A Disoriented Con Reporter At Large: WisCon 36 (Thursday Edition)

So, it’s been a bit silent on the blog front this past week. I know. I am a bad person. But in my defense, I was at WisCon 36.

Space Babe Tiptree Award

This post was written at the demand of Space Babes everywhere

What is WisCon, you ask?

I believe I will let Andrea Hairston, writer/professor/drama queen and one of WisCon 36’s Guests of Honor, say it for me:

“WisCon is my/our home planet
A moment in great time
A celebration
A revel
Where we dream and scheme, sing and shout
Unravel our torment
Renew our sense of wonder
Burst into the future”
(Impolitic by Andrea Hairston and Debbie Notkin, Aqueduct Press, pg. 3)

If that’s too esoteric for you, I’ll try again. WisCon is a now-36-year-old Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Convention. There are parties. There are readings. There are panels where people talk about women in comics and racial diversity and de-gaying and privilege and social justice and the Hunger Games and X-Men and the Power Rangers and Buffy the freakin’ Vampire Slayer. As you can no doubt tell, WisCon is full of awesome. It is also the home of the DAMN TIPTREE AWARD.

The DAMN TIPTREE AWARD, also known as the James Tiptree Jr. Award, is an award given to a work of speculative fiction that best expands or explores our understanding of gender. It was created by Pat Murphy and Karen Joy Fowler at WisCon in 1991. It’s the most badass of all badass awards. Trust me. It’s been won by DAMN fine authors like Gwyneth Jones, Geoff Ryman, Mary Doria Russell and Maureen McHugh. It was named for James Tiptree Jr., Sci-Fi author extraordinaire, who was eventually revealed to be Alice Sheldon (a woman writing under a man’s name? GASP). If you win it, you get to wear a Tiara.

[You also get a check for a thousand dollars, a piece of original artwork, lots of chocolate, and you are serenaded by the entire WisCon membership]

james Tiptree Jr. Award Tiara

Actual James Tiptree Jr. Award Tiara

Like I said: the most Badass of all Badass awards.

I’m a Sci-Fi/Fantasy nerd. I’m also a feminist and a general social justice geek (Have you noticed the blog content? Yes?). So WisCon for me is…indescribably joyful. Your brain explodes with the general brilliance on display. Or, at least, mine does. When I went to WisCon last year for the first time, my reaction was “Where have these people been all my life?” It felt like all the best friends I had never met had just showed up in the same place, and they were all interested in the same things, and they all spoke my language…(let us note that I was too shy to speak to any of my newly found best friends. But they were still my new best friends).

It was rather incredible.

So obviously, I went back this year (WisCon, fortunately, takes place in my hometown, which makes it much easier to get to). And I planned to BLOG from WisCon. Hem. That did not happen. Obviously. Why I believed it would be possible for me to go to the Con for twelve hours a day AND present a paper AND blog at the same time is completely beyond me. Particularly since even my shortest blog posts take two to three hours to write.

Yes, I’m pretty damn delusional, why do you ask?

And then after the con, I was so exhausted that I basically went *SPLAT* on the floor of my bedroom. For three days. And every time I tried to imagine how I was going to fit the enormity of all the con’s awesomeness into a blog post, I started freaking out and just went *SPLAT* on the floor again.

I have a very supportive floor, okay? She and I are very close. She understands my pain.

Actually, you know what? I’m just going to purloin Myriad‘s brilliant analysis of the effects of WisCon:

Myriad Star Ten Thousand WisCon

EXACTLY.

Hem.

But I have finally scraped myself off the floor and crawled over to the couch, burning with the desire to write my damn Con report. Because I cannot keep this awesomeness to myself, my friends. It must be shared with the entire world (or my regular readership, otherwise known as the FBI robots who keep the internet safe). For what other purpose have I been put on this earth?

(The Other Cat’s response to this is: “To pet me.”)

Because I would like to avoid going *SPLAT* again anytime soon (I love the floor, but I think she and I need to take a break, if you know what I mean (she’s getting a little clingy…)), I’m going to post my Con report in several parts. The plan is:

Part one: Thursday recap

Part two: Friday and Saturday recap

Part three: Sunday and Monday recap

with a possible

Part four: Conclusions.

YES, it shall be long. But Space-Babe demands it! She thinks that I should leave no detail out, no information un-recorded. The awesomeness of my Con experience, Space Babe proclaims, must be shared with the masses (Space Babe seems unaware that there are no “masses” reading my blog. But at least I’ll keep the FBI and CIA amused!)

Space babe tiptree WisCon 36

The Space Babe demand a CON REPORT.

By the way, before you ask: Space Babe is the official mascot of the James Tiptree Jr. Award. She flies through the galaxy, fighting injustice, oppression and outdated portrayals of gender roles in speculative fiction. She’s also the fearless leader of the Secret Feminist Cabal (also known as the WisCon membership).

And she’s a BADASS.

So, you know. I do whatever the hell she tells me to do.

THURSDAY:

Officially, WisCon starts on Friday. Unofficially, it begins on Thursday, when the Guests of Honor give a reading at Madison’s resident feminist bookstore, A Room of One’s Own

A Room of One's Own Madison, WI

I went to the GOH reading last year, and there was no way I was missing it this year. Even if I had a giant paper for the Convention to finish writing.

Because I, like a total idiot, decided to propose a paper for the Academic programming. And then the WisCon programmers accepted the aforesaid paper. To which my reaction was:

“Oh, shoot. I didn’t think that would happen.”

Hem.

By Thursday, I was freaking the frack out. I had threatened to empty my savings account to run away to the Bahamas (which shows you the extent of my desperation, since I hate the beach). I had already pulled one all-nighter (my mother nearly called the cops when she saw me up at six in the morning). I was frantically re-outlining the second half of the paper while muttering things like “Monsters ugly! Maidens pretty!” and “It’s all about CYBORGS!”

[As you can see, I'm not the brightest Tanning Bulb in the Academic Tanning Bed]

But I was going to go to the GOH reading if it killed me. So I hopped on my bike and proceeded to nearly get run over by a mail truck. Which was fun.

I was also bringing my younger brother (R.) to the GOH reading because he loves A Room of One’s Own and never misses an occasion to go. Also – what else would you do with your younger brother except bring him to a Feminist Sci-Fi fantasy conference?

(You don’t think twelve year old boys would kill to go to WisCon? You need to take some Vitamin DUH, my good sir/ma’am)

Anyways. When I stopped by my father’s house to pick my brother up (divorced parents are a logistical challenge),  he was not ready to go. Why, you ask?

He didn’t like the way his pants folded over his shoes.

I’m not kidding. We could not leave the house until the pants problem was solved and I had to spend the next ten minutes reviewing pant options and discussing how to pair pants with shoes to avoid bunching.

As you can see, R. was in the WisCon spirit of defying outdated gender norms. I was very proud.

I was less proud when we arrived at A Room of One’s Own and he tried to make off with the store’s entire stock. Possibly I was annoyed because I was trying to make off with the store’s entire stock myself. Don’t get me wrong, I love my brother. But let’s get our priorities straight, okay? When it comes to books, there is no family loyalty. Particularly when we saw that N.K. Jemisin’s The Shadowed Sun was out.

The Shadowed Sun N.K. Jemisin

It’s a minor miracle that R. and I made it to the reading room without either of us emptying our bank accounts. Or offering to do dishes for A Room of One’s Own forever if they let us steal their books. Or killing each other.

The Guests of Honor this year were Debbie Notkin and Andrea Hairston. The Space Babe demands that I give you important background information, so here it is:

Debbie Notkin has been on chair of the WisCon Committee twice, and is the chair of the James Tiptree Jr. Award motherboard. Karen Joy Fowler and Pat Murphy, who initiated the award, have both said that it never would have come off the ground without Debbie Notkin’s tireless work behind the scenes. She’s been a Sci-Fi and Fantasy acquisitions editor for Tor Books and a SF/F bookstore owner.

Debbie Notkin also does body image activist work with photographer Laurie Toby Edison: together, they’ve created two books Women En Large: Images of Fat Nudes and Familiar Men: A Book of Nudes. They also run the body image blog Body Impolitic. Some of Notkin and Edison’s favorite posts were reprinted in the book Impolitic! (the Guest of Honor book published for WisCon by Aqueduct Press) and let me tell you, they are brilliant. Simply brilliant.

Impolitic! Debbie Notkin Andrea Hairston Aqueduct Press

Here’s a random sampling:

On transgender rights: “The right to live in a body that suits you is surely one of the most basic right a human being can have.”(Impolitic, 122)

On the prevalence of stories about people in wheelchairs who “walk again” on TV: “Our culture desperately tries to believe that if you take care of yourself, you will live a really long time and never get sick. Seeing disabled people makes us afraid that we might not live fit and forever. Wheelchairs and the people in them become the bogeyman, the goblin who will be you if you don’t watch your health. To fight the cultural fear, we build myths about people who “walk again.” (Impolic, 118)

[Start reading Body Impolitic. The Space Babe Commands it.]

I know Debbie Notkin by sight, if not personally, because she’s one of the busiest people at WisCon. I swear, she was everywhere last year – I couldn’t have avoided her if I’d tried. When Ellen Klages was auctioning off a naked photograph of Debbie Notkin this year, she joked: “It shows Debbie naked and asleep. You will never see Debbie like this at WisCon. Naked, yes, but asleep, no. That woman does so much. So for anyone curious: this is what Debbie looks like asleep.”

Since Notkin is not a writer, she decided to read the obituary she wrote for her mother’s funeral. Later, a friend of Notkin remarked how typical it was of her to use the spotlight to talk about someone else rather than herself. Notkin’s reading was lovely and moving and surprisingly funny. I meant to take notes, but was too busy listening.

Hem.

Con reporter FAIL.

Debbie Notkin was followed by WisCon 36’s other Guest of Honor, Andrea Hairston. Andrea Hairston is the director of Chrysalis Theater and a Professor of theater and Afro-American studies at Smith College. She writes plays that have been produced at Yale Rep, Rites and Reason, the Kennedy Center, StageWest and on Public Radio. She’s received a fuckmetric ton of playwriting and directing awards. In 2011, she received the International Association of the Fantastic in the Art’s Distinguished Scholarship Award. I knew her before WisCon because I read her paper on Octavia Butler (“Octavia Butler: Praise Song to a Prophetic Artist”) when I was preparing an essay for a conference; Hairston is one of those rare breed of people who actually does academic work in speculative fiction (for which I am deeply, deeply grateful).

Her first novel, Mindscape, won the Carl Brandon Parallex Award, and was on the Phillip K. Dick Award shorlist and the James Tiptree Jr. Award shortlist.

Her second novel, Redwood and Wildfire, came out last year and promptly won the James Tiptree Jr. Award for 2011. Which makes Andrea Hairston the first person to ever have won the Tiptree award in the same year she was WisCon’s Guest of Honor. The Tiptree Jury and the ConCom are made up of completely different people, so the confluence of events was not planned AT ALL. Which makes it all the more exciting.

