:

‘Not only are the films fostering the little-princess aesthetic, but they also breed cross-merchandising that’s earning a bundle for entertainment companies who have rights to princess tales. From a historical perspective, the little girl/princess parallel has been there for centuries – but the merchandising associated with conglomeration has amplified its effect; now our little girls can be like their favourite princesses.’

And it’s not just Disney that’s jumped on the princess-bandwagon. Hundreds of other toy-brands, television shows, films etc. have princess themed plots/merchandise. Disney’s Princess range alone covers books, stationary, play castles and toy make-up kits; Barbie has an extensive Princess range too (and several puke-tastically terrible films!), and even supposedly more ‘contemporary’ dolls like Bratz have clear princess-influences in their tiara-bedecked formal dress range. Young girls can of course also buy entire princess costumes, complete with gown, tiara and jewels, so that they can be just like their role models! Even from such a young age, girls are being submerged in the ‘I consume, therefore I am’ culture as they are shown that part of the princess experience is materialistic: ‘getting’ pretty clothes, jewellery, make-up etc.

The princess syndrome prevails in the more up-to-date teen movies of today. The age.com princess syndrome article lists Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, The Prince and Me, Princess Diaries, A Cinderella Story and Ella Enchanted. Even a supposedly more ‘open minded’ film like Mean Girls, in which the main protagonist Cady overcomes the reign of the superficial Plastics and realises her own inner happiness as ‘herself’, the princess image is proliferated. The ‘Queen Bee’ of the story, Regina (subtle!), is shown to have a glamorous lifestyle (the word ‘PRINCESS’ is actually emblazoned across her bedroom - again with the subtlety!) and although this is shown to be not as enviable as it would at first appear by revealing its superficiality, the film is still all about getting prince charming.

But what alternative role models do young girls have? These movies mostly have a female lead. At least these films give the message that, in a world where only 1 in 4 movie roles is female (the same % as the number of female leads) little girls can still be the main character, and events in their lives can revolve around their needs and wants.

And Disney isn’t completely sexist, to be fair. More recent characters like Mulan, Pocahontas and even Belle are far more progressive than their predecessors (completely limp bimbos like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, etc.). They are by no means perfect – each of these films still results in the princess winning the ‘handsome prince’ – but at least the characters have some spirit. Mulan even tackles some equality issues, as the idea of women being inferior to men is shown to be defunct by the country-saving cross-dressing heroine – who, although at first is ridiculed and disgraced when it is revealed she is a woman, eventually wins the respect and honour of her entire country. This, I feel, is a more respectable role model for young girls.

But does Disney think so? It would appear not. Girls are not encouraged to look or act like these princesses – the only girls’ fancy dress outfits sold by Disney are for the traditional princesses - Snow White, Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella (plus Belle, though only in glittery ball gown version) – and for fairies, like Tinkerbell. The amount of merchandise available for the more respectable princesses is extremely limited compared to that for the others. Now this may also have something to do with the racial aspect of the characters – Disney is a notoriously racist enterprise – but I think it’s also linked to the gender stereotype Disney perpetuates, which these few characters do not fit exactly into.

But from Snow White (1937) to Mulan (1998), Disney has come a long way, and the gender stereotype has faded slightly – but not enough. Come on, Disney, end the corporate FAIL and start showing young girls that they can follow their hearts to something other than becoming consumerist royalty.

* * *

See this article shown on feministing.com for further views on the Disney Princesses.

And... Happy Transgender Awareness Week! :D

What the...

I am a firm believer in embracing your feminine side, feminine meaning what it is that makes you a woman, whatever that may be (not the whole culturally-constructed idea of ‘feminine’ which, let’s face it, basically equals the colour pink). I also identify strongly with myself as a feminist. I see nothing in these two statements that contradicts.

And that’s why when I read articles like this, they make me so, so angry.

