Once upon a time (last week), in a land far away where sexism was totally still a thing (it's Perth), a student magazine at a leading Perth university published screenshots proving that a few students had created, and subsequently commented in, a private men's rights Facebook group. This group basically existed as a safe place for sexist comments and photographs to be shared. Some of these men were presidents of societies at said university, and some of them were running in the upcoming student elections. However, these screenshots were a little bit old - not old enough to be rendered redundant, but old enough that they, perhaps, should have been shared a little bit earlier, and not around the time of some elections. As per usual, I decided that something like this needed my comment on it, and so here we are.
Now, I've been biding my little blogging tongue because I didn't want to publish anything that could be accused of being for a political purpose. Enough accusations have been made around this issue and it's time we stop sidestepping around what really needs to be talked about. I'm not going to name names because that's been done. I don't need to point fingers, I don't need to throw [too much] shade. I want to talk about why this whole chain of events bothered me.
I often write about situations like this that I have come across, and while they always upset me, I have never been as rattled as I have been about this. Perhaps it's because, while I try to put myself in the shoes of other women when I write about particular issues of oppression, it has never been my peers who think rapes jokes are funny/ think safe spaces to share sexism are necessary/ pretend to be super for women while they are doing this. When I saw these screenshots, my heart broke a little. Suddenly, I don't feel quite as safe at university.
Firstly, to the ladies at this magazine: I want to say well done for providing an article that would have been very hard to write - you knew that you would be criticised, yet you wrote it anyway. When I write about how I am disappointed in who leaked the screenshots, it's not you I'm talking about - it's the anonymous source. It's not easy to share what you did, and I honestly believe that you did the right thing. You have done an absolute ripper of a job - you've remained impartial, you've let both sides speak, and I really admire your integrity. I only hope that soon, the article that started all of this will be visible. It's a shame that a university such as the one I am writing about values its image more than it does the issue of sexism on campus. Perhaps, instead of covering it up, this is an issue that needs to be discussed and shared around.
This entire issue has definitely been a little reminder for all of those avid social media users out there (myself included) - nothing you post on the internet is a secret. If it's there, it's there for all eyes to see. Completely beside the point, but still a notable heads up that in this age of everything being so public, literally everything can be seen, even if you think that it is secret.
And now, onto the big issues.
I am a female (surprise). And usually; in fact, far, far more often that not, this is not an issue. It shouldn't be, but, like we all know, it can be. After not liking university for years, I now love it; I go about my daily business and basically just do my thing. And then, sometimes, something like this happens to remind me that sexism on campus, while it may not be overt, is still showing its ugly face - quite often when we least expect it.
I was very, very disappointed that the screenshots were shared to the student magazine when they were - that is, around the time of the student elections, with (probably), the end aim of tarnishing the reputation of some students running for positions. Sexism at universities isn't something that should be used as political fodder. In my opinion, whoever shared these screenshots is a pretty damn average human. Perhaps not as average as the people who created and posted in the group, but still pretty average. This person knew that sharing these screenshots with The Pelican magazine would get tongues wagging.
My oppression is not your playing card. Your final slam down, your draw four, if you will (#throwback to when Uno would ruin families). To whoever released these screenshots when they did, I say this: be ashamed. Perhaps this sexist group made you super happy, maybe you thought "wow, I know exactly when this should be released".
Know this. Know that it's not a game to me, it's not a game to any of the women I know, and it's not a game at our university. Sexism is real, and these screenshots prove it. However, what also proves it is the fact that you used these screenshots as a trap to attempt to make a party in our student elections look bad. You've used sexism as a little bit of a political manoeuvre, and that's not cool.
Now, let's talk about who we're (probably) all here for - those who were members of that Facebook group. These are men who walk around my university as mature, responsible leaders. They are people who have been through high school, and had at least some tertiary education under their belts at the time these screenshots were produced. They were voted into positions of leadership by a variety of people, women falling into that category. And yet, they still found it to be appropriate to start a Facebook group to harbour sexism. If these educated men think that this is acceptable, then god, what hope is there for the rest of us?
It's ironic that the very Facebook group that belittled our Women's Collective showed exactly why it is necessary. The Collective is there to support women. Guys, there is nothing wrong with checking your privilege and admitting that, in this department, you have a leg up. I recognise that there is privilege associated with being white and straight, which is a shame, but there is. There is also privilege associated with being male, and that is why the Collective exists: to support women, draw attention to unfairness as a result of our gender, and give women a helping hand if they need it.