Redwood and Wildfire cover Andrea Hairston

Andrea Hairston was wearing the most amazing purple hat/tiara/thing (I don’t know what it was, but I want it), and she read from Redwood and Wildfire with musical accompaniment by Pan Morigan. Redwood and Wildfire is, among other things, about the role of African American performers on the stage and on-screen at the turn of the 20th century. In the section Hairston read from, Redwood, a hoodoo conjure woman and actress, is playing the part of a “savage” in some kind of Safari adventure movie when the lion the studios have hired for the scene breaks out of her cage. As Hairston announced the title of her book, she said:

“If you like what you hear, buy the book”
And someone from the audience shouted:
“If you don’t like what you hear, buy the book.”

Which had everyone laughing.

But frankly, I don’t know how you could help but like what you heard. Hairston’s reading was wildly engaging – she’s a consummate performer, and she draws the audience into her work. She had us roaring with laughter with the slightest raise of her eyebrow. Even my brother, who is usually quite fidgety, leaned forwards in his seat, rapt with attention. At the end, he turned to me and asked: “Can I read it after you?”

To which I said: “As long as you don’t try to steal it.”

(spoiler alert: he did try to steal it)

We made it out of the bookstore without stealing any books (but it was tempting) and then headed back to our house.

And then my brother’s bike broke just as it started raining. And not in a “we can just put that chain back on” sort of way. In a “the handlebars are now turned completely backwards” sort of way.

However, my brother and I are resilient. Resourceful. Romanesque. Resolute. In the spirit of WisCon and working through things, we walked through the damn storm, discussing science fiction and feminism all the way. My brother graciously let me blather on about my paper, and pretended to find my whole discussion of monsters and maidens fascinating.

Space Babe Tiptree WisCon

Space Babe was very proud of us

After dropping R. off at my father’s house, I biked to my mother’s house (ah, the logistics of divorce) and then spent the rest of the night (and I do mean: The rest of the night) freaking the frack out as I tried to write my darn paper.

But that’s a story for another time.

NEXT TIME! More tales of WisCon and the Secret Feminist Cabal! Specifically: the tale of Friday and Saturday, which involves a lot of me freaking out, the James Tiptree Jr. Award, and a ton of panels about Women in Comics and Female Villains and other awesome things.

OH!

Crazy Cat

Not The Other Cat, but close

The Other Cat will also make an appearance in my Next Post. Because she helped me write the Damn Paper.

Related Posts:

My WisCon 36 Schedule

How Power Rangers Made Me a Feminist

Eight Great Science Fiction Books for Women

And in Breaking News, American Idol is Still Sexist


How Power Rangers turned me into a Feminist

First things first: I am now on Twitter. Yes, in fact, I do hate myself, why do you ask?
I mostly got twitter because I’m going to WisCon, and tweeting at WisCon is awesome. But I still hate myself.
My twitter handle, for anyone interested, is @CDisoriented. My twitter name is Cultural Disorient. Apparently, I can’t call myself “Culturally Disoriented” on twitter, because that’s too long a name. Ah, technology.

NOW. Let’s move on to better (and more interesting) things: Power Rangers and Feminism

I talk a lot – and blog a lot – about gender issues in culture. I get some flack for this in various quarters. The two big criticism I hear are:

1. Culture doesn’t really matter. Who cares if there aren’t as many girl heroines as boy heroines in movies?** Why aren’t you trying to get more women elected to congress?

[ETA: "boy heroines" is either a typo OR a subtle comment on the gendered nature of nouns. You decide!]

2. Sexism is over! God. Get over it.

[I should add that I get both of these critiques for ALL the social issues I talk about (Racism in Science Fiction? Why aren't you trying to get more People of Color Elected instead? OR Racism is over! Get over it.) But since gender issues are where my interest in social justice issues began, I'm starting with that]

So I’ve decided to explain myself. Why am I so interested in gender issues? And why am I so interested in gender issues in culture (as opposed to congress)?

[Spoiler Alert: it was Power Rangers. Yep. Power Rangers]

Your honor, I’d like to start at the beginning.

I’ve always considered myself a feminist. I mean “always” as in: I honestly can’t remember when I started. I do recall conversations as a six year old when I said I was a feminist, so… it’s been a while.

Back then it didn’t seem like a radical, or a political, position at all. Of course I was a feminist. Why wouldn’t you be a feminist? I thought boys and girls were equal. Feminism thought boys and girls should be equal. Therefore, I was a feminist. To me it was a decision in the same ranks as not killing kittens or believing slavery was wrong. Of course you didn’t kill kittens. Of course you thought slavery was wrong. Of course boys and girls were equal. Why were we even talking about this? Someone hand me the box of legos;I had a pyramid to build.

But in any case, the whole thing seemed rather irrelevant. Because boys and girls were equal. I mean, they might not be equal in some far-away places – but they were were equal in the United States (and in France). If you had told me, at seven or eight, that the great passion of my later life would be gender equality, I would have laughed at you. Why would it be? Sexism was over.

[Spoiler alert: it wasn't]

At least, that’s what I thought.

(I also thought racism was over, so I was pretty innocent. I was, however, aware that homophobia was an issue. I hadn’t, at the time, even considered issues like transphobia, ableism etc.)

Power Rangers changed all that.

Power Rangers and Feminism

Now, what are the Power Rangers? First, if you’re asking this question, you probably don’t have the stain of 90’s cartoons on your soul. The Power Rangers is a ridiculously long-running children’s series/franchise.Five (or six) young people get trained to take down bad guys; they can morph into “power rangers” and pilot giant machines (called Zords) and fight bad guys. There are at least eleventy-billion incarnations of the power rangers (because every three years or so the creators get bored and start over with a new team)*, but it stays remarkably similar across all the series (at least in my memory). There spandex costumes, the terrible fighting and the very weird production values and the general AWESOMENESS.

[Apparently the actual reason they switched the teams up every three years was because that's how in worked in the Sentai series Power Rangers is based on. Ahem. This is what happens when you don't do research before writing your blog]

Because Power Rangers was awesome, let’s be clear. When I was young – which, for the purposes of this post, means when I was under the age of ten – I was obsessed. Obsessed. In a slightly unhealthy way.

I mostly blame this on the explosions. There were GREAT explosions. BOOM! SPLAT!

Awesome.

Also, fighting. There was great fighting. I mean, looking at the fighting in retrospect, it was pretty terrible. But for an eight year old? AWESOME.

Here’s a vid, by the way:

BOOM! SPLAT! AWESOME!

Exactly.

But since Power Rangers had, like, ninety bajillion different teams, after a while, I started to notice a trend.
All the Red Rangers were men.

And since the Red Rangers are always
a) the team leaders
b) the main characters

Well, it seemed a little unfair to me. Why were all the team leaders boys? Weren’t girls equal? And while we were at it, why were the pink rangers always girls? Why were there no pink rangers who were boys? Why were there no girls who were green rangers or black rangers?  And why were there always fewer girls than boys in the team?

This, of course, particularly bothered me because I wanted to be the red ranger. Clearly. I wanted to be the leader [I was super-bossy when I was a kid]. But no one like me – no girls – were red rangers.

[note: I can only speak to the seasons I have seen. I stopped watching in 2002, and I certainly hadn't seen all the seasons/series before then. I know there's been at least ONE female red ranger since then (out of, like, twenty guys)]

It was almost like girls and boys weren’t actually equal – at least not in the Power Rangers.

Now, I was never one to jump to conclusions. Sure, the last eleventy billion teams had all had this weird gender thing. But maybe – maybe – in the next team, they would change things. I was pretty confident about this.

And that’s when Power Rangers: Time Force started.

The second I saw the promos, I got super excited: it looked like the Power Rangers would have a girl leader for the first time. The story seemed to be that the guy leader had died, and so the girl (Jen) had to take over. Which was great. I was all for it!

I was convinced that this would be a true gender switch. That Jen would be red ranger, and that a boy would be the pink ranger. I remember an enthusiastic schoolyard conversation where I talked about how amazing it was that there would be a boy pink ranger.

See? I thought. Girls and boys really are equal! Even in Power Rangers.

[Spoiler Alert: I was wrong]

Jen Pink Ranger Erin Cahill Time Force

Jen: the new Red Ranger. Clearly.

The day I sat down to watch the show for the first time, I was SUPER EXCITED. Can’t even tell you.

Sadly, the plot I’d gleaned from the promos, was not the actual plot.

Here was the real plot:

In the future, Alex the Red Rangers dies (so far so good). So Jen, his girlfriend, takes over. Except that in order for the Power Rangers to actually be a team, they need a Red Ranger (which is Jen, right? The new red ranger is Jen?). So they go back in time to find Alex’s (male) ancestor, Wesley.

By this point, I was like: ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You have a perfectly competent leader. She is awesome. She can kick ass. WHY ARE YOU GOING BACK IN TIME TO FIND SOMEONE ELSE?

[the answer was something along the lines of "blah blah has to have the same DNA blah blah"]

Okay. So they find Wesley. And he’s the new Red Ranger. And of course, Jen is the pink ranger. BUT. It can still be okay, right? Because Jen’s still the leader, right? Because Wesley has no idea what he’s doing, and he has no training, and he’s a total jerk who thinks he’s better than everyone else, whereas Jen does know what she’s doing, and she does have training, and she’s smart and capable. So she’s the leader. Right?

Wrong.

Despite the fact that Jen was “technically” the leader, Wesley was the leader in the only place it really mattered: in battle. He was the field leader. He was the one whose decisions really mattered. Jen was almost always wrong. Wesley was almost always right.

I was excited about this show because I thought Jen, a girl, would be the protagonist and the team leader. But as it turns out, it was all a massive fake-out. Wesley, the boy, was the protagonist and the team leader.

And that’s when my head exploded, your honor.

I realized that, in the world of the Power Rangers, boys and girls were not equal. I mean, even when a girl was more competent, more knowledgeable, more likeable, more qualified and better trained, the boy was still the boss.

WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

It wasn’t just an issue of fairness to me. It was personal. It meant that if I ever became a Power Ranger (hey, I was young, okay? It’s good to have lofty goals when you’re young), no matter how hard I worked and how good I was, I would never, ever, ever get to be the team leader.

I was so angry that I never watched another episode.

[As it turned out, I'd made the right decision, since they did exactly the same thing in the next series. The yellow (girl) ranger, was the interim leader, and then when the red (boy) ranger walks out of the jungle, despite the fact that he's a total rookie, he's immediately chosen as the team leader]

Of course, I didn’t go straight from “girls and boys are equal” to “I am a warrior for gender equality” in three months. It took a while. But Power Rangers had opened the way. I started seeing gender inequality everywhere, from the other kid’s shows I watched, to the books I read, to the politicians in power.

