Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

Saturday, 18 September 2010

End Women's Suffrage!

My sister showed Mum a youtube video that afterwards Mum insisted that I watch. It's a man visiting an American high school "of excellence" and asking students to sign a petition to end the "monstrocity" that is women's suffrage.

suffrage: the right of voting : franchise; also : the exercise of such right


The video provides commentary on many things, not the least of which include the way people are willing to sign their name to a piece of paper without knowing fully what it is they're promoting, and, of course, the myriad of ways the American school system is letting its students down. It's also somewhat upsetting because small, fringe groups of "conservatives" actually hold that women's suffrage should never have been passed.

As interesting as a conversation about this video clip would be to me, what I found more interesting and upsetting was my sister's reaction to my and my mother's reactions. I was doing something else when Mum started showing it to me, and I merely asked "Why am I watching this?" She told me it was because she thought that I'd "think it was interesting", and I replied that "it's just sad". Later into the video, she commented on how "somebody's failing" - referring, of course, to the way that so many young women were absolutely clueless to the point of the petition they were signing. My sister became very angry with us that we couldn't take a joke, and said that it was "just a silly video" and that she lived with "the most judgmental people on the planet".

I'm not writing this to in any way smear my sister's reputation, contrary to what she maybe believe if she read it. I merely want to use this opportunity to discuss the way jokes and serious problems intermingle and the way that we often have very different opinions about where those defining lines lie. The problem between my sister's and my own interpretations of the clip were not in drastically different viewpoints on any of the issues addressed, but in our individual willingness to call that "funny". Basically, our senses of humour. What she thought was almost mindlessly hilarious, I viewed as intelligently satirical and incredibly upsetting because of the real-world truths it highlights.

This phenomenon is everywhere.

The problem with certain TV shows - Family Guy, for example, or even Spongebob Squarepants - for me are the sense of humour required to enjoy them. A clever one liner in a comedic drama like Castle feels so much more satisfying than watching Spongebob sustain possibly fatal injuries... agian. So much of Family Guy is intelligent humour, but the creators need to back those witty quips up with barfing that looks like someone broke a water main and with jokes about rape, which, aren't really funny at all. The "rape joke" thing has a lot more in common with this suffrage conversation, though, merely because they do make people laugh, but when you think about it, they're actually very offensive and can be extremely hurtful to someone who has had any sort of experience with rape. But I digress.

This short little video that sparked so much bitterness in my family portrays social undertones that I cannot ignore. Watching young girls sign up to have their right to vote taken away from them hurts because it's a right that so many people worked so hard to earn, and that so many other people around the world still do not, and never will, possess. The conversation about the fact that these girls don't even know what "suffrage" means could literally go on for days, and, in certain political and social arenas, has. I appreciate the creator of the video for the witty way he exposed these social shortcomings, and that's why I think his video is powerful. The difference, though, is that my sister appreciates the way he highlighted certain individuals' ignorance [for lack of a kinder term], which is why she felt the video was powerful. The only difference was the way we interpreted the video's power. And the fact is, she thought it was funny.



Thoughts?

Sunday, 14 February 2010

Why I Wish I Hadn't Used Up All My "Skips"

I was listening to Pandora, and my station is fairly complex by now - sort of like my crazy iPod - so I get a lot of weird songs that I end up "thumbs downing".

Tonight, a particular song came on called "I Can't Own Her" by XTC. I thought, now that's a good concept for a song! I could really like this song. So I looked up the lyrics.

I was utterly disappointed as I read the words along with the song. A song with a title like that has the opportunity to be a really great song about how women aren't property and all that, but this song did the complete opposite.

The persona uses "own" to show his material possessions, and he appears to be a pretty well-off individual.
I own this river, I own this town
All of its climbers and its wino's sliding down
But I can't own her and I never will
So far so good, right? But then that last line that finishes off the phrase group:
No I can't own her and that's a bitter pill
I got a little uncomfortable at that point. It might be something I could have overlooked, but I decided to think about what exactly the persona is saying.

He's saying "Look at all these things I have! I own a lot of cool, material things!" And then he's saying that he "can't own her", which is right, because he can't. Women are human beings, not property, not material things, not a river or a town, but people. There are societies around the world and throughout history in which women actually are/were property of men, and it's something we have had to fight against, and still do. [See this recent post at SocioImages for, well basically everything I just said.] No, persona of that song, you can not own a woman.

But what else is he saying? He's saying "I want to own her". He's not saying he can't from some feminist or humanist stand-point; it seems like he might be, until we see that fourth line. It's "a bitter pill", meaning something that gives him grief, that he can't own her.

Later in the song, it might seem like he's redeeming himself by saying:
And when I say I can't own her
I don't mean to buy her
It's nothing at all to do with money
I simply want her in my arms forever more.
Is that an odd request?
Is that something so funny?


But I don't think that's really redemption for him at all. He says, of course, that he doesn't mean "own" in a master-possession sort of relationship, which means we should give him a break, right? Wrong. That's the power of words. There are words for what he wants to do, or hopefully wants to do, with this woman - he could love her, he could marry her, he could be her devoted partner or friend, he could even keep her in a cage in his basement [but that's a very, very serious issue that is not so related to this post] - but he chooses "own", a word infused with political and personal tension.

He never says "love" in this song, or any word related to it. He says words of ownership like "want" and "own" and "have" and "thing". So even though he assures us this has "nothing at all to do with money", his fantasy of ownership and dominance shines through, and that's probably why the girl isn't interested in the first place.

Thumbs down.