There are so many things wrong with this article, I have no idea where to start. Perhaps with the title - ‘Are you a Feminist or a ‘Feminine-ist’?’ – because obviously you can’t be both! Being a feminist and wanting to be in any way pro-feminine would just be ridiculous and obscene: everyone knows that all feminist are ‘tough, overworked and unattractive’; ‘a woman who’s unattractive in both looks and spirits’! Contrast this to feminine-ists, who embrace their ‘feminine sexy and loving side[s]’, the epitome of which is, in this article, ‘a beautiful, leggy, sexy woman’. All of these terms are ones on which a woman is graded from a heterosexual patriarchal point of view, and are thus demeaning. But being the epitome of physical attractiveness is what it’s all about, right – oh, and being ‘powerful’ (she adds, hastily) – so this one-dimensional stereotype is what all womankind should aspire to be.

Karen Salmansohn states that her goal is:

To inspire women to embrace their fullest potential selves – feminine, sexy, warm, loving – everything the word ‘feminine’ stands for, alongside strong qualities like powerful and successful.

There are several things wrong with this, and her whole argument:

1. Where do characteristics like ‘intelligent’, ‘creative’ and ‘happy’ come into the feminine norm? Nowhere is the answer: they’re not ‘feminine’ characteristics. And neither are ‘strong qualities like powerful and successful’. ‘Feminine’ and ‘strong’ don’t really mix, and they are definitely not the same thing; you just get one plus the other.

2. Salmansohn notes how so many women today are ‘not being their fullest, best feminine selves’ because they’re ‘rushing around trying to do it all ... being tougher than they’d like to be as well as more exhausted, strident and irritable, thereby feeling unattractive inside and out.’ Being exhausted and emotionally depleted is all the fault of the woman, of course, neglecting her inner femininity. Salmansohn fails to address the real reason for this: that women in a men’s world must constantly over-perform in order to combat the effects of discrimination, especially in employment.

3. Salmansohn claims that she feels her most powerful when she takes the time to tap into ‘feminine-ism’ – i.e. when ‘indulging in a meditative and self-nurturing manicure, a facial or a hot bubble bath’. Salmansohn has obviously not been watching any Target Women lately! These ‘indulgences’ are exactly the kind of thing that patriarchal companies target women with. Nobody is 'powerful' when having a bubble bath, however much you might enjoy it. And by listing these things off as typical ‘feminine’ pastimes, Salmansohn simply falls into the trap of succumbing to the culturally-constructed ‘feminine’ norm.

4. Then, there’s Salmansohn’s annoying overuse of the word ‘sexy’, meaning ‘attractive to the average heterosexual male’. Feeling sexy in this sense is not empowering, as she claims. It is feeling happy in yourself, as yourself, that is empowering. And though this may include feeling confident about your sex appeal, you cannot conflate the two ideas.

5. Men can be and are feminists, and any man who is put off from calling himself a supporter of women’s equality because ‘it might sound like he was admitting to supporting a group of controlling, bitchy women’ is not someone who believes in female empowerment at all, really, is he? No, he’s just ignorant, close-minded and sexist to boot. But that’s OK, in Salmansohn’s point of view, because it’s generally agreed that men don’t really go in for that kind of thing. But something that’s ‘pro-sexiness, pro-sweetness [and] pro-balance’ (excuse me while I puke) like ‘feminine-ism’ – well, a man can be proud to support something like that!

And why is this? Because it’s cool for a man to be in touch with both his feminine and masculine sides (though he is, of course, predominantly masculine if he is straight). But hang on – when can we get in touch with our masculine sides? Oh, that’s when we embrace our ‘strong qualities’, like powerfulness? But then aren’t we meant to feel our most powerful when indulging ourselves in feminine activities like facials? I’m confused, which is unsurprising, as Salmansohn’s argument makes no sense at all with its narrow-minded categorisation of the masculine and the feminine.

6. And finally, please, please do not try to personify and thus stereotype your country. It’s just wrong. Especially if you’re going to be sexist about it too. America, the ‘real guy’s guy’ (in other words, ‘the very masculine man’) is described as loud and active. India, on the other hand (a country that is in reality torn by its desire to Westernise and achieve Western ideals of perfection – which for woman generally means pale and submissive), is described as embracing its feminine qualities. And it is passive, passive, passive.

