50 Shades of Misconception

This post was originally titled "50 Shades of Wrong" but I decided to change it because I didn't want someone who only saw the title to think that I was saying BDSM is wrong, erotica is wrong, or that reading this book makes one wrong. I really just want to convey that the book is problematic and does not depict an accurate BDSM relationship, while it does depict (in my opinion) a romanticized manipulative and emotionally abusive relationship.

Yes, I did it. I read Fifty Shades of Grey. And before I talk about the problems, I admit, as erotica, it's pretty hot. The sex is clearly fantasy sex: Christian has no refractory period, ever, he can just get it up and have sex twice in an hour, ten times a day if necessary; Ana, who has not only never had sex, but has never had any sexual contact resulting in an orgasm before meeting Christian, manages to have mind-blowing, multiple orgasm sex the night she loses her virginity; and Ana, again, who has done pretty much nothing with boys other than making out, manages to give Christian, an older, sexually experienced man, a perfect blow job on her first try. I call bullshit on all of the above. But it's erotica, so we'll let it go, and we'll all enjoy the fantasy.

The problem comes with, well, everything else in the book. Now, I have to say, I know very little about the BDSM community. I know very little about kinks, fetishes, etc.; most of my knowledge comes whatever questions pop up on Dan Savage's Savage Love podcast and column. And yet, even I know that most people with kinks, fetishes, etc., don't have those desires as a result of abuse. Yet we are clearly supposed to see Christian's Dominant desires as a problem to be fixed, something he needs to work through and move past. And I just don't believe that this is the case for most kinky people. Most kinky people simply need to find other kinky people who share their desires, who are compatible with them in the bedroom, who respect and understand what they want and need from a partner.

What's more disturbing to me is the aspect of control that Christian wants to exert over Ana in every aspect of her life, whenever she's around. Now, after a quick Wikipedia search for "dominance and submission", I see that this does happen in these relationships sometimes; part of the fun/arousal seems to derive from playing out the dominant/submissive roles outside of the bedroom as well as in it. And since we know Christian has had several d/s relationships in the past, this is something that he seems to be used to. So it's not wrong or a problem for him to want it; the problem is the fact that Ana does not want it. But because Christian is so drawn to her, and she to him, they just can't let go of each other, even with all these compatibility issues staring them in the face.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! I'm so sick of novels romanticizing this kind of destructive, controlling relationship. Christian talks about his immediate need and overwhelming desire to protect Ana. He's constantly reminding her that she needs to eat, that she shouldn't get drink, that she should take care of her body. He glares at her when he sees she's not eating enough. He is jealous of all the other men in her life, men who are just friends. And, because he's super, ridiculously wealthy (fantasy, remember, fantasy) he basically stalks her. And she's not really that bothered by it. She wrestles with the idea occasionally, wondering how he found her or how creepy it is, but she ultimately lands on the side of, "But he's so hot and he must follow me because he wants me and awww how great!" Even later in the book, when he's admitted that he is willing to try for more of a romantic relationship (as opposed to just a sexual, dom/sub relationship), he still exerts this control. She goes to visit her mother for a few days, and she tells him that she is going because she can't think clearly around him, because she needs to think through and make decisions about their relationship on her own. And yet he still shows up, having found out which hotel she and her mother and drinking in one night. And she's turned on. This is fucked up. He is stalking her. It's not romantic. It's not sexy when she discovers he followed her because he sends an e-mail asking how many drinks she's gonna have. It's none of his business how many drinks she is having.

The most upsetting part, to me, is the end. Ana has spent the whole book trying to decide if she can agree to be Christian's submissive, and she finally says she needs to see what "punishment" really is. She has let Christian start dominating her in some ways, but she says she needs to see what the worst can be. Now, as far as the BDSM community goes, I think Christian does everything right. Read this description, a letter written to Dan Savage for his column, by a reader of the book:

In the last chapters, she asks him to go ahead and do his worst. He says he doesn't need to do those things with her. He says he doesn't think she'll like it. She assures him she wants to see what it's like. He checks in with her carefully. He reminds her about her safeword. Then he canes her, unties her, and offers her aftercare.

Response? "You're fucked up," she tells him. "You need to sort your shit out." Then she walks out. The End.

She doesn't use the safe word. She takes a beating that she's not enjoying. And then she decides to leave him, that she can't be with him. So even though I don't think she can be angry at him about what happened (he gave her all the outs a responsible BDSMer is supposed to) at this point, I was just like, "Great! She recognized that they're incompatible, and that she needs to get away, clear her head and move on. She's not into kink, she's not into pain for pleasure, and she needs to be with someone else (and so does Christian)." However, the book ends like this:
"The pain is indescribable...Grief. This is grief...the physical pain from the bite of a belt is nothing, nothing compared to this devastation."