No one in this world needs a safe space to harbour anything sexist, racist, ableist, transphobic, or homophobic.
To those who are worried that those affected won't be able to get jobs after/ will get in trouble at university/ will have their lives implicated, I have a few things to say. Firstly, I don't feel bad because those people didn't feel bad when they were writing in that group. Secondly, these people hold/ held the attitudes that make it hard for women to get jobs. And finally, don't worry because the world is full of sexist leaders - and I think our university has made it pretty obvious who they will be protecting in all of this.
People can harp on about how those who created, joined and wrote in this group have changed, but think about this. These men didn't share their views with the world - they put them in a closed page. They knew that what they were saying was wrong. While the page description may have read 'invite whoever', this was a closed Facebook group, where only people who, I presume, shared the group's values, could be invited. This also includes whoever was able to screenshot these images, and then use them for political fodder later on.
They posted these things and then continued to walk around my university - a place where I come to learn, socialise, and be accepted as who I am - as accepting human beings who strove for equality. They supported women - to their faces. They were adults then, they are adults now. They were university students then, they're university students now. They were leaders then, they are leaders now. Do the maths, and don't be naive.
The only thing that has changed is that now we all know.
I know that there are bigger issues in the world than this. I know that there are bigger issues in feminism than this. But when a few, supposedly educated, privileged men seemingly mock my oppression, it takes away some of the hope that I have for the rest of the world.
Equality? Acceptance? Fairness? Pursing the impossibility of a society where your gender doesn't matter?
Please. Give me a break.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Sunday, September 20, 2015
An open letter to 720AM
To whom this may concern,
I'm going to kick things off by being completely honest: 720AM is not usually a show that I choose to put on. If I'm listening to the radio, I tend to be more of a 93.7 kind of girl, looking for a little bit of Taylor Swift and Beyonce to fuel my mornings. However, that said, my parents are definitely into their 720AM, and so it is often playing in our kitchen during the day.
On the morning of the 27th of August, I was driving my dad's car and he had previously been listening to 720AM, so I left it on for the short drive home. This was the day when the segment about the Manchester University Study on women becoming increasingly overweight now that we don't spend our days cleaning was aired, and, in all honesty, I was not too impressed with the discussion that followed, which I found sexist and unnecessary.
You know what? Perhaps the study is right. However, as an Arts student (who is absolutely rubbish at statistics/ mathematics/ numbers in general), I can still look at that study and get out what it was saying: people have put on weight because we do not exercise as much anymore, because cleaning in the home is increasingly done by machines such as dishwashers or hired cleaners. I really don't understand why the discussion then centred around the place of women as cleaners in the home.
These are not the kind of conversations we need to be having about women and their place in our society.
They're about how women often don't feel safe walking home at night or when they're with men who they don't know. They're about intersectional feminism - recognising experiences of trans women, queer women, women of colour and differently abled women. We need to talk about discrimination at universities, we need to talk about the underlying misogyny that is harboured by some of our leading males. The conversations that we need to be having about women are about women being powerful.
Conversations about women doing the housework are redundant: they're not needed, they're not relevant, and they're really not funny.
I called up the radio show and told you about how, when I was recently living by myself and cleaning for myself, I put on weight. There goes your argument. What I wished that I also could have told you is that it shouldn't be up to women doing the housework. As adults, the load of housework at home is shared, depending on who is home when, and so on. I'm disappointed that when I called up, the first thing that I was asked on air was whether or not I am a cleaner. I'm disappointed that the woman who called in straight after me was asked the same thing. Funnily enough, none of the men were asked these questions. Regardless, working as a cleaner is a noble profession. It's working for a small amount of money, completing hard, laborious tasks that are time consuming and that other people don't want to do. There is nothing wrong with working as a cleaner.
I ask you what you wanted to gain from starting this discussion: do you think women should always stay at home as housewives? Do you think that women shouldn't work outside of the home? No? Then why bother introducing the study anyway, especially in this way?
A caller who rang in made an inappropriate remark about women looking like cows (or something), and I thank you for immediately apologising for what he said. However, with that in mind, please look at the content of your program and realise that discussions about women doing the housework invite an audience such as him.
As a woman, I have more to offer than clean carpets. I am on my way to graduating with a degree from a good university, I am dedicated, organised, and hard working. I can't make anything special, but I can cook well enough to save myself and I know how to tidy up a house enough to please my parents (not that I often do that - sorry mum and dad). However, these are not skills that are unique to women. They are skills that every person should have.