That’s why I always say Power Rangers turned me into an active feminist. And that’s also a big part of the reason why I’m so obsessed with gender issues in culture.

Because it was in a cultural medium – a TV show – that I realized that sexism still existed

And because that cultural medium had such a massively negative effect on me. It was pretty devastating to think that  no matter how smart or good I was, I could never be the leader of a team of superheroes.

So yes. Culture matters. And yes. Sexism still exists.

feminism pop humor so that explains the difference in our salaries

And if you ever wonder why I spend so much time blogging about social issues in pop culture: blame the Power Rangers. It’s all their fault.

But most importantly. I’ll probably never be a Red Ranger. But I do get to be an even better kind of warrior: A warrior for gender equality. And warrior for social justice (BAAAH, that sounds corny. But I can’t help it. I grew up on a steady diet of Sailor Moon, Xena: Warrior Princess, Batman and Power Rangers. I’ve always wanted to be a warrior. Ah, growing up in the 90’s…]

And that’s something I can do without wearing a weird spandex suit.

Red Ranger Power Rangers

Although those outfits are pretty fabulous

One thing I didn’t talk about in this post is the issue of race in Power Rangers. But I really SHOULD mention it. A friend suggested that I look up the uniform colors for the first team of the Power Rangers. I did, and my head nearly exploded.
The black ranger is an African American man, and the yellow ranger is an Asian woman.

Seriously?

I did also notice when I was growing up that all the red Rangers were white men (there have since been non-white red Rangers), and that the pink rangers were almost always white women. I’m sure other people have more insight into this, because the Power Rangers have been going on for so long at this point… but is this still a trend?

[Funny story: The first big thing I did to solve gender inequality was write a letter to 4Kids (the children's show division of Fox TV) where I explained that Yu-Gi-Oh (the show about the card game) didn't have any good female characters (because none of the female characters ever won the card games), and giving them a suggestion for a great female character (who could win the card game). Unsurprisingly, they did not take my suggestion to heart]

Related Posts:

WisCon 36 Schedule

And in Breaking News: American Idol is Still Sexist

An Open Letter to Roger Ebert: Women are not Better than Men

Eight Great Books of Science Fiction for Women


My Wiscon 36 Schedule

Uh, first of all: I have a WisCon 36 Schedule? Whose life is this, and why am I living it?

WisCon 28 poster

WisCon, for the uninitiated, is the world’s foremost feminist science fiction convention. It’s taken place every year in Madison, Wisconsin, for the past 36 years. It’s home to the James Tiptree Jr. Award: an annual literary prize for science fiction or fantasy that expands or explores our understanding of gender.* It’s got incredible, political, in-depth programming about feminism, race, gender, class, genre, fanfiction, sexuality and writing (among others). It’s got hilarious and fun events like the annual James Tiptree Jr. auction, and the parties (the parties are amazing). It’s now an international convention, with people coming in from all around the world to celebrate being part of the feminist science fiction community.

This year the guests of honor are Andrea Hairston and Debbie Notkin. Andrea Hairston is also this year’s Tiptree Award winner (a first!) for her novel Redwood and Wildfire. If you live in Madison, or in the Madison area: drop everything and go. It is that awesome. Trust me.

WisCon union poster

Now, here’s the thing about WisCon .I am a feminist. I am also a huge science fiction fan. So you would think that WisCon would be the perfect place for me, right?

So why didn’t I know about it until last year?

And even worst – I live in Madison! It’s my hometown!

Oh, situational irony.

But it does not matter. For I came to WisCon 35; I saw WisCon 35; I, er…well, I’m not sure I conquered WisCon 35, but… let’s just say it was a life-changing experience. My first night, I was having dinner with a group of lovely people when someone mentioned I was sitting next to Geoff Ryman, a Tiptree Award (and now Nebula Award) winning author. I nearly choked on my soup. (by the way, Geoff Ryman, in addition to being an incredible writer, is also a very funny and kind human being). I discovered writers like James Tiptree Jr., Karen Joy Fowler, Nisi Shawl, Nnedi Okorafor and Nalo Hopkinson. I spent the entire weekend feeling awed and overwhelmed and overjoyed to have finally found people who were as wonderfully obsessed as I was with feminism and with science fiction.

So yes. I’m going back. And this time… I’m on the programming.

Okay, one programming item. But still. I’m terrified.

Saturday from 4:00 to 5:15, I will be giving a paper about Catherynne Valente’s duology The Orphan’s Tales. I have in every way finished writing said paper, and thus have nothing to worry about.

(and that was a tangled web of lies)

This is my first paper I’m presenting outside of my University setting, so, you know. No pressure. Also, I’m an undergrad. So why am I giving a paper?

Oh, god.

I AM IN NO WAY HYPERVENTILATING ABOUT THIS. I feel fine, why do you ask?

Oh god.

THIS WAS A TERRIBLE IDEA. I have nothing to talk about! I shall be laughed out of the room. GAAAAH. WHY?

Annie Scream community GIF

This is me right now. Except less restrained.

I’m starting to think I have an evil twin that just submits abstracts to things without my permission. There’s no other explanation for why I keep finding myself in this situation.

And it’s only Sunday, people! You can come here every day to witness more of my freakouts. Because they will be legion.

I may as well throw myself off a bridge now…

Ahem. If I manage to survive the paper, however, I intend to spend the rest of the convention running around to all the cool panels (this will involve breaking the space/time continuum because all the cool panels happen at the same time. I’ll figure something out) and avoiding the legions of famous authors who always show up at WisCon. As everyone knows, famous people scare me. Last year, I threw myself in a stairwell to avoid meeting Catherynne Valente at WisCon. I also ducked in a bathroom once when Nisi Shawl came my way (they both seem like lovely people. Trust me: I’m the problem). I’ll also run around to the cool parties. And the other cool things.

pink balloons

SQUEE, parties!

I’ll be there all day, every day, from Thursday evening to Monday morning, grinning like an idiot. It will be awesome (except for the paper. WHAT WAS I THINKING?)

I will also be blogging from WisCon, so my apologies, but there will be many posts next weekend, and they will all be along the lines of “OH MY GOD, BEST PANEL EVER *FREAKING OUT*”

And my brother’s coming with me (at least for part of the time) this year. Because he heard about the awesomeness of the feminist science fiction convention, and now he wants to be there too. Can you blame him? He’s threatened to drag me to the genderfloompf party (where there is gender bending), which I find patently unfair, because he can just steal one of our stepsister’s dresses, but I have to come up with an entire male-outfit ensemble from scratch. Anyone have a tux I can borrow?

How I met your mother suit up barney

Already pressing my suits.

Anyways! If you are planning on going to WisCon, and you want to meet up (or say hi), drop me a line. Well, not literally, because I’m not sure what that would entail. But you know what I mean. Or if you just want to say hi, I’ll be the girl grinning like an idiot (I realize that’s not too specific. Okay, how’s this: I also wear glasses!)

So excited!

*(the inside joke about the James Tiptree Jr award is that it’s founders wanted to have an award named after a woman (since all sci-fi awards were named for men) – so they named it after James Tiptree Jr. Because James Tiptree Jr. is the pseudonym of Alice B. Sheldon)


And in Breaking News, American Idol is Still Sexist

A couple weeks ago, I wrote a post called “Why Can’t Women Win Idol? (Hint: it’s Not Because of Teen Girls).” I argued that the reason female contestants have so much trouble on American Idol is because the show itself gives men an unfair advantaged – not because a bunch of hormonal teenage girls vote for the cute boyzz.

The good news is, we’ve got a woman in the final two: Jessica Sanchez. Yes, the 16 year old who was almost eliminated during top seven week. So maybe – just maybe – a woman might win this season and end the four years of white male domination (I’m still terribly sad for my Idol crush  whoops I mean the incredible talented Joshua Ledet, who I thought should have ended up in the top two with her).

(Hey, I love him ’cause he’s talented, okay?)

Joshua Ledet Jessica Sanchez

My personal top two for the year…

The bad news is that American Idol is desperately trying to check off every.single.box on the American Idol Sexism Bingo Card.  Which: ARGH. I was hoping Idol would burn the damn Sexism card, not play with renewed vigor.

(Dear American Idol: I realize you may not have understood my last post. It was not meant as a challenge. Please stop trying to prove me right and start trying to prove me wrong (by not being sexist). Thank you)

American Idol only has two more show to go. How many more ways can they try to check off the boxes on the  Sexism bingo card?

Before we answer that, let’s look at the many ways they’ve checked those boxes in the past few weeks.

1. Jessica’s Dress-gate

“A subset of this problem is the clothes issue: while I’ve never heard a man criticized for his fashion choices by a judge, many, many female contestants have had their style questioned.” (Culturally Disoriented, Why Don’t Women Win Idol?)

On the Top 5 results show, American Idol mentor Jimmy Iovine gave a critique of each singer’s performances on the prior night. This is what he had to say about Jessica Sanchez’s rendition of “Proud Mary” : “That dress was too mature for her. I believe there were a lot of people at home last night who felt uncomfortable.”

Seriously?

Seriously?

What the hell, Jimmy?

By the way, let’s take a look at this so called “mature” dress.

Jessica Sanchez proud mary white dress

Oh the horror?

Dude, it’s a singing contest. Why are you talking about her clothes? Why aren’t you talking about her singing? Sheesh.

The problem isn’t just that Jessica’s clothes were critiqued. It’s that only women are judged for their styling decisions on American Idol. Male contestants don’t have to worry about it. Female contestants do. If you’re going to comment on Jessica’s style, Jimmy, you have to also comment on Phillip Phillip’s. Or Deandre Brackensick’s. Or Colton Dixon’s.

My favorite American Idol commentator, Michael Slezak, often talks about the women’s fashion choices. But he also talks about the men’s. If he says that Elise had a great dress, he’ll also mention the fact that Colton was wearing a weird blouse. Equality is all I ask for, peoples.

The other problem, of course, is that Jessica’s styling decisions aren’t entirely in her hands: she’s dressed by stylists. And Jimmy even acknowledged that when he said “Stylists, what are you doing? You’re torpedoing this girl.”
So if it’s not something that’s under her control, why are you devoting most of your critique time to it? Why don’t you just go talk to the stylists? You’re the mentor, you can do that.

Or, in other words, why do we seem to think it’s appropriate for a fifty year old man to comment on a sixteen year old girl’s clothing when it’s not under her control and it has nothing to do with her performance? And when he would never say the same thing to a male contestant?

It’s not appropriate. Stop doing it – or else, start doing it to everyone. Thank you.

Ah, the land of American Idol.

BTW: My brother would like American Idol to know that “it’s about the singing, not the clothes.”

