What We Missed.
Tori Amos talks about what she knows about men.
An interview in Guernica with Fatima Bhutto.
Sociological Images notes a price difference between black dolls and white dolls.
On how not to advertise games.
A roadside tent city of sex offenders in Miami and its surrounding controversy.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14887
Tori Amos' piece is beautiful. I love how she thinks of power - to be powerful is to know you have it without trying to take it from others. To intentionally hurt others is to feel powerless but feel like you can only get power by stealing it from others and not trying to build it up within.
Re. Tori Amos:
I'm glad to see a woman speaking out about her experience with violence and her healing process. I'm glad that Amos presents herself as an example of a woman who suffered violence by men and has healed enough to build a life with a man, rather than be crippled by trauma. I'm glad that she feels healed. I'm glad she makes that distinction between intimidation and power: this is a message we need to keep spreading.
But, "It took the love of a good man"? Really? Why does she credit her husband (rather than herself) - and the fact that he's a man (instead of the fact that he's a decent person) - for her recovery? And while it's good for both men and women to get away from power play that enables internalized oppression and feeds on trauma, she seems to insinuate that all sexual power play is perverted and bad. There is a difference between unhealthy self-victimization and healthy power play in sex. Amos conflates the two with her use of the word "perversion."
Ultimately, her piece does not reveal any special knowledge about men. It perpetuates the idea that survivors of sexual assault are victims; that they are products of violence, rather than people; and that only men have the power to protect, heal, and determine a woman's self-respect and relationship with men.
To each their own. I didn't get that feel from her piece - I don't think she was trying to speak for all victims/survivors, but only herself.
I think victims can also be survivors. I don't like the false dichotomy being placed up here.
Her piece doesn't perpetuate anything harmful unless the reader chooses to apply her one experience to all sexual assault victims. The same would be harmful if her experience was the opposite - if she talked about how she didn't need a man to restore her faith in men - and the reader applied this knowledge to all survivors. Then the reader might look down on a survivor who did heal through meeting a man they could trust because their experience didn't fit into the "proper" narrative.
Of course victims can also be survivors. I'm sorry - I really meant to say that this article perpetuates the idea that survivors of sexual assault are victims more than they're people, or something like that. I think the narrative of "a man made me a victim, and then a man healed me" is itself victimizing.
As for her personal experience, well, unfortunately she does speak for more than just her own, because there are so few really public stories about sexual violence. I think people will apply this story to all sexual assault victims, whether they should or not. And even if it was a man who helped her heal, the emphasis on him disturbs me. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it bothers me that she gives him so much agency and herself so little.
I agree. I mean with your overall statement, not that it aplies to Tori Amos, lol. I don't think she was over-crediting her husband etc.
But I do agree that's a common "false empowerment" that we see these days.
"""
[the false notion] that only men have the power to protect, heal, and determine a woman's self-respect and relationship with men.
"""
VERY well said! I see a lot of it these days. Women who boast being empowered, but say they were empowered by a man, lol... that's an oxymoron.
No one can empower you, they can teach you, guide you, help you, but only you can empower yourself.
Women will never be equals until they accept full responsibility for their empowerment.
"Eleanore Roosevelt == No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
"But, "It took the love of a good man"? "
You point this line out, but what about her line "women are goddesses"?
Two points here.
1.) A goddesses is a mythical *woman* of some sort of supernatural power, correct? So is a woman a *woman* or a *supernatural woman*? This whole goddess BS has always pissed me off. You all should point out that placing a woman on a goddess pedastal diminishes the value of "woman".
2.) Amidst the egalitarianism spouted on this site, I would have expected someone to point out that if women are goddesses then men are "gods", but i haven't seen that said anywhere.
It's probably an American Doll Posse reference. The personas on the album were modeled after Greek goddesses.
I find this interesting. On the one hand, I think people, on the whole, tend towards hyperbole, just as a tool of language. It always takes more emphasis to get a point across as language evolves. However, I like that you point out that it is as though to be strong and powerful is to be more than we simply are, which does seem to diminish what *woman* is. I actually really enjoyed that point.
Your second point, while fair, I think needs to take the forum into context. Yes, technically speaking, if women are godesses, it stands to reason that men are gods. However, if one accepts as true (and I don't presume that you personally do) that men generally have more power in the world, then in a space that is created for the discussion of feminism, I think it is okay for women to declare an action/woman/etc. goddess-like, without explicitly acknowledging men in those discussions.
Her husband said, "Women are goddesses," to express his personal feelings about women. He is trying to say he has warm feelings about women that make them almost sacred to him.
bukowski, it sounds like you are condemning this man for his heterosexuality. I hope this isn't the case.