So please, I implore you: do not litter your radio show with rubbish like that study in the future. There was no need to talk about women as cleaners in any other context aside from how women still face continued oppression and expectations when it comes to the housework. There was absolutely no point to the discussion, and there was no way it was going to go anywhere productive.
Sincerely,
Laura
I'm going to kick things off by being completely honest: 720AM is not usually a show that I choose to put on. If I'm listening to the radio, I tend to be more of a 93.7 kind of girl, looking for a little bit of Taylor Swift and Beyonce to fuel my mornings. However, that said, my parents are definitely into their 720AM, and so it is often playing in our kitchen during the day.
On the morning of the 27th of August, I was driving my dad's car and he had previously been listening to 720AM, so I left it on for the short drive home. This was the day when the segment about the Manchester University Study on women becoming increasingly overweight now that we don't spend our days cleaning was aired, and, in all honesty, I was not too impressed with the discussion that followed, which I found sexist and unnecessary.
You know what? Perhaps the study is right. However, as an Arts student (who is absolutely rubbish at statistics/ mathematics/ numbers in general), I can still look at that study and get out what it was saying: people have put on weight because we do not exercise as much anymore, because cleaning in the home is increasingly done by machines such as dishwashers or hired cleaners. I really don't understand why the discussion then centred around the place of women as cleaners in the home.
These are not the kind of conversations we need to be having about women and their place in our society.
They're about how women often don't feel safe walking home at night or when they're with men who they don't know. They're about intersectional feminism - recognising experiences of trans women, queer women, women of colour and differently abled women. We need to talk about discrimination at universities, we need to talk about the underlying misogyny that is harboured by some of our leading males. The conversations that we need to be having about women are about women being powerful.
Conversations about women doing the housework are redundant: they're not needed, they're not relevant, and they're really not funny.
I called up the radio show and told you about how, when I was recently living by myself and cleaning for myself, I put on weight. There goes your argument. What I wished that I also could have told you is that it shouldn't be up to women doing the housework. As adults, the load of housework at home is shared, depending on who is home when, and so on. I'm disappointed that when I called up, the first thing that I was asked on air was whether or not I am a cleaner. I'm disappointed that the woman who called in straight after me was asked the same thing. Funnily enough, none of the men were asked these questions. Regardless, working as a cleaner is a noble profession. It's working for a small amount of money, completing hard, laborious tasks that are time consuming and that other people don't want to do. There is nothing wrong with working as a cleaner.
I ask you what you wanted to gain from starting this discussion: do you think women should always stay at home as housewives? Do you think that women shouldn't work outside of the home? No? Then why bother introducing the study anyway, especially in this way?
A caller who rang in made an inappropriate remark about women looking like cows (or something), and I thank you for immediately apologising for what he said. However, with that in mind, please look at the content of your program and realise that discussions about women doing the housework invite an audience such as him.
As a woman, I have more to offer than clean carpets. I am on my way to graduating with a degree from a good university, I am dedicated, organised, and hard working. I can't make anything special, but I can cook well enough to save myself and I know how to tidy up a house enough to please my parents (not that I often do that - sorry mum and dad). However, these are not skills that are unique to women. They are skills that every person should have.
So please, I implore you: do not litter your radio show with rubbish like that study in the future. There was no need to talk about women as cleaners in any other context aside from how women still face continued oppression and expectations when it comes to the housework. There was absolutely no point to the discussion, and there was no way it was going to go anywhere productive.
Sincerely,
Laura
Sunday, May 24, 2015
19 kids (but only 10 are counting)
Before I start, I just want to offer a disclaimer of sorts that these are my opinions around a very controversial issue. More information can be found in various news articles. I sincerely hope that those who were victims of this, and similar situations, have found help and that precautions are taken in similar situations so this does not happen again. One of my friends linked me this article which you may find interesting.
The Josh Duggar molestation scandal has come out of the blue over the last few days and has caused various reactions: shock, surprise, "well, with 19 one of them was bound to be crazy".
A lot of people would do anything for their family - people lie, cheat and steal frequently for the ones they love. Had Josh Duggar molested children outside of his family, I would comprehend - not empathise with, but understand at least a tiny bit - why his parents hadn't reported him to the police. Yes, it's wrong; yes, it's disgusting; and yes, it needs to be punished; but people frequently do crazy, wrong, and stupid things to protect their family. It doesn't make sense, but sometimes the love you have for people makes you do incredibly awful things.