2. Men are artists! Women… are not.

“The trouble is, I’ve never heard a judge call a woman an artist. Or give her credit for song rearrangement. I’m sure it’s happened – it’s not like I’ve watched the show for that long. But again, as Michael Slezak said “somehow, it’s always easier for a guy with an acoustic guitar to get credit for song rearrangement than a girl.” Female contestants like Crystal Bowersox, Carly Smithson, Haley Reinhart, Katelyn Epperly, Allison Iraheta and Siobahn Magnus would make radical – and successful – changes to songs, and the judges would never praise them for it (…) While a man can be a great singer and a great artist, a woman on Idol can only be a great singer. It’s another weapon in their arsenal that men have, and women don’t.” (WDWWI?)

I seriously did not think this would be a problem this year, given how creative and artistic the women are.

But alas, I was proven wrong.

On top seven (redux) night, Phillip Phillips rearranged an Usher song (U got it bad). After the performance, Randy Jackson said: “This year, guys, we have a true artist on the stage.”

Now, on the same night, Skylar Laine transformed not one but two songs (“Born this Way” (pop) and “I Heard it through the Grapevine”(motown)) into country tunes. Very nice, Skylar! Surely your daring rearrangements will prompt a judge to comment on how “artistic” and “creative” you are! Particularly since they liked both performances!

[spoiler alert: it didn't]

Skylar Laine does exactly the same thing as Phillip… but she’s not an artist. Someone explain why to me, so I can understand, because my brain is not computing the data (then again, I am an emotionless female robot. So… it’s no wonder I can’t understand).

Skylar Laine Born This Way

You know what would be really artistic, Skylar? If you did the same song and the same arrangement… but as a man. Now that’s creativity!

And this, my friends, is a trend. Jessica Sanchez turned Beyonce’s “Sweet Dreams” into a ballad (I cannot get over how gorgeous the studio recording is); Elise Testone rearranged “Bold as Love” (she also transformed a few other songs, but this was her most radical transformation)**, Skylar Laine consistently “countrified” mainstream music, even Hollie Cavanaugh made some interesting changes to “Bleeding Love.” But none of them were called artists. Oh no. There is only one true artist on the Idol stage – Phillip Phillips, the white male contestant.

Seriously, what else would poor Skylar Laine have to do to be called an artist? She plays the guitar, she rearranged songs – Elise played the piano – is there anything these women can do to get the necessary “artist” label?

I’m starting to doubt it.

(other than stealing a “Y” chromosome, of course. Jessica, why don’t you try that for next week, ‘mkay?)

The other infuriating thing is that when “artists” like Phillip Phillips choose obscure songs – specifically, “The Stone” – they are praised for it. Meanwhile, when Elise Testone chooses an obscure song (“Bold as Love”), she’s lambasted for it.

*sigh*

Moving right along…

3. Women are emotionless drones

“And, in a case of hitting someone when they’re down, women tend to get the “cold and emotionless” critique far more than men do.” (WDWWI?)

So, after Elise Testone’s performance of “Let’s Get it On,” JLo critiqued her emotional connection to the song. Then she added in this lovely little line: “they [the audience] want to know that you’re a person. That you feel things.”

OH MY GOD, ELISE IS A CYBORG! *so excited* I’ve always wanted to meet a cyborg -*

Oh, wait, that wasn’t what JLo meant. Hem. Ignore me.

But seriously, people. We all know Elise Testone is a person. Can we please stop using this critique? Because it’s almost exclusively used for women. It’s also almost exclusively used for women in fan forums where, I swear, every single contestant this season from Skylar Laine to Elise Testone to Jessica Sanchez has been criticized for being an emotionless robot.

The fact that this critique was used on Elise Testone – of all contestants – is particularly ridiculous. Elise is the contestant this season who has had the most trouble keeping a poker face and not being overwhelmed by her emotions (something she’s been criticized for quite a bit). She’s also a deeply authentic performer. Just because she’s not crying onstage doesn’t mean she’s not authentic.

Elise Testone Bold as Love

I didn’t know we made robots that looked so lifelike and human…

The judges, I should add, were specifically critiquing Elise for not getting more emotional about her terminally ill dog. Thanks, guys, for giving such a brilliant portrait of what it really means to be “inhuman.”

To me, this constant reminder that women are never “emotional” enough (unless they’re too emotional) is a really disturbing denial of these women’s humanity. In Jessica Sanchez’s case, one of the most common fan critiques is that she’s some kind of super-robot who has been raised from the age of three to be a singer, and thus she can’t possibly have any emotional connection to what she’s singing. Which is ridiculous, and impossible to defend against. I’m sure someone can give a more trenchant critique, but it seems like we automatically assume men are “connecting” and “human” while women have to prove it.

(Hey, I’ve got an idea! Since all the female singers have been criticized for being robotic, maybe they’re all part of an evil robot army whose plan is to take over the world through awesome singing! That would be AMAZING. Someone write the comic!)

Robot army idol singers

Female Idol Singers = Actually A Robot Army. It explains EVERYTHING.

4. Refusing to Critique/Overhyping the Male Contestants

“The Judges recognize male contestants more often. Two weeks ago on Idol, the judges gave an unprecedented FIVE standing ovations in the course of a single show. Every single male performer except one got a standing O, and the one who didn’t was mentioned over and over in the show as having “set the bar.” Only one female performer received a standing ovation, despite the fact that most critics thought performers like Skylar Laine or Jessica Sanchez (neither of whom received a standing ovation) performed better than Deandre Brackensick and Heejun Han (both of whom received one).” (WDWWI?)

I could paraphrase my entire last post in one sentence: Men win on Idol because they are framed as winners by the judges (and the producers).

And it keeps happening.

After Phillip Phillips had a mediocre performance, Jennifer Lopez – who specifically said that she wanted a woman to win this year – told him: ” “I need you to do songs that are going to get you to that last show so you can win.”
She specifically tagged him as a winner even when he had a bad performance. None of the female contestants have gotten this kind of shoutout.

He was also called the only true artist onstage.

Joshua Ledet, meanwhile – who, by the way, I absolutely love – has gotten an unprecedented fifteen standing ovations over the course of the show. Steven Tyler said he was one of the top two contestants to ever appear on the show (in eleven seasons). Jennifer Lopez, meanwhile, told him that he was one of the top two singers in the last fifty years.

Talk about overpraising! Top two singers in the last fifty years? Whitney Huston, James Brown, Elvis Presley, John Lennon, Freddie Mercury and Michael Jackson are all joining Aretha Franklin in singing: “R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me!”

Then the judges called on Jimmy Iovine to take good care of Joshua Ledet when giving him a record contract. Well, first, they’re assuming Iovine WILL give him a record contract, and second… again, a shout-out that no female contestant has gotten.

They keep framing the men either as the winners or as the best things since human history was invented.

Uh, it’s no wonder men keep winning if they’re judged like this.

Even Jessica Sanchez, who is pretty heavily praised by the judges, gets nowhere near this level of critique. While the judges jump to their feet for Joshua, they will reluctantly give Jessica a standing ovation. At some point, JLo even told Elise Testone that she didn’t want to stand for her, but Elise Testone’s performance persuaded her otherwise. This is something she’s never said to a male contestant. Male contestants get their ovations unreservedly… women get them with caveats.

The other problem with the judge’s critique of the men is that… well, they’re not really critiquing them. Ever. Phillip Phillips and Joshua Ledet haven’t received a constructive critique in I-don’t-know-how-long. Even when Phillip Phillips completely screws up (in ‘Time of the Season” (no, seriously, it’s a bloodbath)) or when Joshua Ledet forgets the words of his song (“I Believe”), they get free passes. The women on idol do not get this kind of free pass: if they were anything less than brilliant in the past few episodes, they were critiqued, and often quite harshly.

And it’s not that I think women shouldn’t be critiqued. It’s just that if you’re going to give men a free pass and tell them they’re “great” when they’re… not, then you have to do the same thing for women.

6. In Conclusion

Yep, American Idol is still sexist. Boo. Boo, I say.

I would really like to hold out hope that there won’t be some kind of bias against Jessica Sanchez in the finale episode – that she and Phillip Phillips will truly be judged as equals. Because that, in the end, is what bothers me so much about the sexism I see on American Idol. If Phillip Phillips wins, I want him to win because of his popularity and his hard work, not because of the show’s unconscious bias towards men. I don’t want to have to keep seeing female contestants get undercut on stage. If the men are truly better – if the men are truly more popular – they will win even without the show’s bias. But right now, the show has a bias, so it’s impossible for me to say that any result is entirely fair.**

I hold out hope that the finale will, in fact, be a showcase of both Jessica and Phillip’s talents, and that both will be praised and criticized in a fair manner. But I’m not holding my breath.

Which is why I tell you, Jessica Sanchez: if you want to be judged equally… maybe consider dressing as a boy for next week? They might call you an artist! After all, only men are artists! And they certainly won’t criticize your clothes…

Jessica Sanchez, Fallin'

By the way, you have awesome personal style. That is all.

(I’m being facetious here; please don’t hurt me).

And finally, before we all leave. Sexism is not confined to American Idol, people! Guess what other show is guilty of some pretty blatant and disgusting misogyny! The Voice! HURRAH!

Yes, on the final performance episode, Christina Aguilera dared point out that the song Tony Lucca chose to sing – Jay Z’s “99 problems” – was “a little derogatory towards women.” She also praised Tony’s voice and said “but all in all it was good fun.”

The lyrics are “”If you’re havin’ girl problems, I feel bad for you son / I got 99 problems but a bitch ain’t one.”

A little derogatory. A little derogatory.

Now, of course, the real problem is that Aguilera was eviscerated for daring to point out the misogyny in the lyrics. She was eviscerated by Adam Levine, Lucca’s mentor, who condescendingly told her that “bitch” didn’t mean “bitch” but “everything bad in life.” (which is still sexist, by the way), and that the word was a “metaphor.” She was eviscerated in the recaps and the fan forums the next day.

I’ll leave most of the coverage here to Shakesville, where BrianWS writes a great takedown of the issue. But here’s my comment. Aguilera has been called a bitch many times in her career. And she was called a “bitch” for daring to point out the misogyny in Tony Lucca’s song.

Were those critics and fans being metaphorical?

What’s the metaphor?

(Hey Christina! What kind of world do we live in?)

* Elise Testone may be the most Science Fictional contestant ever. First, she’s a cyborg. Second, she covered “Bold as Love,” which, as SF fans knows, is the title of Gwyneth Jones’ incredible novel about a dystopian England ruled by rock stars. I love her. Madly.

** when I talk about fair results, I don’t mean that the best singer wins. I just mean that the results are unaffected by issues of the show’s bias, or sexism, racism, homophobia etc.