Being a feminine woman should not be about self-indulgence in facials, being ‘sexy’ or god-forbid being passive. It should be about being yourself, whoever that may be. So if you’re going to preach to women to embrace feminine-ism, don’t just tell them to subscribe to the culturally constructed feminine norm. Because that’s not empowering; not at all.

For a better-written take on the stupidity that is feminine-ism, see this article on The Frisky.

Plath, Rihanna and Domestic Violence

Recently in English class, we have each been asked to lead a discussion on a poem of Syliva Plath's. I was given the poem 'The Jailor' - a poem in which Plath depicts a male/female relationship, with the man as a dominating 'jailor' figure, and the woman his abused prisoner. Despite his constant physical and emotional violence towards her, the persona of the poem realises they are dependent on one another, and that she cannot escape.

So, with this poem, I have based my discussion points around patriarchal domination/rebellion, the formulation of identity/mental instability, and ambivalence/victimisation.

Here, the most interesting theme for me is that of the persona's ambivalence: why, despite suffering so much, does she feel drawn to the abusive jailor figure? She has been 'drugged and raped', burnt with cigarettes, and reduced by forced starvation to a feeble, feverish state by this man - whom the reader assumes to be her partner. Plath spends the entire poem setting up the character of this persona as 'the victim': that is her identity. She is literally crushed, killed over and over by her relationship: 'hung, starved, burned, hooked.'

So why does she remain with the jailor, allowing herself to be his 'indeterminate criminal'?

There are two possible answers for this.

Firstly, she is a character entirely defined by her victimisation: part of which even she admits is, if not self-inflicted, self-cast - hence the movie-set like setting of the poem ('the same placard of blue fog is wheeled into position / with the same trees and headstones) and the fact that it is her 'red and blue zeppelin' that drops her 'from a terrible altitude'. She is defined solely by her relationship with the jailor. And in turn, he is defined by her. He can only be the jailor with a prisoner; thus he relies on her equally for his identity. 'What would he do, do, do without me.' is the final line of the poem, phrased not as a question, but as a statement, through which she directly reasserts her importance to him (and thus her power over him).

Secondly, there is the fact that, as far as the persona of 'The Jailor' is concerned, the codependence on which her relationship is founded equates with love.

So where does this link in with Rihanna? Well, when my Lit. group were discussing 'The Rabbit Catcher' (a poem with a very similar message to 'The Jailor'), several people were annoyed at Plath. They claimed she was self-obsessed, self-indulgent and pathetic: if her relationship was really as bad as she claimed, she should have just ended it. "She should just get over herself." someone said.

I think this point of view totally underestimates the ambivalence that people in a position such as the persona of 'The Jailor' are subjected to. They are genuinely torn.

And this is something that Rihanna discusses in her latest interview on her relationship with Chris Brown. She expresses the suffering of her ambivalence with painful honesty, which just goes to show the courage it has taken her to get out of that relationship and to now talk about it in front of millions.

So I think it is important to look at Plath's 'domestic' poetry in context: whether or not it is exactly based on her own relationship with Hughes is largely irrelevant. 'The Jailor' is a poem with a message about a woman who is in an abusive relationship. And the emotions she expresses are true to life, and are incredibly painful and difficult to overcome. It is not something that you can just 'get over'. As Rihanna said:

I am strong. This happened to me. I didn't cause this. I didn't do it. But it's happened to me, and it can happen to anybody.

Not everyone in the same position is as strong as Rihanna, who was able to face up to the situation and get herself out of it. The feeling of entrapment is not something we can underestimate. 1 in 4 women will be subjected to domestic abuse in their lifetime. This is a problem that we should be united to end, not something to ignore or underestimate.

No one is able to speak for all womankind, or for all abuse victims, or for all of any 'group' of people: everyone is individual. But every voice is relevant. And this is why we cannot ignore the words of someone like Plath, however self-obsessed and 'pathetic' she may appear, whether her poems are based on fact or are simply fiction. Her voice has a relevancy today, and her poems make a point that we shouldn't ignore.