However, out of the five girls (not women, girls) that Duggar molested, four of them were his sisters. And yet, his parents did not report him to the police. Yet he was allowed to live in the same house as his sisters. This was not one occasion, this was four (at least), and yet his parents valued the comfort of themselves (living a scandal free life) and their son over the safety of their daughters.
While there has been widespread outrage over the Internet about this revelation, the comments on the TLC post announcing that the show has been cancelled tell a different story. "Let those without sin cast the first stone :(" "I am so very sad! It's the only show I watch! The Duggar family is wonderful! The situation happened 12 years ago and was dealt with. No reason to punish Josh or the Duggar family now. I am disappointed in this decision." "Why would you do that. It's a great show. Admitting to his mistakes just shows that they are just like the rest of us..."
I, for one, find these comments mind boggling. While I admittedly had to scroll past other comments in support of the decision, there were plenty condemning TLC for cancelling the show. The comments opposing the decision had two distinctive categories: firstly, that the Duggars shouldn't be punished, and secondly, that Josh was so young when the molestations occurred that they should be forgotten about.
Many people believed that the Duggars shouldn't be taken off air, after all, it was Josh that made the mistake, right? However, while Josh was responsible for his actions, it was the Duggar family that covered it up. It was the Duggars who decided that no, they wouldn't (initially) report their child to the police. Instead, he got sent away to a church camp (which turned out to be hard labour for a family friend), and when they reported him a year later, no charges were laid and the police officer they reported him to actually ended up being jailed for child pornography.
Commenters also believed that fifteen was too young, that when one is fifteen, they are still a child. But do you know what? Fifteen years old is old enough to know better. Fifteen years old is old enough to know that touching your sisters and another girl inappropriately is not okay. When I was fifteen, I was in year 10. I was picking what subjects I would do that would, to some extent, set me up for what I studied for university. I had a job. I knew right from wrong.
The most bizarre comments though, were the ones that protested that Josh Duggar was innocent. When someone releases a statement saying "[T]welve years ago, as a young teenager I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends..." the general consensus is that they are guilty of what they are being accused of.
On TLC: while I do support their decision to cancel the show, I can't quite comprehend why this wasn't done sooner. Off screen, the Duggars champion multiple anti-gay and anti-abortion causes. Although this hasn't been shown in the show, this channel still made the decision to support a family whose oldest son, in June 2013, became the executive director of the Family Research Council's legislative action branch (he has resigned from this position over the last few days because it turns out that even people who are anti-LGBT and anti-abortion are also opposed to child molesters).
The hypocrisy of this family is disgusting.
The Duggars identify as independent baptists from the "Quiverfull movement" (the specifics seemed to change over different articles I read) and before I go on, I want to assure anyone reading this that I have nothing against any religion. While I'm not going to go into my personal beliefs, I think anyone and everyone should be able to practise whatever religion they want. The issue that I have is when religion is used to justify hatred, discrimination and oppression.
In a February interview with Today magazine, Michelle Duggar said that a woman should always be available to meet her husband's demands: "Anyone can fix him lunch, but only one person can meet that physical need of love that he has, and you always need to be available when he calls" (link). In August of last year, Michelle Duggar recorded a transphobic phone call for voters in Fayetteville, Arkansas, encouraging them to vote against a proposed anti-discrimination bill that would allow transgender people to use whichever bathroom they felt the most comfortable in. Duggar proclaimed that "I doubt Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatised by a man joining them in their private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child" (link).
So basically, if you are a boy, you count more than a girl. However, if you are a girl and you can be used to stop equality in its tracks, you are quite useful. If you are a transgender person identifying as a woman, you should not use the bathrooms because you will molest the girls in there. However, if you are a son who admitted to doing the same thing to his sisters and another girl, you can carry on your merry way. I feel like these attitudes are more than a little dated in this world.
They seem like the kind of family someone needs to give a reality TV show to, however, thank goodness it has been cancelled, because this is the last thing I feel like watching.
The Josh Duggar molestation scandal has come out of the blue over the last few days and has caused various reactions: shock, surprise, "well, with 19 one of them was bound to be crazy".