"Her husband said, "Women are goddesses," to express his personal feelings about women. "
He said it, and she agreed which makes them both stupid. Women are not goddesses. Men are not gods. We are humans, each with different natures bringing different things to the table.
My point was aimed at a previous commenter who was so quick to jump on the "sexism" of Amos' line that the love of her husband saved her. that commenter picked through the article looking for any semblance of sexism but failed to jump on the "goddess" comment. Such hypocrisy annoys me and is the reason that people don't like feminists.
And, no, I'm not condemning the husband's heterosexuality at all. I'm comdemning the fact that he's bought into the tripe that somehow men are subservient to goddess-like women.
Oh "Bukowski", I think someone might be ready for a nap and maybe some warm milk.
Martina, you're doing your job of being a social drone and opressing bukowski.
Society (the patriarchy?) has us opress one another into our gender roles. You know all the ways in which men try to keep women trapped in their classical roles...
But what you might have not noticed is that some women keep men trapped in the classical "male role"... by making fun of them, calling them gay, not a real man, "oh poor baby, time for whatever"...
If you do this when a man tries to express feelings and emotions, you're basically opressing him back into the typical "male macho role".
I don't agree with what bukowski said, but he was expressing his sentiments, and you made fun of him for it. Not a good way to encourage men to escape the patriarchal roles, is it?
Bukowski. I disagree. Lol. I mean, I disagree with your overall point, that sometimes, SOME women think they need to be treated as special, and if you don't treat them special, you're labeled "not a real man".
With that said I DISAGREE with you applying it to Tori Amos. I didn't get that sense at all or that she said in the meaning of "I want to be treated like I'm special". I think you read way too much into it.
I meant "I agree with your overall point" ,lol. Typo.
I agree that the "women as special goddesses" hurts' women's equality, but I disagree this is what happened with Tori Amos. Again, I think you read into it too much. I don't think that was her point.
Actually, the "women are goddesses" line also offended me. I didn't mention it because for me it was a part of Amos letting men determine her self-worth. I'm glad you and other commenters have drawn my attention to it as a separate (if related) issue, though.
Saying that "women are goddesses" is not sexist against men, however. Rather, it plays into institutionalized sexism against women by implying that women are either inferior or they're divine - they're never just human the way men are. When a man says that "women are goddesses," he's still asserting his right to define women, reinforcing the cult of perfection set up for women, and protecting his exclusive right to be nothing more nor less than human. I like what Marc said about it below.
Not saying anything against anyone's sex lives, but I think it's important to remember that "healthy power play in sex" doesn't exist within a vacuum.
Baking, knitting, and ballet also don't exist in a vacuum. Not saying anything against anyone's hobbies.
Making food and clothing really isn't the same thing as engaging in sex that involves power play. I'm not bashing or saying people shouldn't engage in any kind of consensual sex they want, but what's wrong with a little analysis? I don't think this idea I keep running into that sexual turn-ons and practices are off-limits for discussion, analysis, and criticism is a good one.
She isn't crediting her husband, specifically, in my opinion - she is crediting love. Sometimes, we all need love to overcome our own personal struggles and I don't think that makes us any weaker as people. It makes us human.
By the same token, she is not saying she needed a MAN but rather that she needed LOVE (and it happened to have just come from a man). I don't believe she meant to advocate that abused women should just find a good, decent man and everything will get better, but rather that they should try and find love (whether familial, platonic or romantic, with men or women, etc etc).
The way she phrased it is, perhaps, misleading and/or ambiguous, but I think the message she MEANT to convey is not bad.
That doesn't change the point. I don't think people had an issue with her crediting a man, lol. The real issue (primarily) was that she was crediting someone outside her self.
"Needing love" still revolves around needing someone/something external in order to heal. That's how we've been brought up by society.
Love can come from within, and no, I'm not talking about narcissism, I'm talking about healthy self-esteem.
Oddly enough, when you heal yourself, without "needing" others, you end up attracting all kinds of awesome people in your life. But you have to really not need/want anyone else first. And I'm talking genuine/spiritual level of not "needing"...
I'm not talking about the fake, frustrated "I don't need nobody" kind of attitude. I mean not being needy for others to validate you.
I’m not sure I agree with your first point. Looking at the first comment to address this:
“Why does she credit her husband (rather than herself) - and the fact that he's a man (instead of the fact that he's a decent person) - for her recovery?”
The question of needing someone else’s help – SPECIFICALLY someone who is a man (rather than just any person) was raised. Which led me to respond to it.