This sounds to me like a woman coming out of an abusive relationship. This is a woman who has been manipulated (and Christian definitely manipulated her, interrupting her conversations to have sex with her, using "sex as a weapon" [direct quote], etc.), controlled, and now she would rather take agree to a sexualized beating (from which he, but not she, derives sexual pleasure) from this man rather than be without him.

If this trilogy's intention, if the author's intention, were to either explore the BDSM world in a responsible, accurate way, or to explore an abusive relationship, which happens to involve dominance and submission, then this might be off to an interesting start. But from what I hear, this series has a happy ending in which Christian and Ana somehow manage to be together. I'm curious to find out how the author makes that work, so if anyone has a copy of the other two books (so I don't have to add to all the money these books are making), let me know.

So even though I appreciate the hot sex scenes, and I appreciate that the book's popularity may be leading many more women to try more adventurous things in the bedroom, I think I have to agree with this picture I saw today, via Twitter.

Frustration Alert! Childless Women are STILL People!

I was going to write a different post today, one I'll probably get into in the next couple of days, but doing a quick google search (trying to find childless women in pop culture), I came across this terrible article, "Why bosses are right to distrust women who don't want children," by Carol Sarler. Now the article I discovered is from 2009, but it's clear from scrolling through her more recent headlines that she often writes about men and women in very stereotypical, masculine vs. feminine terms. And sometimes I think I should just ignore the people who truly believe in old-fashioned gender roles. But reading this article was so insulting to me, a blow straight to the gut, that I had to comment.

She opens with discussing how she respects a woman's right to choose "all things at all times," she still finds women who don't want children to be "weird." Fine. That's her right, and many, many (most?) people in our society would agree with her. But then she says that "recent studies" (she provides no links, or study names, or methodology) find that childless women (specifically those childless by choice), are distrusted in the workplace, seen as cold, and less likely to get promoted. OK for one thing, she's just wrong. While most women still make less than men in equal jobs, the wage gap between childless women and men is much smaller than that between mothers and men; childless women make more money than mothers.

"Mothers are 44 percent less likely to be hired than women without children, and they are paid $11,000 less, according to a study from Cornell University," says an ABC news article (which I found in one quick Google search). Why? Probably because women with children will be seen as splitting their time and attention, whereas women without children will be presumed to be more focused on the job. The assumption is, of course, bad for both: women without children are assumed to have no fulfilling life outside of work, and women with children are seen to be unable to prioritize or manage time. (Now, sure, women with children do have a whole lot of juggling to do--why don't we work on affordable daycare? Or let's battle assumptions that women (and not men) should do most of the staying home with sick kids, taking kids to doctors, and chaperoning field trips!)

So, we know that the woman who wrote this article is wrong in her facts, and just needs justification for why she "distrusts" women without children. Let's read on.

She says that many bosses see women without children as lacking "an essential humanity"... well fuck you. Oops, was that inhumane of me to say? OK. I don't want to have children. I also am not a huge fan of animals. Truth be told, I love kittens and puppies (though I've developed an allergy since going to college and now can't be around them much without careful attention and lots of hand washing, so it's usually easiest to avoid them all together), but I get really annoyed with them once they grow up. I find them very cute and cuddly, but once they don't fit in my palm anymore, they just aren't as fun. (See? I really shouldn't have children; I might hate them once they start walking!) But I don't believe this makes me inhumane. I'm sarcastic, and I have been told that I often say things in a tone that makes me come across as mean when I think I'm making a joke. But I'm also a good listener and I'm caring to the people that I love. It takes me a long time to really become close friends with someone, but once I do, you can tell me anything, I will tell you anything, and I'll do my best to be there when needed. I'm not the best friend anyone ever had, but I'm not the worst. I'm a human, with emotions and flaws, whether or not I have children.

She goes on to say:

"Nobody wishes to see a female soldier in combat with a six-week-old infant in one arm and a rifle in the other. Or a high-flier working 20-hour days while still breast-feeding. Or the mother of a small brood taking on any job of such erratic hours that she cannot promise them when or even if she'll be home. But most jobs aren't like that - and most children don't stay babies for long."

So, because I work in a job with pretty flexible hours, that is not intensely demanding most days of the year, I should have children? I love my job's flexible hours for these reasons:

1. I mean, who doesn't love flexible hours? 

2. Most times of the year, I can work my schedule around things like going to the gym, having a lunch with a friend or my boyfriend, going out of town, etc. As long we aren't busy or under deadline, as long as I know someone else will be at the office to grab the phone, my schedule doesn't have to be the same every day. 