'I Shop, Therefore I Am' - Welcome to Generation Misogyny

Art by Barbara Kruger

Recently I read my good friend J’s article on Gender and its Complications, and it got me thinking about gender and how much ‘what you look like’ is indicative of it.

Everyone is aware of what feminine stereotypes exist. Germaine Greer personifies ‘The Stereotype’ wonderfully in ‘The Female Eunuch’. The Feminine Woman is, essentially, the girl in the magazine or on the TV smiling with pearly white teeth, decked out in the latest fashions, trying to sell you the latest type of lip gloss so-and-so designer has created. She is thin, beautiful, and infinitely happy because she has bought this particular product, and it has solved all her problems. Never more will she have to worry about a bad hair day, her nail-polish becoming chipped or unwanted body odour – life is perfect thanks to this product! And there she stands, an immovable idol, not a hair out of place, no unsightly flab, not a blemish in sight.

Greer describes her thus:

‘Her glossy lips and matt complexion, her unfocused eyes and flawless fingers, her extraordinary hair all floating and shining, curling and gleaming, reveal the inhuman triumph of cosmetics, lighting, focusing and printing, cropping and composition.’

This is what you must look like to be the feminine ideal. You must hide behind a painted smile, wear what’s ‘in fashion’, and look, smell, feel and even taste like unruffled perfection. This is what little girls spend years dreaming, wishing to look like – ‘inhuman’. Like Barbie, with perfect plastic proportions (this means big boobs and a tiny waist), flawless symmetrical features and an expression of permanent ecstasy (this is where that DIY Botox that J mentioned would come in handy!), girls want to become dolls:

‘For she [The Stereotype] is a doll: weeping, pouting or smiling, running or reclining, she is a doll. She is an idol, formed of the concatenation of lines and masses, signifying the lineaments of satisfied impotence.’

Impotence? But hang on – isn’t this picture-perfect face what’s meant to be defining womanhood? For surely that is what ‘feminine’ should mean; what defines us as women, our femaleness? Surely The Stereotype should portray our sex properly, including our lusts, our restless imagination and our brilliant intelligence? Is that what we are – weak, powerless, lacking in sexual desire? Or is this what ‘they’ want us to be?

We must think of how the modern concept of ‘femininity’ is defined.

In the Victorian era, the Feminine Woman would be meek and mild, with delicate features and health. She would have no ideas of her own, be totally subservient to her husband, and was devoted to the care of her children. No self-respecting middle-class woman would wear makeup, because this show of vanity was considered to be a sign of a prostitute. This ‘angel in the house’, as she was later to become known, was basically the personification of men’s desire for the perfect subservient wife. ‘Feminine’ came to mean the opposite of ‘masculine’ because women must accommodate to men’s needs and not desire to be like him in any way – for that is not her place. As Virginia Woolf says in ‘A Room of One’s Own’:

For man wants to see something attractive when he looks in this looking-glass, doesn’t he? Something weak, delicate and beautiful that reaffirms his superiority over it. Because he can only be superior if something is inferior to him – and that is women’s role.

‘Women have served all these centuries as looking-glasses possessing
the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size.’

So men and our patriarchal culture define what ‘feminine’ is, as they define what ‘masculine’ is. These two ‘labels’ (as they do not, in reality, stand for ‘femaleness’ or ‘maleness’ at all) have become the ideals that both sexes respectively aim for. And who doesn’t want to fit into the ‘popular’ concept of the ‘ideal’, to be accepted, to be loved? For these wishes are human nature – we are, after all, dependent on love.

But luckily, society has made becoming the feminine ideal attainable for all womankind. You can now spend, spend, spend and become just like her! Because if you buy all the right products, dress yourself in the latest fashions and hide your face behind a load of slap, you too can be happy. With an eternal pearl-white smile, you too can be the Feminine Stereotype!

You shop, therefore you are, darling!

‘Taught from infancy that beauty is woman’s sceptre, the mind shapes itself to
body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adorn its prison.’
Mary Wollstonecraft, ‘A Vindication of the Right of Women’, 1792

And what effect is this having on our society? Surely by now, in this affluent age, we should all be happy? Teenage girls are afflicted with eating disorders, anxiety and depression because they don’t fit into the popular definition of ‘perfect’ – but everyone’s happy, right?