In any case, I agree that love can come from within and it’s important for everyone to be independent and have good self-esteem. But I would imagine that after being raped or sexually abused, that can be difficult – and the help of other people should be a welcome gift. I don’t think there’s any point in turning our noses down on it and saying, “Well, she should have been able to do it on her own.”
I would've killed in the months following my assault had it not been for my boyfriend.
I have no doubts about this. I fantasized about it. I had let go of everything else. My family was worried; at times it seemed like they were getting ready to say goodbye. But I didn't want to leave him--that was my sole reason for not going through with it. So yes, my own strength (eventually) got me through it. His support gave me the ability to get there. I do credit him for that. He saved my life. Sometimes you do need other people to heal. That's support, that's love, that's family. Hell, that's therapy!
"Oddly enough, when you heal yourself, without "needing" others, you end up attracting all kinds of awesome people in your life. But you have to really not need/want anyone else first. And I'm talking genuine/spiritual level of not "needing"..."
No. I needed. I needed very deeply, for years. Those needs were satisfied, and then I began to heal. And in that process I "attracted" some pretty awesome people--some who were also healing. And they helped me heal some more, we helped each other. And then I was healed. And I was strong. And I was happy. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't indulged that need.
I find her comments about "reverting to her perversions" infuriating, though. Different situations, but I don't think we should take away what her husband means to her. That is not for us to say.
Evidently, she gained something from her husbands help that she wasn't able to get so far on her own. Nothing wrong with that. People help people to grow, especially in relationships. Nothing anti-feminist about appreciating the help of her male partner.
The point is that she stepped away from the male = abuser/female = victim schema and is living a happier life because of it.
One lady's journey is just that. We all have our own paths to success.
Re: Amos-
"Real power is about exchange, not subordination."
I like that.
Re: DOLLS
Speaking of POWER go here and listen to the This American Life story by Elna Baker about her experience at FAO Schwarz when they ran out of the white version of a very popular baby doll and only had minority dolls left. Unbelievable funny and moving and tragic - it broke my heart....
Babies Buying Babies is about my time as a toy demonstrator at FAO Schwarz adopting Lee Middleton baby dolls.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1278
P.S.
you can also find the story (with a bunch of other REALLY good ones) here:
http://www.elnabaker.com/stories.html
http://www.foryouforum.com/
Thanks
Wow the Tori Amos article really moved me. Thank you Samhita for posting it.
"Real power is about exchange, not subordination. For some people a powerful man is a bully. He's powerful because he scares people. And I would say that's not a powerful man - that's an intimidating man, a man who uses intimidation tactics. A powerful man is a man that knows who he is and doesn't need to manipulate people to get what he wants."
What a quote! I'm not sure if it's true, but I would like to live my life as a man according to this sentiment.
Um-- Weight loss ad right below your entry, Samhita! How are these ads getting through? I know you guys are working on it, but really? v.v
About the Evony thing-- I've been seeing those ads slowly transform for a while now. They've been getting more and more ridiculous. I'm so glad somebody's blogged about it.
Hey Feministing!
Come one, this diet ad crap
has gone on too long!
oops
*Come on*
Yeah, it seems ironic considering that beauty standards are one of the issues that feminists take so seriously.
Men are not gods, so
why are women goddesses?
Thought we're all human.
I have to agree - the "women are goddesses" ad the "it took the love of a good man" - both of these quotes rubbed me the wrong way. Otherwise I thought the piece was really beautiful. And I think the fact that she wasn't somehow preaching these beliefs was really important. She was just telling her own personal story and what she knows in her life. Which of course is very different than saying, girls, go out and get yourself a good man, or you should always consider yourself a goddess :)
Can I just say that I love your haiku comments? I try to write a haiku every Wednesday just for fun, and this is awesome.
I don't know where to say this, but I've been seeing a LOT of weight loss ads lately, and I figured I should say it SOMEWHERE.
They freak me out (extra) when they say "OBEY!" (not kidding.)
Yeah, those are supremely creepy.
It's interesting how other potentially triggering ads have been blocked, but the weight loss ones always slip through.
I agree that the "OBEY" thing is so weird. It's like, "really, patriarchy? You're being that blatant?"
LOL.
Overall, I'm a fan of some of Tori's work, and think I know what she's getting at. However, I think that she's trapped in a dualistic way of thinking, seeing dualities such as power/weakness, American/British, Christian/Not Christian, goddess/woman, but not seeing outside of these things.
She seems to be every bit a product of her own upbringing. I have to say I'm surprised she's stuck in this narrow way of thinking.
But I *love* her first two records.
Also, I absolutely do *not* agree with what she says about power. Really, power is power. Period. It's who has it, who doesn't have it, how it is used, and how it is not used that matters.