3. Most of my job is done on my computer; so if one day, I'm getting afternoon sleepiness or just sick of being in the same place, I can say, "Hey, I'm going to finish this up at home; I need a break." I don't do this often at all, but I know it's an option if I truly need it. Yes, it's a privilege, and one I don't want to give up if I don't have to. 

So, yeah, my schedule (more so than many, at least) would allow for children. I mean, let's be honest, nobody really has all the time they need to raise children; but I probably do have more than the average woman. That does not mean, however, that I should feel obligated to have children. And I don't. 

This was, to me, the most insulting part of the article:

"It's not the mothers, for a start, who are going to turn up late and hungover after a night on the razz; they'll have been up, dressed and alert for hours, having cooked a family breakfast and delivered their children to school. On time."

Again, I will use myself as an example. Right now, I'm not a 100% full-time employee (yes, this attributes some to the flexible hours I was discussing, but not completely; just the other day, my boss told me he was going to run some errands, then finish working on the book at home; everyone in my office does this sometimes), so I don't work a full day every day. Usually I work about three "full-time" days a week and two "half-time" days. Yet, I still wake up about 7:00 every morning. Now, I know that many mothers out there wake up earlier than that, and I'm certainly not trying to compete or say I am awake just as long as they are. But I am pointing out that I am a person who gets up every morning, makes some sort of breakfast (sometimes it involves cooking, sometimes it involves pouring cereal into a bowl), makes coffee, gets on the computer to check e-mail and see what lies ahead of me for the day's work, exercises (some days), and more. My parents, when I was younger, did NOT get up to "cook a family breakfast" or to be "alert for hours." My sisters and I were constantly late to school and my mother late to work. I'm not saying this makes my mother a bad mother (she's pretty fucking awesome, actually); I'm just saying that some mothers sleep late, and some non-mothers don't. It's a personality thing, not an automatic "because I'm a parent" thing. And we all know that, even for mothers who are fantastic at time management and don't usually show up to work late, bosses tend to see mothers (at least before hiring them) as more likely to be late or miss days from work due to children. 

I, also, have only shown up to work hungover once or twice. I was not late, my work performance was not affected; I simply was a little bit miserable those days (a fact of which my co-workers were unaware). And are we really saying that no mothers ever show up to work hungover? I seriously doubt it.

She also writes,

"It's not the mothers, usually, who run the office bitch-fest.

They're not there to compete for the attentions of the male executives; they're there to get out of the house; they're there because they genuinely enjoy some adult company; and they're there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else's feet."

Screenshot from her article

Her general assumptions about women are so insulting. Women as office gossipers. Women as working for the purpose of finding a man. Women as making money in order to buy frivolous items (you know, because all women have/want Carrie Bradshaw-esque shoe collections and obsessions). 

I work because I have to. I enjoy my job, and I know that I want to continue working in publishing, though eventually at a feminist-geared publication/publishing house, but come on, at the end of the day, we all work because we have to get paid. If I didn't have to work, if I just had money raining down on me at all times, I would still "work"; I would read and write and blog and share new information with people and try to change a little (or a lot) of our society's misguided ideas, but no, I wouldn't choose a 9 to 5 office job in order to do that. And most of us wouldn't. I "genuinely enjoy some adult company," but I don't need my job to do that. I do need my job because I "have mouths to feed;" mine and my boyfriend's. (He contributes too, don't worry, but since we live together we depend on each other financially; I'm screwed if he doesn't come up with rent, and vice versa.) 

I just find this writer's superior attitude to be so condescending (and there's so much more that I haven't touched on). Mothers can do no wrong. Women without children are weird, unnatural, immature and irresponsible. She assumes that all parents are good parents and good workers, and that all non-parents are youthful partiers who care very little about their jobs. Really, the way she talks about non-mothers, you would think she's talking about "The Plastics" from Mean Girls. And maybe she is. 

But believe me, Carol Sarler, there are plenty of women out there who choose not to have children for their entire lives. They remain childless into their 40s, 50s, 60s, and on. And their lives can still be fulfilling, and meaningful, and responsibly led. I'm pretty sure Gloria Steinem would say she has had a fulfilling, meaningful life (one that is still going strong). Eudora Welty did pretty well. 

And, Carol, until you start telling me that you distrust men who are childless by choice, I just can't buy anything you write. 

Update: Injunction, Injunction...

Judge Jordan ruled today to extend the injunction, keeping the Jackson abortion clinic open for now. It's a small victory, but definitely a step in the right direction.