Related Posts:

Why Can’t Women Win Idol

An Open Letter to Roger Ebert

A Letter to My future Russian Wife


An Open Letter to Roger Ebert, Or: Women are Not Better than Men

[Much thanks to feministe, which pointed me in the direction of Roger Ebert's original blog post, and helped clarify why I found it so problematic. Frankly, they say what I'm about to say better and in fewer words. So go there! Much thanks also to my wonderful friend JYP, who studies science, literature and scientific discourse, for reading the post and helping me understand why the science was wrong]

[My apologies if this post is not as organized or coherent as usual. I'm currently battling the flu, a headache and a bad fever. Hopefully I haven't said something particularly stupid; if I have, let me know]

[Trigger Warning for gendered insults, and discussions of sexual harassment and violence]

Dear Mr. Ebert,

A couple days ago (for mother’s day) you posted a blog post entitled “Women are Better than Men.” Interesting title. Provocative title. I have a few thoughts about the ensuing article (I won’t even get into the mess in the comments), if you’ll allow me to express them? Yes? Thank you. Much appreciated.

Now, before I get into the specifics, I should say a few things. First: I’m a huge fan of your work. HUGE fan. You’re one of the people who got me to appreciate movies as an art form. I think your reviews are wonderful, and your blog posts are usually well-thought, intelligent, provocative pieces. So I’m usually inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, even when you don’t like movies I like, or you write posts that I don’t agree with.

Second: I’m a woman. I’m also a feminist. I’m a pretty active feminist, insofar as one can be: I read a lot about gender issues, I write a lot about gender issues (both on my blog and in academic settings), I think a lot about gender issues. And as a feminist and a woman, I think women are pretty damn awesome. I love talking about awesome women. I love thinking of examples of why women are awesome. I would therefore usually be inclined to agree with an article about how women are awesome. Because they are (so are men, but that’s not the point under debate at this time).

So when I tell you that I thought your article was a pretty big piece of, well, not to put it too harshly – crap – I hope you’ll understand that it’s really not personal. I really, really wanted to like your article. It was just very, very bad, and filled with the kind of problematic assumptions about gender roles I would expect from Mitt Romney rather than someone like you, who I usually think of as rather thoughtful and liberal.

You are not being the great women’s ally you think you are. I know you think you’re being flattering. You aren’t. I am not flattered. I know you think you’re being helpful. You aren’t. You’re reinforcing damaging gender norms and making them seem “natural” as opposed to socially constructed. I know that the commentators on your website think you’re being a feminist (I have no idea whether or not you personally identify as a feminist/womanist or a feminist/womanist ally). You aren’t.

Now, I’ll be clear about what I find problematic in your article. I don’t actually disagree with your idea that aggressiveness and competitiveness are over-valued in current society, and that we might be better off if we valued compassion, nurturing, diplomacy a little more etc. It’s an idea I think has some value, even if it’s a bit simplistic. I just disagree with your idea that compassion and nurturing are inherently female traits – and thus that women are better.

Let me start by saying (as a woman and a feminist) that NO, women are not better than men. Nor are men better than women. Individual women are certainly better than individual men, and there are individual men who are better than individual women. But as a monolith: NO, WOMEN ARE NOT BETTER THAN MEN.

Seriously.

Let me quickly summarize your argument for those unfamiliar with it: Women are nurturers and diplomats. They are “nice.” They care about others. Even though we have historically valued “competitive” and “aggressive” men, women’s nurturing niceness is actually better, particularly in modern society. Hurrah! Women are better than men!

[Spoiler alert: No they aren't]

Sadly, I don’t have time to deconstruct all of your arguments point per point. So I’ll just focus on the basics:

1. How your science is wrong

2. Why women are really “nice”

3. Why your post is a giant problem

Let’s get into the details, shall we?

1. How the Evolutionary and Scientific Data is incorrect

Your basic premise, Mr. Ebert, is that women are nurturers and diplomats, while men are competitive and aggressive. You use evolution to back this up: women started off as child-rearers and men started off as hunters, therefore women are nurturers and men are competitive.

It’s always fun when people – and here, I’m including you, Mr. Ebert – use science to explain gender roles. Particularly evolutionary science. Now, I’m not a scientist, and my scientific knowledge is pretty limited, but I do have resources: my wonderful, brilliant friend JYP, who studied science for a long time (and still studies it) and now works with scientific discourse. Most of the trenchant analysis in this section is either inspired by, or directly lifted, from a conversation we had about your blog post.

Let us begin at the beginning.

Yes, in prehistoric societies, women tended to be gatherers, and men tended to be hunters. Now, crucially, the science that tells us this is NOT a rigorous science. We’re working off of the fossil record, not video recordings. So any “men were hunters then, so it explains why men are hunters now”  arguments are built on shaky ground.

But, let us assume for a minute that the basic idea (men: hunters, women: gatherers) is correct. So (for now) I’m with you for your argument that:”Men are better are hunting, and women are better at gathering.” Then you go “Men are taller, heavier, stronger. They’re not in the child-rearing business.” And that’s when you really slip off the rails.

Here’s how JYP explains it:

“He [Ebert] cited some “facts”: women gathered and men hunted. From those facts he’s suggesting that this was because women were better at raising children and men were better at hunting. DING! DING! DING! Clear moment in which his bias appears here. He’s talking about HUNTER-GATHERER societies, but somehow it hasn’t turned into skilled hunting and skilled gathering. No, it’s now about skilled hunting and skilled child-rearing. He’s assuming that women gathered because they had to take care of children and that’s [gathering] all they could manage.”

Least you missed it: You, Mr. Ebert, went from “women were better gatherers” to “women were better child-rearers.” These are not the same things. If women were innately gatherers, then maybe they had better attention to detail. Maybe they were better at finding things. We don’t know. But you immediately jump to the assumption that women were gatherers because they were child-rearers, and block out all other possibilities.

For the record, my friend’s anthropology textbook suggests that women took care of children because it was easier to watch children while gathering than to watch children while hunting. Which would contradict the “women were gatherers because they had to rear children because they were inherently child-rearers” idea. But let’s move on.

Another interesting argument of yours about prehistoric societies:”men are taller, heavier, stronger. They’re not in the child-rearing business.”

Really?

So, by that assumption, being tall, strong and heavy is inherently opposed to child-rearing activities. Thus women who are taller are not in the child-rearing business either, I would assume? And men who are short and skinny are in the child-rearing business, correct?

Yeah no.

And child-rearing doesn’t require strength? I beg to differ, Mr. Ebert. I built more muscle babysitting than I did in five years of Tae-Kwon-Doe. Or, to put it in prehistoric terms: Have you ever tried carrying two kids while running away from a rival band of hunter/gatherers?

That might require some strength, right?

There are also many species of animals where the female is, in fact, bigger and stronger than the male. Scientists hypothesis that this increases the female’s fecundity, since she can better feed the child in the womb, and protect it outside of the womb. I quote: “The fecundity advantage hypothesis states, that a big mother is able to produce more offspring and give those offspring more favorable conditions to ensure their survival [...] Another reason why females are believed to be larger is due to the fact that they provide parental care for a substantial amount of time while the offspring matures.”

My point here isn’t that human men make better child-rearers because they are bigger and stronger. It’s that strength and size is not inherently opposed to child-rearing activities (as you seem to believe). To presume otherwise is a fallacy.

In other words: we don’t know why the prehistorics organized themselves the way they did. For one thing, to presume that it was because the “weaker” “smaller” women were inherently better at child-rearing is a fallacy. For another, they were hunter-gatherers, not hunter-nurturers. There is a difference.

Let’s keep moving along, shall we?

2. The “eugenics fallacy”

The biggest problem with your scientific argument, Mr. Ebert, is that you assume that our prehistoric selves are a blueprint for our modern-day selves. Prehistoric biology is destiny.

First, as I’ve discussed above, we don’t actually know why the prehistorics organized themselves the way they did. We’re only guessing.

Second, you assume that our societies (including our prehistoric ones) grew to accommodate our inherent biological traits. Men = hunters, women = nurturers. Our societies have thus always organized around men being hunters (and leaders) and women staying in the kitchen and nurturing the babies.

But! Biology itself is constantly evolving. Even if prehistoric women are inherently child-rearers, we are not our prehistoric selves.

To quote, once again, my friend JYP: “Ebert assumes that women’s and men’s ‘natures’ are fixed, and that social structures emerged to best accommodate their natures (…) The problem is that he’s suggesting that biology is the reason ‘women are better’, because women evolved this way, when he`s actually treating biology essentially. Biology itself is actually always evolving.”

Gasp! Biology itself is evolving? Do you have proof for this, JYP? Would you (even better) have proof that sexual differences (the very things that you, Mr. Ebert, cite as the reason women are better at nurturing) are evolving?

YES!

Continued quote: “[Ebert] He never bothers to consider, for instance, that there has been a significant decrease in [humanity's] sexual dimorphism. Yes, as I always complain, on average men are still stronger and taller (…) But biological differences between men and women are diminishing. This is probably in response to the changes he’s talking about – men don’t need to hunt anymore. So they don’t have to be as big anymore. But then, also, men don’t hunt anymore – it`s no longer more dangerous for children to be cared for by men than by women. So why are women still biologically more fit to be mothers? Breasts? Dude clearly never heard that men can lactate too. What we know of evolution tells us that there is nothing essential about biology – it’s always fluid.”

I’m going to paraphrase this again by saying: We are not our prehistoric selves. Our biology – our “inherent” natures (note that I don’t believe biology is destiny in any case, but I’m playing your game for a bit, Mr. Ebert) – is always, always changing. And, most importantly, the biological differences between men and women have greatly diminished since the prehistoric times.

One of your arguments is that breasts signal a woman’s ability to “feed” her young. But apparently, men can lactate too. So…

Yeah.

Now, Mr. Ebert, I can hear your argument. If we aren’t simply carbon-copy blue-prints of our prehistoric selves, then why are women more likely to be nurturers and men more likely to be competitive?

Well, there’s a pretty simple answer to that, Mr. Ebert:

3. Social Roles and Reinforcement

Here’s the thing: yes, as a rule, women (in western societies) tend to be nicer than men.

You know why that is?

Because women are expected to be nicer than men. Women are expected to be nurturers. Women are expected to be “sweet.” Women are, yes, expected to be beautiful. Women are expected to give way to others, and to be social, and to be diplomatic and compassionate.

And women who aren’t those things – who don’t conform to a narrow range of behavioral expectations – are punished.

We live in a society where gender roles are rigidly policed. Where to be a “feminine” man or a “masculine” woman is a dangerous and difficult thing. There’s nothing “inherent” about gender roles: they are learned behavior.

From childhood, girls are taught to be nice. When boys push each other and fight, we say “well, boys will be boys.” When girls push each other and fight, we tell them they’re “mean” and “inappropriate.” I’ve even seen this happen in my family – where when the boy did something inappropriate, it allowed to pass with a shrug, while when the girl did the exact same thing, she was given an instant time out.

Most girl want to be a “nice” girl. Not every boy wants to be a nice boy.

You want to know why more girls go to college than boys? Same story:

In high school, boys who goof off and get bad grades are, more often than not, let off with a shrug. Boys will be boys. They’ll sow their wild oats (seriously, WTF does that even mean?) and get serious later on in life. On the other hand, girls who goof off and get bad grades are troublemakers and (pardon my language) bitches. Girls are expected to sit down and do well. Boys… not so much

This keeps going throughout adulthood.