Sure, if people lash out because they *feel* powerless, it doesn't mean they are powerless. They act out to prove where their power lies, and it often lies in the ability to dominate and abuse. By abusing, they act out in powerful ways. She should know this, considering that a "powerless" man has controlled her life in such a profound way.
Powerful people can choose to abuse their power or not abuse their power. Share it or not share it. Gain more, maintain, or lose it.
I don't find comfort in the new age platitudes that she's apparently bought into. They don't offer me any comfort.
Really? You see no nuance in the concept of power? It seems, in your comment, that there is only one type of power, and it is aggressive and violent. I believe that there are many, many types of power. Political power, sexual power, spiritual power, etc. There is power in having self-discipline. I see power in a lot of different ways.
Also, I think stating that "She should know this, considering that a 'powerless' man has controlled her life in such a profound way," is a bit presumptive. I'd have to read her piece again, so if I'm remembering incorrectly, I apologize, but I thought she acknowledged that the way she lived her life and reacted to her assault after the fact was her own doing. Sexual assault can range from extremely, devastatingly traumatic, to not so traumatic at all, really, and that depends on a number of different factors, principal among which is the victim/survivor. She seems to demonstrate that it was very traumatic for her, but the fact is that we choose how we react to things, however subconsciously. That doesn't mean that a reaction is wrong, at all. I have been assaulted myself, and I am also a victim advocate. Far be it from me to decide what is and is not an appropriate reaction to assault. My point though, is that he did not control her life; she allowed the trauma to influence how she lived it. That is not him having power over her. That is her living in her trauma, which again, is not to be judged. That was how it was for her.
I'm rambling, so I'll stop. Do you understand what I'm getting at, even if you disagree?
Yeah. It looks like my point is just being misunderstood. My whole point is that power is power. This includes all it's myriad forms.
Like I said, power is power. Who has it, who doesn't have it, how it is used, and how it is not used is what matters.
See, she talked about "real" power. Her words not mine. She said "real" power is about exchange and not subordination. This is part of what I disagree with. She said intimidation is not real power. I wholeheartedly disagree.
Ask any person who's ever been harassed by police or bullied by anyone. Ask anyone who's ever been at the short end of the stick in a power dynamic. Ask the Palestinians. Ask the families of the World Trade Center victims. Ask battered wives. Ask civil rights protesters. Ask Emmett Till. Ask Anne Frank. Ask the Tiananmen Square victims. Ask the people of Iran and North Korea.
She states intimidation is not power. Again, I disagree. Intimidation is a form of power. Economic power is used to intimidate all the time. This is very "real" power. Institutions intimidate with real and great effect all the time and have throughout history.
My whole point is that power is power. In all it's myriad forms, including intimidation. Abuse is powerful. Bullying is powerful. Manipulation is powerful. Being nice is powerful too. Being a sharing and giving person is powerful.
I think she was really talking about magnanimity vs. selfishness. Because when she states that a powerful man is a man who doesn't need to manipulate to get what he wants, and that one who bullies is not powerful, it comes off as being completely ridiculous. Bullies exert power. Abusers exert power. All the time. And she should know this, because her abuser has exerted power over her in so many ways for such a long time.
You really do have a very black&white view of power. Very unrefined, and very non-nuanced.
I loved what pineapple said "Really? You see no nuance in the concept of power?"
The key word being nuance, lol.
I've actually studied power academically for years, through many disciplines and views (and I know this sounds like an egoistic bragging thing, I'm not trying to impress, just to explain how I personally expanded my understanding of power with additional nuances).
The thing is, you are correct mostly, but there are pieces you're missing... Basically...
Where you are correct: In say a case like bullying... yes, power is exerted over the target, true.
The nuance you're missing: That doesn't result in the bully gaining power.
This is a sort of a negative power. When someone feels powerless, they try to decrease their feelings of powerlessness by decreasing other people's power. The bully doesn't really gain much *real* power. He/she just gets to gloat in someone else being powerless for a moment too. Its a fake sort of a power. He/she feels more powerful by destructing others around, instead of increasing one's own standing. Brings others down, instead of rising up.
I choose not to see that as power, I'm sorry.
Kissmypineapple, you've got a fan in me.
What she describes as "real" power, I would just say is something better than power.
Obviously, a word can have many meanings. If you look up power in the dictionary you would know that it can mean energy divided by time or what you get if you multiply a number by itself a number of times.
I would say the socio-political is the ability to impose your will on the world (including the ability to do so in immoral ways). If she means socio-political power is not about subordination, I'd say she's wrong. If she's referring to some sort of spiritual power, I guess I could go along with it.