A lot of people would do anything for their family - people lie, cheat and steal frequently for the ones they love. Had Josh Duggar molested children outside of his family, I would comprehend - not empathise with, but understand at least a tiny bit - why his parents hadn't reported him to the police. Yes, it's wrong; yes, it's disgusting; and yes, it needs to be punished; but people frequently do crazy, wrong, and stupid things to protect their family. It doesn't make sense, but sometimes the love you have for people makes you do incredibly awful things.
However, out of the five girls (not women, girls) that Duggar molested, four of them were his sisters. And yet, his parents did not report him to the police. Yet he was allowed to live in the same house as his sisters. This was not one occasion, this was four (at least), and yet his parents valued the comfort of themselves (living a scandal free life) and their son over the safety of their daughters.
While there has been widespread outrage over the Internet about this revelation, the comments on the TLC post announcing that the show has been cancelled tell a different story. "Let those without sin cast the first stone :(" "I am so very sad! It's the only show I watch! The Duggar family is wonderful! The situation happened 12 years ago and was dealt with. No reason to punish Josh or the Duggar family now. I am disappointed in this decision." "Why would you do that. It's a great show. Admitting to his mistakes just shows that they are just like the rest of us..."
I, for one, find these comments mind boggling. While I admittedly had to scroll past other comments in support of the decision, there were plenty condemning TLC for cancelling the show. The comments opposing the decision had two distinctive categories: firstly, that the Duggars shouldn't be punished, and secondly, that Josh was so young when the molestations occurred that they should be forgotten about.
Many people believed that the Duggars shouldn't be taken off air, after all, it was Josh that made the mistake, right? However, while Josh was responsible for his actions, it was the Duggar family that covered it up. It was the Duggars who decided that no, they wouldn't (initially) report their child to the police. Instead, he got sent away to a church camp (which turned out to be hard labour for a family friend), and when they reported him a year later, no charges were laid and the police officer they reported him to actually ended up being jailed for child pornography.
Commenters also believed that fifteen was too young, that when one is fifteen, they are still a child. But do you know what? Fifteen years old is old enough to know better. Fifteen years old is old enough to know that touching your sisters and another girl inappropriately is not okay. When I was fifteen, I was in year 10. I was picking what subjects I would do that would, to some extent, set me up for what I studied for university. I had a job. I knew right from wrong.
The most bizarre comments though, were the ones that protested that Josh Duggar was innocent. When someone releases a statement saying "[T]welve years ago, as a young teenager I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends..." the general consensus is that they are guilty of what they are being accused of.
On TLC: while I do support their decision to cancel the show, I can't quite comprehend why this wasn't done sooner. Off screen, the Duggars champion multiple anti-gay and anti-abortion causes. Although this hasn't been shown in the show, this channel still made the decision to support a family whose oldest son, in June 2013, became the executive director of the Family Research Council's legislative action branch (he has resigned from this position over the last few days because it turns out that even people who are anti-LGBT and anti-abortion are also opposed to child molesters).
The hypocrisy of this family is disgusting.
The Duggars identify as independent baptists from the "Quiverfull movement" (the specifics seemed to change over different articles I read) and before I go on, I want to assure anyone reading this that I have nothing against any religion. While I'm not going to go into my personal beliefs, I think anyone and everyone should be able to practise whatever religion they want. The issue that I have is when religion is used to justify hatred, discrimination and oppression.
In a February interview with Today magazine, Michelle Duggar said that a woman should always be available to meet her husband's demands: "Anyone can fix him lunch, but only one person can meet that physical need of love that he has, and you always need to be available when he calls" (link). In August of last year, Michelle Duggar recorded a transphobic phone call for voters in Fayetteville, Arkansas, encouraging them to vote against a proposed anti-discrimination bill that would allow transgender people to use whichever bathroom they felt the most comfortable in. Duggar proclaimed that "I doubt Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatised by a man joining them in their private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child" (link).
So basically, if you are a boy, you count more than a girl. However, if you are a girl and you can be used to stop equality in its tracks, you are quite useful. If you are a transgender person identifying as a woman, you should not use the bathrooms because you will molest the girls in there. However, if you are a son who admitted to doing the same thing to his sisters and another girl, you can carry on your merry way. I feel like these attitudes are more than a little dated in this world.