I’ll start with some examples from the internet, since both you and I are working in that forum.

Sometimes people wonder why women don’t participate in internet activities more. The internet, after all, is the next technological frontier; anyone who has any ambition whatsoever should have an online presence of some kind. One can only conclude that women aren’t as “ambitious” as men. Or one could remember that chat room participants with female usernames receive 25 times more threatening and/or sexually explicit private messages than those with male or ambiguous usernames. 

Do you think examples like these could explain why women are less “ambitious” on the internet? Why women, perhaps, don’t feel as comfortable there?

No?

I’ll give some more examples. I know a lot about online harassment (mostly not from personal experience, fortunately). But I know that when women act “aggressively” – when they argue with men, when they state their opinion, when they take on “controversial” (and even not-so-controversial) positions – they are often subject to harassment. Women on the web receive hate mail. They are called bitches, cunts and whores. They are cyber-harassed in the most vicious way possible. Some of them are cyberstalked. Some of them are actually stalked.

This does not happen to men (or at least, not nearly as often).

Mr. Ebert, if you were more likely to be attacked, dismissed and even stalked for posting your opinion online, I think you would make a big effort to be “nicer” too. I know that I, as a woman who has experienced a small measure of sexual harassment online, am always extraordinarily careful about what I write and how I write it. I once posted a joke on a friend’s webpage about President Bush. His friend misinterpreted the joke, and spent the next three weeks sending me angry instant messages calling me a “cunt” and wishing I would die. Men can get away with rants. I have to be logical and measured. If I post an angry rant, I am much more likely to be told that I’m being “hysterical” and a “bitch” rather than “passionate” or “logical.”

The internet, of course, is not the only place this happens. It’s a more-or-less commonly accepted fact that women who act competitively in the workplace are seen as bitches, while men who act competitively in the workplace are just seen as ambitious. As Andy Sachs says of her mean-but-effective boss, Miranda Priestly, in the movie The Devil Wears Prada, “if she were a man, all anyone would talk about is how good she is at her job.”

I would write more about the double standards women are subjected to in the workplace, but frankly, there’s a wealth of research out there that I don’t feel like repeating. Here’s my point: of course women are more likely to act diplomatically and compassionately in the workplace. They know they aren’t going to get anywhere if they’re considered harpies.

We live in a society where gender roles are very carefully policed. Men must act like men (I am in no way unawares that men too, must deal with a great deal of social pressure to act stereotypically masculine… I just don’t have the room to write about it). Women must act like women. If they don’t, there will be consequences. You think men don’t wear dresses because all men hate dresses? Or because they know they would be mocked and bullied for doing so? The latter is probably more accurate.

Under these circumstances, it’s basically impossible to tell whether or not women are really “nicer” than men – or if they’re just conforming to our highly-policed gender roles.

We have no idea what women are “really” “inherently’ like without these imposed gender roles. We don’t even know what men are “really” “inherently” like without these imposed gender roles.

As the great Catharine MacKinnon once said: “Take your foot off our necks. Then we will hear in what tongue women speak.”

4. Why your post actually causes problems:

I wouldn’t write you this long, somewhat angry letter, Mr. Ebert, if I didn’t think that your post was actually contributing to the problem of sexism in western society. So let’s move onto the problems, shall we?

When I first read your post my reaction was: “Oh, not this Victorian Angel-in-the-House Bullshit again.” Pardon my language. I was distraught. Let me explain, for readers who are not, as I am, obsessive literature students.

The Angel-in-the-house is a concept that arose in England and English-Speaking nations (like the USA) during the Victorian period (although it has long historical roots). It’s rather complicated and there are a lot of permutations, but here’s a basic rundown: women are better than men. Women are pure, and docile and submissive. Women are truly moral creatures. Women are the saviors of society, their guiding light, their moral paramours.  Women keep society pure by: nurturing good children, by creating “pure” “uncorrupted” households, and by taking care of their husbands.

The Angel-in-the-House paradigm was used to justify keeping women out of the public sphere. Women couldn’t be in business! Women couldn’t vote! Those activities would corrupt them! And then how would society function?

(fortunately, suffragettes were like “screw this “innocent” BS” and went out and demonstrated, chained themselves to fences, went on hunger strikes and used everything from politics to violence to get their rights)

I am not kidding you, Roger Ebert. One of the main justifications for denying women the vote was saying “women are better than men” or “women are nurturers” and then adding a “so they cannot be corrupted or society will fall!”

Funny how similar that argument is to yours, isn’t it? Yes, you think that women’s “better” qualities are a justification for them to become more, not less, involved with business and politics. But you’re still playing into a long-standing and sexist tradition that calls women “better” in order to justify keeping them in their place.

I would go further than that and say that you are perpetuating sexist and harmful stereotypes.

First, your argument that women are “better” because the are “nicer” make swomen who don’t fit this paradigm seem useless (or worse). If women are better because they are “nurturers” and “nice” and “diplomatic” then what about the women who aren’t? What about women who are ambitious and ruthless and blunt? Men who fit your “competitive” mold are just “being men” and following their biological destinies (at least, according to you).  Men who are nurturers are acting like the “better” sex. But women who don’t act like stereotypical women? What are they? Monsters?

I have news for you, Mr. Ebert. The gender police is in this room, and you’re their captain. Careful with the gun, I don’t like violence (and no, not because I’m a lady).

Unconsciously, you’re reinforcing the idea that women must be nice. It’s not just, for you, that women must be nice because that’s the gender norm we’ve assigned to them. No, women must be nice because that makes them better. It’s a particularly insidious form of gender policing, but it’s still gender policing.

Least you think this is a rather benign failing, I will assure you, it has a real effect. Many of the women I know have gone through periods where they either pretended to be boys, or desperately wanted to be boys because they had “masculine” qualities like competitiveness and aggression. Young girls who display stereotypically masculine traits, or who want to participate in “masculine” activities are often mocked and bullied. The entire world jumped on Angelina Jolie when they saw that her daughter’s hair was cut “like a boy’s.” I once babysat a seven year old girl who thought she was screwed up because she like science and kickball rather than barbies and cupcakes. I know lots of women who have thought of themselves as failures because they don’t live up to stereotypical norms of femininity. Women often feel horrible if they don’t care “enough” about their children, or if they fail as mothers in the smallest ways – possibly because their taught that the most valuable thing they can do is rear children.

Women have enough pressure to act “like women.” You really don’t need to add to it, Mr. Ebert.

Here’s another example. You say: ” When women give birth and spend months suckling an infant, they understand better that we all depend on each other. They’re programmed to nurture the defenseless, plan for the future, value others for their qualities rather than for their externals.”

Again, this makes women who aren’t mothers seem worthless. Many women don’t have children. Many nurturing, compassionate women don’t have children. I am not a mother. I do not plan on having children. Does this mean that I am less of a woman? Am I not part of the “better” sex? Am I a man? (I just checked, by the way, and I’m pretty sure I’m still a biological woman, despite the lack of babies).

What about women who don’t breastfeed their babies? Do they not gain that special understanding “that we all depend on each other”? Heck, I learned that we all depend on each other in Kindergarden, when my friends Sarah and Mary helped me get my crayons back from the girl who’d stolen them. But maybe that’s just me.

What about transgendered women who (usually) can’t have biological children? Are they not real women? (please don’t answer that). What about women who adopt?

There’s a whole section where you talk about how men value women for beauty and women value men for their success (by the way, there’s a social explanation for that, and it’s called “the beauty myth” and “the success myth.” Look it up). I hate to tell you this, but there’s an entire class of women out there known as “lesbians.” I know. And there are even women who are attracted to men who are also attracted to women (where I’m from, we call them “bisexuals”). There are quite a lot of them, actually, so you can’t dismiss them as some kind of statistical anomaly. They were around in prehistoric times too. How do they fit into your evolutionary ideas? Are they also nurturers? Do they value their female partners for their success or their beauty?

The whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with my grandfather. He said he had no problem with gays or lesbians (yay) and then went on to pontificate that gay men were gay because they had an imbalance of feminine qualities. When you are gay (or lesbian) my grandfather argued, it’s because you have too many “qualities” from the other sex (not so yay).

My grandfather, like you, Mr. Ebert, assumes that qualities (like nurturing) are gendered and inherent, rather than social and changing. A woman is one thing. A man is another. If they are not, it’s because something’s gone wrong.

Again and again, you make “womanhood’ into a singular mold. Women are better because they are mothers. Women are better because they have children. Women are better because they are nurturers. You ignore the diversity of experiences that make up the female sex.

The last thing you wrote that I found deeply problematic is this:”Women were not well-adapted for leadership roles in primitive and early historical times. But our emerging world economy is becoming less based on physical strength and more dependent on intelligence and emotional balance”

First, way to be historically inaccurate, Mr. Ebert. Many hunter-gatherer societies had female leaders. There were also many, many, many successful female leaders in the “early historical” period – whatever the hell that means.

Second: great job in justifying thousands of years of women’s repression. This is, in fact, possibly the best excuse for women’s inequality I’ve ever read, since it’s entirely impersonal. “Yes, ladies, sorry we treated you like second class citizens! Sorry about the rapes and repression and the witch-burnings and the poverty and the harassment and the lack of legal rights! It was necessary, you know, for as long as we needed physical strength to survive! But now that we’re a modern society and we don’t need physical strength, you can totally join the table. You won’t take it personally, right?”

I’m sure it wasn’t your intent to justify the fact that women were oppressed historically. But you just did. And your argument could be extended to explain why women continue to be oppressed: “we still need physical strength, therefore women can’t be leaders. Sorry, ladies! But we’ll totally be ready for you in another thousand years!”

5. In conclusion

The last thing you write, Mr. Ebert, is “Yes, these are generalizations. I am more right than wrong.”

Yeah, no.

Let’s pretend that I guessed there are only forks in the silverware drawer. As it turns out, there are 35 forks and 34 knives. I’m more right than wrong.

But I’m still wrong.

And so are you.

Women are not naturally “nurturers.” Women are not naturally “nice.” Women are not naturally “compassionate.” Men are not naturally “aggressive.” Men are not naturally “competitive.” Biology is not destiny.

Women are not better than men. And men are not better than women. We’re all humans. Our “goodness” or “badness’ is no more determined by whether we identify as male or female than whether we’ve got more or less melanin in our skin.

I as a woman do not want to be put up on a pedestal. I don’t want to be told that I’m going to make the world better because of my inherent “nurturing” qualities. I don’t want to be special because I’m a woman. I don’t want to be told that I’m super-attuned to the earth because I have a period. I just want to be treated like a human being. But apparently, in today’s society, that’s too much to ask.

Mr. Ebert, I understand that you probably don’t agree with this post. I understand that you probably think I’m overreacting. I understand that you’re probably thinking ” I said they were generalizations! What else does she want from me?”