Recently, I came across a series of photographs by dA artist, Maryana. Her whole Statistic Series is great, and you should definitely check out her gallery, but a couple of facts from two of the pictures really stuck-out for me. Firstly:

And secondly:

Girls see over 400 advertisements per day telling them how they should look

I don’t think you need me to tell you that these two facts are linked.

50% of girls between the ages of 8 and 14 are dieting

I don’t want the Feminine Stereotype to equate to Girl Poison any more. I want femininity to be what I make it. What it means to be female is different for every girl and woman out there, dependent on their class, race, personality, etc. and no one should be told how to be themselves. Being feminine should be about embracing your womanhood, warts and all, and loving yourself for who you are - not lusting after the plastic-fantastic face of some photoshopped doll in a magazine. Let’s take back our own identities, and be who we really want to be.

Because we think, therefore we are.

* * *

For more on this, see this article from Feministing.com with a short film on ‘Generation Misogyny, which puts my point across far more eloquently than my article!

Cursed Handmaids And Cursive Eves

The amazing industrial band I:Scintilla. Can't wait for new album 'Dying and Falling'!

You can find the lyrics to 'Cursive Eve' here.

As I already discussed in my previous article on ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, Gilead, the land in which the novel is set, is a dystopian world founded on extremist Puritan Christian principles – a patriarchal misogynistic society. But how does something so twisted and evil emerge out of the words of a Bible that supposedly teaches us the righteousness of equity, to love our neighbours and to live peaceful lives?

Let’s rephrase that: the words of a Bible that supposedly preaches goodwill to all men, the importance of brotherhood and to love our Father.

The song ‘Cursive Eve’ by I:Scintilla is one interpretation of Christianity which highlights how such a sexist, unjust society as Gilead could have been conceived. In the words of Briony, the lead singer, ‘the song is about the oppressive Christian views of women, and the rigid roles and moulds many women feel they are forced into, from birth to adulthood’. She also comments that ‘these outlooks seem to have a profound consequence on a woman’s self-esteem, mental stability, creativity and sexuality’ – all consequences that are shown in a devastating light in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ through the experiences of Offred and her fellow handmaids.

So, how does religion have such profound consequences on women from birth till adulthood? Well, at birth, as well as the significant pre-determination of various aspects of your life dependent on your gender, who you become is also dependent on your parents, and the society you grow up in. If you grow up in a society founded on religious beliefs, this will impact your identity. In ‘Cursive Eve’, this factor is not presented as simply a passive factor of your surroundings, but as something that confines and suppresses individuality: ‘you were born wrapped in the pages / the words bind your mind and body’. However, this is not something that all children are subjected to. I:Scintilla say that despite the ‘false comfort of thin paper’ every child is wrapped in, they are distinguished and differentiated by gender. And if you’re female, this means that ‘you’re claimed as unclean property’, and ‘classified as a nameless mass’.

The next verse introduces the idea of ‘they’ – ‘they’ representing those whose views are presented in the Bible, and those who enforce ‘the Word’. In ‘Cursive Eve’, ‘they’ are always the active group, whilst ‘you’ (women) are passive (here I:Scintilla’s use of second-person address has an ‘othering’ effect that isolates the addressee, reciprocating the effect of misogynistic Christian beliefs on women). ‘They say you need guilt to be good’ shows how the Bible dictates how women need to suffer guiltiness (regardless of individuality) to be considered ‘good’. Why? ‘They say in you lives an Eve’. Eden lost – Eve’s fault. Eve fell first, dragging Adam down with her.

Timothy 2:13-14 – ‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression’.

Thus womankind is forever seconded in the eyes of Christianity, subjected to patriarchal control, and made to feel guilty, whilst ‘your brothers all remain blameless’. This male interpretation of ‘the Word’ turns Biblical belief into the ‘heart of snares and nets’ to incarcerate and restrain women, whilst the hands of believers become restrictive ‘bands’.