They seem like the kind of family someone needs to give a reality TV show to, however, thank goodness it has been cancelled, because this is the last thing I feel like watching.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
50 Shades of Abuse, Domestic Violence and Awkwardness...would you like salt on your popcorn?
I'm going to start things off with a little walk down memory lane. Throw your minds back to mid 2012, a simpler time, if you will. Picture little 17 year old Laura, working part time in a book shop - a mind full of wonder, innocence, and hopes for a better world; hair probably tied back with a white ribbon. Am I over doing it? Perhaps, but bear with me.
Always keen for a good book and with an urge to be well read, I consulted the New York Times best seller list in my break to see what should be my next read. "50 Shades of Grey", I thought, brow furrowed as I read, "That's funny. I think we've got that book on the front counter". Alas, we did, and I picked it up, reading the blurb. It didn't sound too bad, the book was on sale - my date with destiny was set - and so I purchased it after my shift, and headed home, my fate sealed with a book that would soon be breaking records world wide.
I am sure you are no stranger to the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon - you've possibly read it, you're probably going to see the movie - and because of this, I'm also sure that you're no stranger to the controversy that has surrounded this series. People often roll their eyes when others speak out about this series celebrating domestic violence. "No", they say, a condescending smile on their face (and quite often an eye roll), "It's BDSM. Have you heard of that before?"
Trust me, if I had no idea what BDSM was before I read 50 Shades, I sure do now.
However, it's not BDSM that people have an issue with. According to the BDSM community, in fact, 50 Shades of Grey does not portray BDSM accurately at all. The main issue that a lot of people, myself included, have with the books is that they celebrate and normalise emotional abuse to such an extent that it is considered romantic. Domestic violence all too often is emotional - bullying, stopping the partner from seeing their friends, causing fear in the minds of the victim to the point that their entire life revolves around their abuser.
Emotional abuse is just as dangerous as physical violence because the signs are so much easier to hide. There are no bruises or scars that need to be covered up, but the damage is still there.
Clare Phillipson, director of Wearside Women in Need, a domestic violence charity, highlights that the problem with this book series is that it endorses the ideas that many men exploit to keep women in an abusive relationship: "that you can heal this broken man, that if you just love him enough and take his shit enough, he will get better".
Here are a few examples of quotations from the book that show that this kind of relationship is anything but okay. You can find some of these quotations on movie posters here - they're pretty powerful.
""Alaska is very cold and no place to run. I would find you. I can track your cell phone - remember?""
""No, please. I can't do this, not now. I need some time. Please." "Oh Ana, don't overthink this.""
""You need to learn to manage my expectations. I am not a patient man." He'd probably like to beat seven shades of shit out of me. The thought is depressing."
It's funny, because while I definitely was a bit unsettled when I read the book, it normalises this relationship to such an extent that it makes it seem okay. It turns domestic violence into a love story, and romanticises the controlling and stalking so much that millions of women (and men) have flocked to the cinemas for the chance to see some sex and a tonne of abuse - wow, what a way to spend Valentine's Day.
50 Shades of Grey is definitely not the first, and sadly won't be the last, element of pop-culture that celebrates the abuse and exploitation of women. Cast your minds back to "Blurred Lines", the horrendously catchy song with the horrendously awful message about how he "know(s) you want it". Or maybe Grand Theft Auto - while I've never played any of the video games in this series, I've heard about how it celebrates the rape of women.
Why is this acceptable? Why is it that women are finding 50 Shades of Grey so romantic? We're a clever bunch - we're not getting sucked in by the abuse, it's something else. Is it the mysteriousness? Is it how Christian showers Ana with gifts? The sex?
But why is this book so 50 Shades of Wrong?
Because Ana loves him out of his moods. Ana loves him out of (some) of his abuse. And in real life, men like Christian Grey, the man that we're all supposed to be swooning over; the man who is supposed to be the equivalent of a Greek god in the 21st century, never change.
So when you go to pick up the book or pay for your movie ticket, think about whether or not emotional violence is something you really want to be endorsing. Think about how this movie normalises an abusive relationship that at times, borders on stalking (and other times is definitely stalking). Instead of spending your money on the movie, donate it to a domestic violence shelter. Alternatively, have a night in with friends; buy $14 worth of chocolate (it'll get you further in Kmart than anywhere else); go to see a different movie; or burn your money and use it to keep you warm in winter.
Do it for yourself, do it for the movement against domestic violence. In the 21st century, we cannot let domestic violence be glamourised like has been in this movie. 1/3 women and 1/4 men have been victims of domestic violence - let's not do them a disservice by turning their ordeal into a love story.