So I’ll ask you for a small favor. Just stop talking about gender issues. We can pretend this whole thing never happened. I’ll keep reading your blog and your reviews. You’ll keep writing them. But if you keep writing silly, offensive, sexist posts like these, I’ll have to stop reading your work, and that would make me sad, because I really like you, Mr. Ebert. So please stop talking about gender issues.

Alternatively, you can go on the internet and learn gender issues 101 through gender issues 501. Once you get through all of those phases (and spend a couple weeks on some major feminist websites), you can talk about gender issues again. Maybe.

Sincerely,

Culturally Disoriented

Related Posts:

France and the USA do something right in the same week

To My Future Russian Bride

Why Women Don’t Win American Idol (Hint: it’s not because of teen girls)

April Reads are trapped in the hermeneutic circle


Home is where the Library Lives (College Edition)

[Content note: I have put Cat Pictures at the end of this post in a shameless attempt to get people to read the whole thing. Then again, you could just scroll to the bottom. My super-evil plans would then be FOILED]

I’ve always thought of myself as someone who doesn’t buy a lot of books.

Oh, sure, I read a lot. But I don’t buy that much. Most of what I read comes from libraries. I do feel quite guilty about that (although NK Jemisin argues I shouldn’t) – I know authors need book sales, and it’s important to me to contribute to the book publishing industry.

At the same time, I read a lot of books. Like, over 150 books a year. And if I bought over 150 books a year? Yeah, I wouldn’t…eat. I’m a college student; I don’t have that kind of disposable income. And I like eating. It keeps me alive.

So yes. In the interest of eating, I don’t buy that many books.

You can thus imagine my shock when I was packing to go home for the summer, and realized that there were books on every single wall of my college-home room.

Apparently I do buy a lot of books.

I blame the major. You can’t be a literature major without buying a lot of books. Five books per class minimum, multiply that by four to five classes a semester… mucho books. And I do resell a lot of mine, because I’m callous and I need the money, but I keep ones that I think will be useful.

Just so you know? I think all the books will be useful at some point.

In retrospect, I’m not sure why I was so surprised. I’ve always accumulated books one way or another, mostly because I’m terrified that I’m going to run out of things to read. When I visited my family in France as a kid, I developed a super-secret (and effective) method of lining my suitcases with books (as I recall, I mostly took Tamora Pierce novels. You can’t travel without Keladry of Mindelan. You just can’t). I usually take three to four books with me on plane trips, even if the trip itself only lasts three hours. I never go anywhere without a book or two in my backpack. I start freaking out whenever my to-read pile dips lower than four books. And when it was time to move to college, I insisted on sending two huge boxes of books across the US border so I could fill the bookshelves of my dorm library.

Small, portable, giant, unwieldy, literate, speculative, diverse or juvenile, I’ve always had some kind of library with me. If only because my greatest terror in life is running out of reading material.

Then again, at this point in my college home (not a dorm anymore, thank the Lords of Kobol), I’m starting to worry that we could just take out the walls of my room and replace them with my books.

Let’s examine the evidence, shall we?

Exhibit A: the printer

Printer Books

I used to have a printer. Now access to it is completely blocked off by these two piles of books. Can you see my printer? No.

My point exactly. Trust me, it’s there.

At a glance, I’m pretty sure they’re all books from last semester. A book of Chinese history, two collections by H.D., a film textbook and Ovid’s Metamorphoses… yep, definitely the fall semester. I’ll give a quick shoutout to the one book that wasn’t from the fall semester for my Hardy-obsessed friend, JYP – Thomas Hardy’s Jude the Obscure, hanging around the far left with price-tag still attached. This section isn’t even that bad – it used to be triple the size, but I had to bring all my research books back to the school library. Which is good, because now I can open my closet without tripping over Donna Haraway’s Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature.

Speaking of my closet…

Exhibit B: The Closet

Book closet

I deny everything

WHY ARE THERE BOOKS IN MY CLOSET?

And why is my window-spray container leaning on top of them?

Yeah, that I have no good answer for.

Returning to the original question: WHY ARE THERE BOOKS IN MY CLOSET?

Oh, wait, I know why. There isn’t room anywhere else. Especially not for my giant textbooks.

Yes, I’ve become the kind of person who hides books in her closet. I’m not proud. I’m even less proud of the fact that there might be an entire suitcase filled with old books hidden in the back of this closet. Might. Might. I didn’t check. I had… other things to do.

Like feel shame.

The bad news is that I’ll probably have to put even books in my closet, since I’m running out of other places to put them. That’s going to be a problem because, you know, my closet actually serves a purpose: keeping my clothes off the floor. I feel like “book stashing” and “clothes stashing” are eventually going to clash. There’s only enough real estate for so much.

Now this! This is a good use of real-estate.

Exhibit C: The Wall

19th century science fiction

This is the wall space between my bed and my closet. Correction: this used to be the wall space between my bed and my closet. Now it’s a miniature library. Hurrah!

I’m actually mildly impressed with how organized my books are (famous last words). I know exactly what’s in this book-section: 18th century British novels, post-war British novels and (American) civil war textbooks. The pile on the far right is made up of my giant cookbooks (it’s not a super-practical arrangement, because I keep needing to use said cookbooks and thus disturbing the entire stack). It also contains two European women’s history textbooks and a History of the Book Reader (which is a great textbook, by the way. Highly recommended. Very interesting). When you think about it, there’s some sort of meta-ironic-commentary being made by the fact that I shelved the women’s history textbooks and the cookbooks in the same place (because obviously all that women did during the medieval era was cook! Am I right, ladies? /sarcasm/).

That was totally planned, by the way. It wasn’t just that the women’s history books and the cookbooks were vaguely the same size. *cough*

On top of the deeply ironic women’s history/cookbook section, I’ve got my small but awesome collection of 19th century British Science Fiction, from one of my favorite literature courses. It’s telling that I haven’t resold any of the books from that class, despite the fact that I had to buy them all new (and with Canadian prices, even the paperbacks cost $15-$20). Well – that’s a lie. I managed to get a great used copy of M.P. Shiel’s The Purple Cloud. It’s from the 1950s; it’s got a buxom lady on the cover and a cigarette advertisement inside. I love it.

Now – here’s what’s interesting about the last three photos. All the books I’ve shown – excluding the cookbooks – were bought for class. Which, er, says something about the classes I’m taking, huh?

Oh, but you say. That’s not that many books (for school)! Only about fifty or so. And you’ve been in school three years now…

Fair point! Then let me show you…

Exhibit D: This Semester’s Books

Class Books Winter Semester

And that’s one semester’s worth of books

These are (almost) all the books I bought for this semester of college. ONE semester. My rough calculations say that I bought 28 books and checked out an additional five from the library (they were on the syllabus, but I was too cheap to buy them. Can you blame me?).

And yes, this is a pretty precarious bookshelf. In it’s defense, it’s not actually tilted – I was taking these photos with my computer’s photobooth (I don’t own a camera), and I couldn’t shoot an untilted photo without hanging upside down from teh ceiling. But I keep fearing that the poor shelf is going to collapse and send all of my school books crashing onto my desk. Which is why I never keep my computer at my desk.

Paranoia saves lives, people! (okay, it saves computer lives. Still)

A few times the books on the right have come unbalanced… and then they slide right into the trash can (I’m not even joking). It’s pretty hilarious. And sad.

Also, note the photo of Shakespeare right under the bookshelf. Hey, I’m a literature student. I have to have a photo of Shakespeare somewhere.

So yes. This is what one semester’s worth of class books looks like in my world (and yes, I did read all of them). My conclusion? Maybe I’m not a book-buying addict. Maybe my classes are trying to turn me into a book-buying addict.

And they say school is good for you.

The worst part is: what the hell am I going to do with these giant piles of books when I need this space for next semester’s books? There’s no more room in my room! GAAAH.

And I can’t sell all of them… they might come in handy at some point.

Maybe I should invest in another bookcase.

No! That’s just the crazy talking. Think of how many books I could buy with the money I would spend on a bookcase (even one of those cheap $30 IKEA bookcases). LOTS of books.

And I do, in fact, sometimes buy books that aren’t related to school. Case in point:

Exhibit E: The To-Read Pile (with an appearance by Mr. Calvin and Mr. Hobbes)

To-read pile

This is my to-read bookshelf (located right above my bed). Usually it’s a lot fuller, but since I was on the point of leaving my college home when I took these pictures, I returned all my library to-read books. Because stealing library books = not okay.

Anyways. The central pile? Those are the “Thank Maud I finished another semester of college without jumping off a building, now let’s go buy some science fiction and fantasy and pretend we never heard of “literature,” shall we?” books. All those books I’ve been eyeing for months, but couldn’t read because I had to finish Toni Morrison’s Jazz and Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park? Yeah, I… went a little crazy and bought most of them.

THERE WAS A SALE! It’s not my fault. Also, I’d just finished my last final, and I was in a really bizarre state. Nothing I did in those hours can be held against me.

Okay, I have no defense. I’m a horrible person. But look! Martha Wells’ The Cloud Roads! Seanan McGuire’s Discount Armageddon! More Seanan McGuire (A Local Habitation)! N.K. Jemisin’s The Killing Moon! Sooo many good booookssssssssssss…..

I admit it. I’m a horrible, no-good, bad book-buyer. I’m an addict. Something must be done.

I actually read all of the books in the central pile between the time the photo was taken and the time I wrote this blog post (about two weeks). Well, almost all of them. I still haven’t gotten around to A Clash of Kings. My friends keep assuring me it’s great; I enjoyed the first book in the ASoFAI series. Besides, I have to read it so that I can get to the rest of the series and vote appropriately for A Dance with Dragons in the Hugos. But for some reason, I really don’t want to read it. I blame the yellow cover.

This shelf also contains my knitting books and my collection of Calvin and Hobbes comics. And my Firefly DVDs. And a bouquet of dried flowers my Marat/Sade cast gave me for being a decent Assistant Stage Manager (because they are awesome). There’s clearly a link between all of these things. Who says my library isn’t organized? *cough*

There’s also another picture of Shakespeare somewhere, if you can spot it. Literature student!

(oh, and yes, I did blur one of the photos under the bookshelf. PARANOIA SAVES LIVES, people. Especially on the internet).

Ahem. Moving on.

(yes, there’s more. Told you I had a problem).

Finally! FINALLY, after showing you all of my “secondary” libraries and book-storage areas, I will get to the central culprit. The true locus of readership and literature.

My actual bookshelf.

Exhibit F: THE ACTUAL BOOKSHELF

Bookshelf bottom

I love my actual bookshelf. It’s wonderful. It also contains no class books whatsoever – all the books here are ones I shipped from my regular home back in Freshman year. They are my very favorite books in the universe (or at least, my very favorite books back when I was in high school). My entire collection of Tamora Pierce books. My entire collection of Tudor history books (most of which are by Allison Weir). The Abhorsen Trilogy. All my Libba Bray novels. Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. Karen Joy Fowler. The Sparrow. Jane Eyre, The Professor, Wuthering Heights and the Austen novels. Also, all the Young Adult novels that kept me floating throughout my horrid high school years – Born Confused, The Truth about Forever etc. And a bunch of books about US politics like The Nine and The Dark Side, because apparently, I find those fun.