The beginning of the third verse reads like a sermon:

‘They say “in you lives an Eve” and
“Thy desire rules over thee”
“Thou shall not let witches live”’

The line ‘thy desire rules over thee’ is, in fact, a subverted version of a passage from Genesis (3:16). The actual line is ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee’ – even more patriarchal and demeaning of women than I:Scintilla’s version! I:Scintilla highlight Eve, witches, and later, ‘male angels’ – all Christian icons; all very paternal and misogynistic in nature. ‘Witches’ were any woman in some way alienated from society and thus labelled ‘evil’. They were feared by people in many Christian societies around the world, and any suspect was subject to a witch trial – inevitably ending in the murder of the woman in question, regardless of actual guilt. After all, a woman needs guilt to be good, so if she doesn’t die a witch, she should be glad to die an innocent, right? Again, I:Scintilla reiterate how constricted women are by such beliefs: ‘the fiction binds your mind and body’. It is significant that this is almost a direct repeat from an earlier phrase, the only difference being that ‘the words’ has now been changed to ‘the fiction’ – showing how really ‘the Word’ is fictitious in nature.

The ideas of the salvation the religion supposedly offers and the actual bondage in its place are directly juxtaposed in the lyrics of the chorus, where Biblical devotion is even likened to BDSM:

‘Kneel - here you’re not scared to die

Beg - those dogs will lick and drink you dry

Kneel - eat the pretty cursive lie

Beg - and you will not be scared to die’

Kneeling and begging are both submissive positions, used when pleading for something. The idea of kneeling here is contrasted to kneeling during prayers, and begging is likened to the behaviour of a dog trying to appease its master. But this time the dogs are superior to women: the lyric ‘those dogs will lick and drink you dry’ not only highlights the low position women have been assigned by the Bible, but how they are (ab)used, subjected to the whim of the patriarchy. The ‘pretty cursive lie’ that women are forced to eat is, obviously, the words of the Bible; the word ‘cursive’ highlighting the handwritten (and therefore man-made and fictitious) nature of the Bible, and the flow of how these words are continually interpreted and reinterpreted and misinterpreted to further repress and demean women. Women are also presented with a threat: only if they accept and ‘eat’ these lies, will they ‘not be scared to die’ – i.e. only by conforming to the restricted lives the Bibles states they can live, can they reach heaven.

And so women are forced into the ‘rigid roles and moulds’ that Biblical teachings have created for them. They are totally overwhelmed by ‘the Word’, turned into possessions of the Church. The lyric ‘give you away to male angels’ shows this possession (women can be given, and can thus be ‘held’), but it is also shown to be a possession that is unwanted. Women are given away to ‘male angels’ (another patriarchal symbol: men are powerful, heavenly beings) for reformation, to combat their evil whilst ‘the leaders’ (the mysterious ‘they’) ‘all remain shameless’, despite the unjust, sexist treatment they are perpetrating. To allow this reformation, women are told they must ‘wash away rain’s ancient marking’ – in other words, erase the Eve-mould which they are cast in from the dawn of time (impossible, as it is not a role they have ascribed to themselves), and ‘beg [themselves] for forgiveness’ – also impossible; how can one forgive themselves for something they have never done? Thus reformation is inconceivable, and women must remain ‘evil’ and unclean forever – but of course, this is their fault – after all, they were given guidance on how to go about their spiritual rejuvenation.

The final section of the song contains further subverted passages from Genesis: ‘must thy sorrow multiply / thy conception in sorrow’ is a play on the words of the same passage in Genesis as referenced earlier: ‘I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception: in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children’. I:Scintilla shows how these words of God before the Fall can be reinterpreted to shift the cause of this sorrow from God (in the Bible, God is the active personage ‘I will...’) to women themselves (‘thy sorrow multiply’, ‘thy conception in sorrow’ – the sorrow belongs solely to women instead of being borne upon them by someone else). This shows how interpretations of the Bible can really subvert the meaning of the text, and how interpretations can be used to condemn and oppress women. They can easily be told ‘thou shall live in the silence / with all subjection’ (a subversion of ‘let the wom[e]n learn in silence with all subjection’ – Timothy 2:11, which is also used by a Commander at the opening of a Pravaganza in ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’), and will remain voiceless victims, controlled and repressed by the will of ‘the Word’. The passage from Timothy continues ‘notwithstanding, she shall be saved by childbearing’ – just one of the ‘rigid roles’ prescribed for women by Christian doctrine, and the principle upon which Gilead is based.