For more information, check out this article written by Emily Wagster Pettus, who was also live-tweeting during today's hearing. Also, check out this video from Rachel Maddow's show (skip to 6:45 to see the Mississippi portion).

Maddow points out something that I hadn't noticed before but is so important to this whole debate. While the legislators of Mississippi have not been shy about saying that this law was an attempt to stop abortion of Mississippi, they have also occasionally thrown out, "Oh yeah, it's for the health of Mississippi's women." They say that doctors need to have admitting privileges to a local hospital in case of abortion complications. Rachel Maddow, quoting a medical expert, points out that doctors would have to admit 10 or more patients in a year in order to get privileges, but "A typical abortion provider would rarely admit more than one patient a year for abortion complications, and in many years would have no complications requiring hospitalization." Oh, how crafty, Phil Bryant and company! You say that these doctors need to have admitting privileges for the safety of the women, yet you know that they won't be able to get those privileges because abortions are safe and so rarely have complications!!

Maddow also points out that there are 4 other states in the country with only one abortion clinic, so the final decision in Mississippi could very well set a precedent for banning abortion without touching Roe v. Wade. Hopefully, today's small victory of upholding the injunction temporarily will turn into a much larger victory of ruling this TRAP law unconstitutional.

You Have to Be a Beast

Thanks to a few exercise classes at the gym (yes, sort of dance aerobics stuff, don't judge me), I've recently become familiar with Nicki Minaj the musician. Now, thanks to a video circulating on the Internet. I've also become familiar with (and fallen in love with) Nicki Minaj the feminist. I don't know if she identifies that way, but listen to her discuss sexism in her industry and there's no doubt that she's a feminist.

I love this speech/rant from Nicki. I don't keep up with the tabloids and celebrity news, but clearly she has earned a reputation for being a bitch and/or difficult to work with, and I love how she discusses what that means.

The sad part about this video comes at the very end, when she says "Don't use this footage, please, it's just gonna make me look stupid." After all her discussion about being assertive, standing up for herself, and the double standards for women, she backs off and reverts to worrying about what people will think of her. And this is one of the hardest parts about being a woman and a feminist; even when you know you are right, even when you know you have every right to point out discrimination, you can't help but revert back to worrying about what people think. Because that's what women are taught to do: always consider what other people think of you and how you appear.

I found this video via Bitch Magazine, and, not surprisingly, they said their favorite part was when she discusses the word "bitch". My favorite part, however, is after that when she talks about how girls have to be good at what they do, but also sweet, yet also sexy. She says, very directly, "I can't be all those things at once. I'm a human being."

There you have it, straight from Nicki Minaj. Women can't be expected to be everything, and they should be respected for what and who they are, whether it fits into the feminine, submissive mold or not.

Injunction, Injunction, What's Your Function?

Recently in Mississippi, a law was passed in order to shut down the state's only abortion clinic. Of course, abortion, while controversial, is still legal in the United States, so Mississippi legislators can't just decide to close it because they are uncomfortable with a woman's right to choose.

But of course, that's exactly what they've been trying to do.

The TRAP law (while the acronym makes sense on its own, it actually stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) requires doctors performing abortions to be OB-GYNs with admitting privileges to a local hospital. The Mississippi clinic is staffed by OB-GYNs, but they have been refused admitting privileges at all the hospitals in the required range. Because of this refusal, the clinic would have to close once the law goes into effect.

However, today, the day the law should have gone into effect, US District Judge Daniel P. Jordan issued a temporary injunction to keep that from happening. A lawsuit has been filed, calling the new law unconstitutional and medically unnecessary.

The best part about this is that the extreme Republicans who have been so proud of this new law that they have really shot themselves in the collective foot. If they had been able to come up with some sort of medical or health-inspection reason for the clinic to be shut down, then it would closed, over and done with. But Governor Phil Bryant and others strutted around, boasting of making Mississippi "abortion-free" and, I'm sure, hoping to win (and probably succeeding) conservative votes for this. And now these quotes and boasts have been brought into the case against the new law as evidence that the goal of the law was simply to shut down the clinic without any medical reasons.

If Mississippi's legislators were actually concerned about the health of their state's women, they wouldn't have bragged so arrogantly about shutting down the state's abortion clinic (of course, if they really cared about women's health, they wouldn't work to shut it down at all, but that's wishful thinking it seems...). Their overblown pride over shutting down the clinic could now end up being the very reason it stays open.

The fight over abortion in Mississippi (or the US) isn't over, but this current turn of events has me feeling optimistic for at least a few more days.