I sent all of these books to my college because back when I was in high school, I didn’t read a lot of new books. I mostly re-read old favorites – and I expected I would continue this pattern when I arrived in college. So having 100 books I already liked that I could re-read was quite important to me.

I still do re-read now, occasionally. Mostly when the world is exploding all around me and I need some comfort. But I love having my old books around, even if I’m not reading them constantly like I used to.

The giant pile right by the bookshelf is yet another “book storage” area. These are my “read” books – the books I’ve finished. Every few weeks I do a purge and bring a bunch of those books back to the library, then freak out over where to put the other, non-library books. There’s no room left on my “for fun” bookshelf. No, seriously, I’m not kidding. Look.

Bookshelf top

Like I said. No room. I’m now stacking books on top of rows of other books, and I’ve still got tons of books in my “read” pile to store.

…I really have a problem, don’t I?

From this not-so-brief survey of my college room, I have concluded a few things:

1. I buy a lot more books than I think I do

2. WOW, I buy a lot of books for class

3. I am quickly running out of real-estate, and am going to need to find some kind of radical solution next year. Like selling books (NO) or buying a bookcase (maybe). Or getting rid of my bed to make room for more books (yes!)

And since you have made it to the end of the post, I shall reward you with some obligatory cat pictures.

Look! Cat!

Cat with Books

The Cat is Judging Me

The Cat has been sick, and as a result, she has been spending a lot of time in my room. I think it’s because I keep the temperature pretty high. The Cat is also a very, very black cat, so it’s hard to get a picture of her where she doesn’t look like a big black blob. She’s absolutely gorgeous in real life, and does not resemble a Big Black Blob. That’s the Photobooth’s fault.

The Cat was in no way amused by me frantically running around my room, taking pictures with my computer. She was particularly put out when I decided to step on the bed – the bed where she was sleeping, thank you very much  – to take a photo of my to-read bookshelf.

The Cat thinks this blog is a complete waste of time, particularly since it involves disturbing her bed (the fact that it’s also my bed is lost on her).  She thinks I should spend more time in worthwhile pursuits. Like petting her. Or acting as her pillow.

But for the record, The Cat also thinks I need a new bookshelf.

(those things are EXPENSIVE, The Cat. Even the cheap IKEA ones)

The Cat with Books

North America’s Next Top Cat Model

The Cat does not like me taking photos of her, because that takes time away from Petting. But she does think this is a satisfactory photo.

*sigh* I miss The Cat.

(I flew home – home home, as opposed to college home – last week. So I have not seen The Cat in a while).

I also miss my books. But the good news is, my home-home has libraries of its own. And I just made two trips to the city library. So I feel pretty good. I’ve got a pile of eight unread books… that should last me for a week, right? Right?

*starts to panic*

Related Posts:

France and The USA get something right in the Same Week! Celebration Ensues

A Letter to My Future Russian Bride

Eight Great Books of Science Fiction for Women

Reaction to the Hugo Nominations


France and the US both get something right in the same week

First: my computer is fixed! At great personal cost (I had to fight seven dragons and save seventy handsome princes(ess)), but it is fixed. Hurrah! I now have over eight hundred unread emails (and that’s in my primary inbox – I can’t even look at the other one). Less hurrah!

So now that my computer is fixed, I shall attempt to get back onto a regular blog-schedule. I.E: More than once a week.
(Don’t get too excited, interwebs! Wouldn’t want anyone fainting! (and by “anyone,” I mean my favorite regular readers: the CIA. Keep protecting the world, gentlepeoples!))

Second: Politics are culture, right? Kind of? Well, they are now, because I’m going to talk about them! I was going to stuff these tidbits in other posts, but then I realized… my posts are already the length of a short Tolstoy novel. Adding my political freakouts will not help that situation.

Anyways! Politics! Why am I talking about them instead of talking about American Idol or the Hunger Games?

In the past week (week-and-a-half), both countries that count me as a citizen have done me a solid by taking major steps down the path of Progressivism (Alliteration!). And I am EXCITED, because usually, the news out of all my countries of citizenship and residence is less than good. For example, my current state of residence… is having issues. Issues like “women don’t care about money like men do”. We also may re-elect the Arch-Douche of Jackassery* (i.e.: Scott Walker), a fact that fills me with joy (not). But none of this matters now! Because France and the USA have, for once, done Good Things!
And yes, I am coming out of the progressive closet. I know this may be a shock to my regular readers. Apologies, apologies.

Country #1: Socialism and Sarkozy (ie: France)

For the first time in OVER FIFTEEN YEARS (yes, fifteen years) France has a Socialist President. *insert massive freakout here*

Most of my readers are American (according to wordpress stats) so I’m going to clear this one up: in France, the Socialist party is the (main) leftist party. It’s our “center-left” party.  They’re like France’s Democrats (except much, much, much more liberal). And yes, we call them Socialists and it’s not an insult. France also has an official communist party! And there are some Trotskyists and Marxists running around. It’s okay! I promise! We’re not all living in communist gulags. We’re not crushed under the weight of an oppressive bureaucracy. We eat fine, sleep fine, and we have universal health care and nearly universal pre-K… and no one has exploded yet. Incredible, I know.

Our current president is Nicholas Sarkozy, a center-right gentlemen who enjoys pandering to the far-far-right section of French society. Or, as I like to call the far right: the anti-immigrant, anti-muslim, racist, sexist, homophobic wing of French society (hey, every country has their problems *cough* Tea Party *cough*). Sarkozy is the President who decreed that public schools must teach children the good effects of French colonialism (at least they got to eat baguette while we were taking over their countries, am I right? Right?). He’s proposed stripping foreign-born French citizens of their citizenship if they commit certain crimes. He’s been (correctly) accused of nepotism. He also made a horrifically racist and ignorant speech in Dakar a few years ago. I’m… not a fan.

[Although to be fair, Sarkozy doesn't believe in laissez-faire capitalism, and he has been at the forefront of fighting against climate change. In the United States, he'd probably be a democrat. A liberal democrat. Which says more about America's political system than it does about Sarkozy]

I ended up watching the results live by total accident – my mother and I went into a coffeeshop in Quebec to get a snack, and the French election was on the restaurant’s TV on mute. Now France, unlike the USA, does these things in a civilized manner: they have a countdown and tell you the results all at once. Countdowns are great if you want to get the results over with… and less good for people like me, who have absolutely no nerves to speak of.

Cue scene:

Mom: Francois Holland [the Socialist candidate] looks unhappy. He must have the results. Bad sign.

Me: Oh no. Oh no. I can’t believe it. I thought we were finally rid of Sarkozy. Can’t ONE country I live in have some good news? One out of three! That’s all I ask for.

Mom: Yeah, he looks really unhappy. And the people around the Bastille are pretty glum…

Me: I can’t watch. I can’t watch. I can’t watch.

Mom: Calm down. Oh, look, there’s Holland’s ex-partner, Segolene Royale. Well, she looks happy. That’s a bad sign too.

Me: I can’t watch. I can’t watch.  I’m going to take a walk.

Mom:…seriously?

Me: *run around neighborhood*

Mom: It’s over! Holland won!

And then me and my mother were all:

Castle high five beckett

High fives all around!

The couple sitting next to us thought we were pretty hilarious.

We followed our high-five up with a massive freakout after realizing there hadn’t been a Socialist president of France since 1995. I remember growing up in Paris (wow, that sounds pretentious – in my defense, I actually did grow up in Paris) watching massive demonstrations in the street, with people shouting: “Chirac, t’es foutu! Tout Paris est dans la rue!”
(Chirac, you’re screwed! All of Paris is in the Street! (it’s more poetic in French, trust me))

President Chirac was Sarkozy’s predecessor (and another French conservative). Francois Holland’s election thus represents the first time a Socialist has entered the Elysee in my personal memory. It’s a big deal for me, is all I’m saying. So can you blame me and my mother if we walked home like this:

Beyonce Single Ladies

 

No. You can’t.

That was HURRAH Political News update #1.

Country #2: Gays and the Glory

But then! Just as I re-entered the USA (my other country of citizenship)… President Obama endorsed Same-Sex Marriage!
ON THE EVE OF THE NATIONAL FREAKIN’ ELECTION!

…I can’t even.

Hugh Grant Love Actually Prime Minister Dance

This is me. Except slightly less mature.

A sitting US President endorsed gay marriage. A sitting – Holy mother of -

I mean, yes, I know. It wasn’t enough. Obama very explicitly said that he would leave the decision to legalize Gay Marriage up to the states which… no. Not. Okay. As someone from a state that has banned gay marriage at the polls… No. No, no, no. Absolutely not.

[To quote someone whose name I can't remember: The vote of the majority should never determine the rights of the minority]**
But still. Obama endorsed gay marriage. He is the first American president to ever say that same-sex couples should enjoy the same rights as opposite-sex couples (great for me, since I may be able to marry the Russian bride of my dreams).

Is it sad that he’s the first American president to do it?

Hell yes.

But is it a meaningless gesture? Absolutely not. For the first time, the President of the United States said that citizens’ rights should not be predicated on their sexuality. He said, implicitly, that gay couples are no different or less important than straight couples. That they deserve the same recognition and status in society as straight couples. And yes, that does mean something.

There’s a lot to do yet; Obama has a lot of actions to take. But I can’t be mad at him for taking that first step. I honestly thought it would take another two or three presidents to get there. I couldn’t believe it when I saw the news.

I also think it took real courage to do it right before the national election, because the Gay Rights issue has often been used as a “swing” issue to defeat Democrats.
The election could get very ugly, very quickly.

But this? This is the good fight, and I, for one, will fight it with him.

As the great CJ Cregg once said:

CJ Cregg West Wing Awesome House of Representatives

 

Damn straight.

And that’s all for “Good News in the Political Sphere”! I shall return shortly with more posts… but probably not political ones.

Any other good political news I should know about?

*All credit for the name “Archedouche of Jackassery” goes to my friend RB, who comes up with The Best in Insults.

** Do you know who said it? Because I seriously can’t remember.

***This post was particularly hard to write because my brother spent his time reading it over my shoulder and demanding explanations… or commenting on the book he’s reading (which is Liar by Justine Larbalestier). Perfect work environment!

(and now my brother is punching the book yelling “What? What? I HATE YOU!” He’s discovering the joys of unreliable narrators…)

Related Posts:

A Letter to my Future Russian Bride

Trayvon Martin, The Hunger Games and Me

Eight Great Books of Science Fiction for Women: An Alternative List

 

Related Posts


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,108 other followers