And what of man – the leaders, the male angels? I:Scintilla present him far from the fallen-heroic image of Adam in Genesis, who was tricked by Eve into evilness. Although they admit that ‘he may hear false answers’, and be influenced by ‘evil’ outside himself, I:Scintilla point out that ‘he lets the voices in’ – it is his choice what to believe. Thus they claim that Adam was equally to blame for the Fall, and that men are no more sacred than women.

The last couple of lines of ‘Cursive Eve’ I perceive as a question, posed to women: ‘must thy sorrow follow / visions in his head?’. Must women’s oppression and misery be caused by men’s fictions - men’s religions? It is not a question for women to take upon themselves, but one to make them think: is this what I want to be told to believe; do I want to have such ‘sorrow’ forced upon me? It is an offer of escape.

* * *

Of course, ‘Cursive Eve’ is just one interpretation of the effects of Christianity – and everyone is entitled to their own view. My point is, the Bible, as with any literature, is there to be interpreted, and so it has been – by Christians and non-Christians alike. As with any form of organised religion, different factions of Christianity have emerged, all believing slightly different things under the huge banner of ‘Christianity’. This is nothing to object to – but it allows extremist groups to emerge. Those groups of people who twist and subvert the words of their ‘god’, or ‘prophet’, or whoever, until they bear little resemblance to the words out of which they were borne. This is what happened in Gilead, where the extremists took over the country and used their power to enforce their beliefs on everyone else, persecuting and executing those of opposing religions. They twisted the words of the Bible to enforce their misogynistic beliefs on an entire population (almost everything Aunt Lydia says is a clear example of this), and to perpetrate evil, all in the name of God. All from the Word of God.

From the Word, anything is possible.

Alien Grrrls

Alien She

I wasn’t intending on writing something that so smoothly followed on from the last article, it just happened like that (honest!). I’ve been going through (another) Bikini Kill phase at the moment, and so I thought I’d write about one of their songs. ‘Alien She’ is one of the first songs I ever heard by the band, and has remained one of my favourites.

For those of you that don’t know, Bikini Kill is a band strongly associated with the Riot Grrrl movement – a 90s feminist punk subculture often attributed with inspiring the third wave feminist movement. They believed in girl power (not the corporate-created Spice Girls type!), female independence and an end to sexist discrimination, particularly within the punk subculture. Despite fracas between those within the movement and others outside – particularly the media who repeatedly misrepresented the movement and the views of those in it – Bikini Kill believed in the ‘every grrrl a riot grrrl’ credo.

However, many within the movement disagreed with this view (some viewed bimbos and lame girlfriends as ‘so fuckin’ indoctrinated into male culture + ideology’ – quote from ‘Riot Grrrl’ London zine) and there was often conflicting evidence, so it is a view Bikini Kill began to question. These ‘bimbos’ were seen as slaves to fashion and a male-dominated corporate society, aspiring to become the image of ‘the perfect female’ that the media projected to the western world – pretty, slim fashion clones, reliant on male protection and affection. This image of superficial perfection trapped girls in a weak, subordinate stereotype: an empty image. As discussed in the last article, this poisoned girls both individually (destroying them physically and wreaking them emotionally) and towards each other, creating jealousy and destroying the girl unity that the riot grrrl movement aimed for. Thus Bikini Kill wanted to challenge this girl-stereotype, and did so through the song ‘Alien She’.

The link between ‘her’ (the image of ‘the perfect female’) and ‘I’ (the persona of the song) is clearly set out right from the start with the phrase ‘she is me, I am her’, which is repeated to echo the theme of duality. This creates the idea of unity of girl-kind before the idea of conflict is introduced, which then remains the prevailing image. ‘She’ is described as a ‘Siamese twin connected at the cunt’ – i.e. they are inextricably linked by their gender (symbolised clearly by their joint possession of female genitalia). Their bond is then shown to be as close as their internal organs – ‘heart-brain-heart-brain-heart-brain-lung-gut’. The quick flow of words makes it seem as if they merge into one another, as does the use of repetition.