And finally, a message from 17 year old Laura who was absolutely traumatised when she realised it wasn't a vampire story like she originally thought - abuse aside, the book was pretty crap anyway.
Always keen for a good book and with an urge to be well read, I consulted the New York Times best seller list in my break to see what should be my next read. "50 Shades of Grey", I thought, brow furrowed as I read, "That's funny. I think we've got that book on the front counter". Alas, we did, and I picked it up, reading the blurb. It didn't sound too bad, the book was on sale - my date with destiny was set - and so I purchased it after my shift, and headed home, my fate sealed with a book that would soon be breaking records world wide.
I am sure you are no stranger to the 50 Shades of Grey phenomenon - you've possibly read it, you're probably going to see the movie - and because of this, I'm also sure that you're no stranger to the controversy that has surrounded this series. People often roll their eyes when others speak out about this series celebrating domestic violence. "No", they say, a condescending smile on their face (and quite often an eye roll), "It's BDSM. Have you heard of that before?"
Trust me, if I had no idea what BDSM was before I read 50 Shades, I sure do now.
However, it's not BDSM that people have an issue with. According to the BDSM community, in fact, 50 Shades of Grey does not portray BDSM accurately at all. The main issue that a lot of people, myself included, have with the books is that they celebrate and normalise emotional abuse to such an extent that it is considered romantic. Domestic violence all too often is emotional - bullying, stopping the partner from seeing their friends, causing fear in the minds of the victim to the point that their entire life revolves around their abuser.
Emotional abuse is just as dangerous as physical violence because the signs are so much easier to hide. There are no bruises or scars that need to be covered up, but the damage is still there.
Clare Phillipson, director of Wearside Women in Need, a domestic violence charity, highlights that the problem with this book series is that it endorses the ideas that many men exploit to keep women in an abusive relationship: "that you can heal this broken man, that if you just love him enough and take his shit enough, he will get better".
Here are a few examples of quotations from the book that show that this kind of relationship is anything but okay. You can find some of these quotations on movie posters here - they're pretty powerful.
""Alaska is very cold and no place to run. I would find you. I can track your cell phone - remember?""
""No, please. I can't do this, not now. I need some time. Please." "Oh Ana, don't overthink this.""
""You need to learn to manage my expectations. I am not a patient man." He'd probably like to beat seven shades of shit out of me. The thought is depressing."
It's funny, because while I definitely was a bit unsettled when I read the book, it normalises this relationship to such an extent that it makes it seem okay. It turns domestic violence into a love story, and romanticises the controlling and stalking so much that millions of women (and men) have flocked to the cinemas for the chance to see some sex and a tonne of abuse - wow, what a way to spend Valentine's Day.
50 Shades of Grey is definitely not the first, and sadly won't be the last, element of pop-culture that celebrates the abuse and exploitation of women. Cast your minds back to "Blurred Lines", the horrendously catchy song with the horrendously awful message about how he "know(s) you want it". Or maybe Grand Theft Auto - while I've never played any of the video games in this series, I've heard about how it celebrates the rape of women.
Why is this acceptable? Why is it that women are finding 50 Shades of Grey so romantic? We're a clever bunch - we're not getting sucked in by the abuse, it's something else. Is it the mysteriousness? Is it how Christian showers Ana with gifts? The sex?
But why is this book so 50 Shades of Wrong?
Because Ana loves him out of his moods. Ana loves him out of (some) of his abuse. And in real life, men like Christian Grey, the man that we're all supposed to be swooning over; the man who is supposed to be the equivalent of a Greek god in the 21st century, never change.
So when you go to pick up the book or pay for your movie ticket, think about whether or not emotional violence is something you really want to be endorsing. Think about how this movie normalises an abusive relationship that at times, borders on stalking (and other times is definitely stalking). Instead of spending your money on the movie, donate it to a domestic violence shelter. Alternatively, have a night in with friends; buy $14 worth of chocolate (it'll get you further in Kmart than anywhere else); go to see a different movie; or burn your money and use it to keep you warm in winter.
Do it for yourself, do it for the movement against domestic violence. In the 21st century, we cannot let domestic violence be glamourised like has been in this movie. 1/3 women and 1/4 men have been victims of domestic violence - let's not do them a disservice by turning their ordeal into a love story.
And finally, a message from 17 year old Laura who was absolutely traumatised when she realised it wasn't a vampire story like she originally thought - abuse aside, the book was pretty crap anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)