To further comment on women are goddesses ideas ...
It's comments and beliefs like these that have kept women from achieving equal status.
Women are "goddesses" and "gentle flowers" and this and that, so they should not be allowed to do the things that men do, and always deserve to either be worshipped or protected.
There are a lot of expectations to be met when one is worshipped, and when one does not meet the standards, the fall is long and hard.
Protection is the same thing - except when one needs protection, it denotes that one is not good enough to be on one's own.
Either way, it hurts women. So, can we please stop this "goddesses" bullshit? Women are humans.
Although I agree with your points... that treating women as "delicate flowers that need protection" is actually preventing women from being equals...
I don't agree with your interpretation in this article. I think she used the word in a much less serious way here, lol. We just took it way too seriously.
Re: Dolls
"http://failblog.wordpress.com/files/2009/06/fail-owned-doll-pricing-fail.jpg"
Found this on Fail Blog. Case in point. Absolutely ridiculous.
Wow, so my computer didn't load the photos in the article at first. Didn't realize it was the same one. Apologies.
Either the failblog image is photoshop'd/faked or the Walmart store that picture was taken in is just... fucked. I notice some stores do crazy things with price tags it's just not even funny.
I checked the actual prices here and they are all the same for different races, including Hispanics: http://www.hasbro.com/babyalive/en_us/shop/browse.cfm
Interesting article but the rest is nothing that I haven't heard before: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyI77Yh1Gg
There are other options. Someone might have intentionally put one of the dolls over a price tag for a different product, or one of the dolls might have accidentally leaked into an area priced for a different product. Really, has no one else ever seen a product in the wrong place on a store shelf?
I love Tori's article. I'm glad that she has been able to find peace and power. I'm also glad that she has found a partner who is supportive and has helped her find her own power. That is how I interpreted her remark about her husband. When trying to get past a violation such as rape, I think that anyone who helps them reclaim their lives is important; especially if Tori feels that her husband had a strong influence in helping her find herself after her rape then who are we to judge it. I don't think that she means he solved her problems, but I thought she meant that because of his love and support she was able to move past her trauma. As for the women are goddesses comment, I believe that she just meant that women are powerful, and worthy of strength and power, not that they should be worshiped or that they are something untouchable, but I've always been a fan of Tori's and because of her I've found a love of Neil Gaiman, so I'm probably rambling.
I think the goddess thing is hilarious. I mean, I don't think anyone is going to use that in their presidential campaign ("And furthermore, I am a goddess") -- it's just a colloquialism to impart that there's a lot of beauty in our nature. Plus it's all hippie, and hippies, of course, are a hoot.
I don't particularly love the massage-y guys who wear flowy fabrics and call women goddesses and ask for hugs and say namaste any old random minute. They kind of creep me out and make me want to ask for three feet of personal space.
But I love thinking of myself as a goddess when I try on all of my scarfs at the same time and spend hours in the kitchen cooking delicious things. It's all about Gaia, man. And, you know, the moon. The womyn in the moon.
I guess my point, if I can scrounge one together, would be "lighten up". That's kind of a general decree after reading several of the comments threads on articles on this site. People be upset. Let's all drink some water and rest in child's pose until we can turn that frown upside down!
All hippies are douchebags, including those who try on scarfs while thinking about Gaia. Man.
Is this funny? Absolutely. I LMAO often about it. But it's still douchebaggery that, in my opinion, has no place on this forum.
I agree. I think some people took the goddess thing too seriously. It was obviously said in a different context.
wow. new girl-crush on Fatima Bhutto.
I'll be honest... I actually liked the Tori Amos piece. And... what's my confession here?
I actually went into the piece ready to bash it, expecting a "woman as victim" perspective... since I'm used to it.
I was expecting her to blame all men for the abusive jerks she was with... but I was proved wrong. She actually is fairly balanced and points that
1)"some men" do this, and there are both good and bad guys out there.
2) How she reclaimed her power by giving up the victim role
For that I salute her. She takes a mature adult stance on the subject and she provides inspiration for overcoming adversity without blaming, but through taking your own power in your own hands.
Its easy to fall into the trope of commenting on how a US popstar deals with her own issues surrounding rape (for many folks successful and healthy interpersonal relationships are key to that healing) rather than comment on the more nuanced stories linked.
The interview with Fatima Bhutto was illuminating, the internet advertising article not surprising, and the article about the roadside camp for sex offenders was horrifying.
Residency restrictions on sexual offenders have real repercussions. How can one live in what is 'affordable' (within what means one can earn after prison) and meet these restrictions. A community has a right to be safe - of course, but how can we pretend that prison is 'corrective' if this is the result.