So, after the strength of their bond has been so clearly emphasised, right down to a sub-dermal level, it comes as a shock when, in the next line, the narrator (or whatever you call them in a song) announces ‘I want to kill her’. Why would someone want to kill someone they feel is them - unless of course, they were suicidal, but then why would they be worried ‘it might kill me’?

This juxtaposition is continued in the next section when the three chanted ‘insults’ (‘“Feminist”, “dyke”, “whore”’) are followed by the phrase ‘I’m so pretty’, sang in mocking tones. The two contrasting ideas that these two sections evoke (the concept of ‘prettiness’ relates closely to ideas of innocence, superficiality and cuteness – not things considered synonymous to the selection of ‘insults’) are, indeed, ‘alien’ to one another.

‘She’ and ‘me’ are further separated in the following sections, where a conflict of interests is revealed: ‘she wants me to go to the mall’ and ‘put the pretty, the pretty, pretty, pretty red lipstick on’. These are what many would consider typical ‘girl’ activities – things teenage girls would enjoy doing. The lyric shows how ‘she’ – the media image of the perfect female – encourages girls to do these things, and to enjoy them.

However, the narrator realises that something more sinister is going on. The repetition of the word ‘pretty’ plays on the idea of restriction to a monosyllabic stereotype, girls being confined to the superficial state of ‘pretty’ rather than becoming their own individuals. The repeated phrase ‘she wants me to be like her’ again reinforces the theme of duality, and shows how this media image is bent on transforming girls into this ‘pretty pretty’ stereotype – clones of one another, all decked out in the same fashions, with the same hair and make up which the consumerist society targets them with.

The narrator wants to kill this stereotype, and escape to be her own person – but she is torn, afraid that in doing so she might kill herself. The ‘perfect female’ image has grown so close to the hearts of many girls, whether they like it or not, that it is something they can’t dismiss. Many girls choose to follow such ‘feminine’ pastimes as shopping and putting on makeup, and those who act or dress in ways opposing to the stereotype do so actively knowing they are, declaring themselves ‘tom boys’ or ‘not girly’. This stereotypical image of the empty ‘pretty pretty’ girl is the personification of ‘girly’, and is thus inescapable to many girls. Even if it is an image that you feel is ‘alien’ to yourself, it is still a part of you, as shown in the lyric ‘who was me, and who is she?’, where the narrator becomes confused over the identity of both herself and this stereotype – they are so contrasting, but so merged.

The final phrase, ‘I guess I’ll never know’, is an admission to the fact that the line between the female self and the image of femininity will remain indistinguishable. Social doctrines of what a girl should like and how she should act, however narrow and restrictive and unjust they may be, have been hammered into the western culture, and are not easily dismissed. Even riot grrrls and feminists accept that they are not immune to ‘feminine-desires’ to look pretty, wear lipstick, go shopping – whatever – and this does not make them any less of a feminist. And, in truth, there is nothing wrong with doing or enjoying any of these things – only the concepts of female subordination and reduction to a stereotype that are behind their creation. Throughout the riot grrrl movement, there is a desire to break the mould, be individual, be who they want to be beyond the label of ‘girl’ (hence the corruption of the word ‘girl’ in the form ‘grrrl’). But there is also a hidden fear that Bikini Kill voice in this song: what if in breaking the mould, they destroy themselves - what gives them their individual identity as women? Because Bikini Kill wanted to be considered as ‘females’ (as opposed to simply humans in an asexual light), with their individual traits and sexuality, etc; just on equal terms to men. It is hard to find a way to achieve this equality without destroying the one of the main symbols of a patriarchal society – the image of the ‘perfect’ subordinate female – which at the same time seems to uphold girl unity, and a sense of girl power (the Spice Girls type!). ‘Alien She’ presents society with a complex question that remains unanswered: ‘I guess we’ll never know’...