International Women’s Day is coming to UEA and it’s going to be big. Perhaps you’ve seen our flyers or posters around campus, or been invited to our event on facebook but you’re still wondering what it’s all about, and why … Continue reading
Hello, I’m Hattie, and I am the outgoing President of UEA Feminist Society. This will probably be my last blog post for UEA Feminism, and I’d like to make it clear before everyone shouts at me that I don’t represent … Continue reading
Hundreds of students took part in our International Women’s Day celebrations! Check out our photo highlights (complete album here):
Reblogged from lizmckinnell: Below is a talk I delivered for an International Women’s Day event organised by the University of East Anglia’s Feminist Society What I am going to do today is not so much a detailed philosophical enquiry (I … Continue reading
Whose Wave Is It Anyway? FIRST WAVE WHEN: Early 20th Century (and everything before it, though there wasn’t much!) WHAT: First wave feminism focused primarily on obtaining Women’s Suffrage (ie their right to vote). They didn’t yet describe themselves as … Continue reading
International Women’s Day is coming to UEA and it’s going to be big. Perhaps you’ve seen our flyers or posters around campus, or been invited to our event on facebook but you’re still wondering what it’s all about, and why … Continue reading
Here at the blog we like to roundup the best posts made on our discussion board every week because sometimes it they get buried under piles of even more great debate. Our most discussed post this week was an anecdotal … Continue reading
In our relationship obsessed society singledom gets a terrible rap. Particularly in January, the single person faces a lot of scrutiny. You’ve just dealt with the holiday season, bringing with it a barrage of relatives asking prying questions about your … Continue reading
Here at the blog we like to roundup the best posts made on our discussion board every week because sometimes it they get buried under piles of even more great debate. We’ll start with the story of Mary Beard, a … Continue reading
A few months ago an article appeared in Concrete, UEA’s student newspaper, called “Lads, you’re an affront to feminism”. It led to a lot of discussion on both the feminist society Facebook page and the paper’s own online comment section. … Continue reading
I am currently reading Helen Boyd’s book She’s Not The Man I Married. In this book, Boyd describes what it is like to be married to a transgender woman, and how that relationship has completely rewritten the ways she thinks about her own gender and sexuality, both of which are thrown into question by her husband coming out – if she plays the man’s role from time to time, does that make her less of a woman? If she is now married to a woman, does that make her gay, or at the very least queer? As a feminist, Boyd is keen to dismiss the labels and the gender roles now that they no longer fit her precisely, but is unable to do this if her husband is to transition… gender plays a very concrete role in their relationship, and so she has to explore it, and tackle it head on, rather than ignore it.
When gender is such a large facet of your relationship, Boyd tells us, you find yourself thinking about it all the time, which means it throws up problems all the time. But the problem with using gender as the framework for issues in a relationship is that the language we use is so inexact. Boyd writes:
“As a writer, I’m often offended by how inaccurate our language is when it comes to gender. ‘Feminine’ is used to stand in for all kinds of other words – like gentle, permissive, empathetic, kind, nurturing. Those are also the traits people imply when they say ‘woman’. ‘Masculine’, likewise, is used to mean strong, athletic, protective, gruff, or authoritative. Sometimes I feel like a writing teacher walking through the world – and the trans community – because I want to stop all the time to explain, ‘Say what you mean, because ‘feminine’ doesn’t mean anything.’”
Even words that don’t describe gender, such as “nurturing”, are so gendered that you soon realise they mean a lot more than they’re saying. To “nurture” something is to provide it with what it needs in order to grow; in this sense, is the typical ‘breadwinner’ masculinity any less nurturing than the femininity that slices the bread and feeds it to the family?
It made me realise how often, when it comes to relationships, I find myself thinking about myself in highly-gendered terms and then don’t bother to unpick what that means. Social conditioning tells me that asking a guy out is no way to start a relationship, that it is ‘emasculating’… but just think about that word for a second. There’s no feminine equivalent. All the other words that I might use to describe a person who would ask another person out – ‘confident’, ‘flirty’, even ‘forward’ – are words I don’t mind being described as. But if you suggest I’m in any way less ‘feminine’ because of it, I back down and go back to sitting in the corner looking pretty and waiting to be asked to dance. I like being feminine, and it’s a huge part of how I construct my identity – in the films I watch, the music I listen to, the clothes I wear, the way I present myself. However at the same time I don’t like playing games or messing people around; I am a pretty straightforward person and I prize honesty above most other virtues and it turns out that applied to the world of dating, those qualities turn me into a “man”. What’s with that?
Gender is important for a lot of people, and I’m not going to go all Judith Butler and say we should stop thinking about it all together. I don’t want to take anything away from people who, unlike me, have a strong sense of their internal gender. I’m just saying that we should start being more precise about what we mean by it. In my last relationship, I often complained to friends that I wished my ex would be “a bit more manly sometimes”… by which I meant, I wished that he would stick up for me more if his friends were teasing me. When I thought I wanted to “feel more like a woman” in bed, I really meant I wanted him to be slightly more sexually aggressive. By using gendered terms when I was talking about our problems, I was ducking the real issues and ignoring the question of what I really wanted. Luckily, I learned this lesson early; though, judging from the way he complained about being ‘whipped’ without ever telling me what exactly I was doing wrong, he didn’t.
Gender roles are imprecise because they encompass so many things. ‘Dependency’ is clearly associated with femininity in relationships, but would we call the role of mother ‘dependent’? Surely it implies the opposite, because ‘mothering’ someone means they are entirely dependent on you. I have heard many times girls with clingy boyfriends voice the wish that they’d just “man up”, but what if the ‘man’ they are being is a son relying on his new maternal figure? Instead of bringing gender into it, call it what it is, and then you won’t be misunderstood.
When it comes to sexuality, gender becomes even more complicated because we define our sexuality by what gender we are attracted to. I’m heterosexual, but what does saying that even mean? I’m certainly not attracted to every man by virtue of them being a man. The problem with the labels of heterosexual and homosexual is that they are creating a gender binary that doesn’t exist in the real world; where do the thousands of gender non-conforming people fit into this narrow idea of sexuality? Again, isn’t it easier to be honest about what we are really attracted to – I like narrow hips and body hair and stubble; it’s rare to find a woman with these qualities but I won’t rule it out in the future – after all, body type and genitals don’t define our gender.
The problem with a binary is that you have to fit into one side of it, or the other; if I take the role of ‘man’ by asking people out, I should expect to be the one who “wears the pants” in the relationship; when in reality, we all have a huge range of personal qualities, some of which are masculine, some of which are feminine; some of which we’ll like in others, and some of which we won’t. Being masculine in some senses doesn’t stop me being feminine in others – gender is not a scale, like hot and cold. If we become more precise in describing these things, not only do we make our relationships stronger, but we stop excusing all kinds of unacceptable or even abusive behaviours because “that’s just what men/women do”. There are almost three quarters of a million words in the English language; let’s start using them.
Hattie Grunewald
UEAFS President
Trigger warning: discussion of slut shaming and mentions of rape
This week Jenna Marbles, a youtube personality who I had previously liked and found quite funny, posted a rather problematic video called ‘Things I Don’t Understand about Girls: The Slut Edition’. The video (imbedded below, although only watch it if you want to get really angry) contains a lot of slut shaming and perpetuation of stereotypes that occur within rape culture.
The video says things like ‘a slut is someone who has a lot of casual sex’ and ‘I hope you realise some day that it feels so much better when you’re not having so much sex’ which is definitely slut shaming, telling women that they cannot do what they want with their body, and that if they are promiscuous they are inferior to other women. The worst part of the video for me, was when Jenna suggested that if a woman is ‘blackout drunk’ and being taken advantage of by a group of men, you should help her because it will stop her acting like a slut, not because it will stop a case of sexual assault, I could go on…
However, something that is helping to soothe my anger at society is the responses from other youtubers. Laci Green postponed her planned video to post a response to Jenna Marbles. She discusses slut shaming by breaking down the idea that ‘sluts don’t respect themselves’ and showing the double standards of promiscuity within society.
Hayley G Hoover, a youtuber whose channel isn’t centred around sex positivity and feminism, made a response to Jenna Marbles’s video talking about how slut shaming leads to rape culture. Her audience isn’t predominantly feminists, so when she says ‘if a man has sex with a woman who is incapacitated, too drunk to know what she’s doing, unconscious, asleep or otherwise incapable of making a sober decision, that’s rape every single time’ she’s educating some of her youtube viewers on what is and isn’t consenting sex.
Finally, a feminist society member Megan Fozzard posted this video by John Green to the facebook discussion group:
Admittedly, when talking about slut shaming, John Green compares women to cereal, in a way that commodifies women; however, the point he makes to a large youtube audience is still sex positive and arguing against slut shaming.
While there will always be youtubers who will make problematic and misogynistic videos, due to the state of the society we live in, youtube does have a good sex positive and feminist community and the response to Jenna Marbles’s video illustrates this.
Jenny Grimes
Here at the blog we like to roundup the best posts made on our discussion board every week because sometimes it they get buried under piles of even more great debate.
Firstly there’s the depressing tale of the Hallmark birthday card pictured below. The patronizing and sexist text reads: “You’re 13 today! If you had a rich boyfriend he’d give you diamonds and rubies. Well, maybe next year you will-when you’ve got bigger boobies!” The response both on our discussion board and on twitter with the #notbuyingit was so quick, organised and livid that Hallmark had to issue an official apology. Kudos to them for their quick and appropriate response but let’s be honest, gift card shops aren’t a great place for feminists. They’re structured around colored gender binaries, old-fashioned ideas of romance and it’s all overpriced tat anyway. Seriously society, stop buying cards.
Elsewhere Hattie Grünewald posted some hilarious Josie Long stand-up as a warm up for next week’s Tuesday and Thursday meetings on feminism and humor. It promises to be a great session so do come along.
Building upon the themes we discussed in the reproductive rights sessions a fortnight ago, Beth McKensie shared the bizarre pro-life argument pictured below. Text reads:
“Between 16 and 20 weeks a baby girl’s ovaries form millions of eggs. None form after birth.”
and was accompanied by the comment :
“Those who favor abortion rights often talk about a woman’s reproductive freedom, but a little girl’s reproductive system is forming long before her birth. By the mid-point in pregnancy, her ovaries will develop all eggs she will ever produce – the promise of future generations.”
I think Mike Adams summed it up pretty neatly when he wrote “They’re just grasping at shit now” and Alice Johnson added “PERIODS ARE MURDER”. A really interesting discussion unfolded around the logical fallacies and disconnects that often accompany pro-life argument, check it out here.
Finally Hannah Dunlop posted this collection of misogynistic t-shirts. Trigger warning: awfulness.
Ollie Balaam
Here at the blog we like to roundup the best posts made on our discussion board every week because sometimes it they get buried under piles of even more great debate. This week we held a photo session in the … Continue reading
Reblogged from ueastudentblog: