Socialization and Smiling

I just read a great article on Sadie Magazine's website about the gendered act of smiling. It discusses how women are expected to smile more than men, regardless of how they feel. We are socialized to smile just to be polite, even when we don't feel like it.

I have dealt with this all my life. I used to be asked all the time "what's wrong?" when my face was in a natural, relaxed position. People find me standoffish or even snobbish when I don't smile. I'm a nice person. I'm generally pretty happy most of the time. That doesn't mean my face has to show it (and come on, forced smiles are exhausting!). I have a female coworker who tells me stories all the time and I can see her waiting for me to laugh and smile. I think she's great, her stories are funny sometimes, but they rarely inspire huge grins and loud laughter. Yet I do it, because otherwise I feel I'm being impolite. I've been socialized to feel like I'm being rude when I don't find someone else as funny as others do.

My boyfriend called me out on this. He makes a lot of corny jokes and I would often laugh at them without thinking about whether they were funny or not. He finally asked me why I was fake laughing so often. I hadn't even realized I was doing it! It was so nice, though, to be called out for smiling/laughing too much and nongenuinely instead of being asked to smile more. (By the way, even though my computer is putting an ugly red line underneath it, nongenuinely is a real word. I looked it up. Ingenuinely is not.)

The Hunger Games

I am very much in love with the young adult fiction series, The Hunger Games. For one thing, the series is a well-written series that doesn't condescend to its young, target audience; just because these books are written for teens doesn't mean that they stay away from difficult issues. In fact, the books deal with extremely heavy issues (death, murder, government control, loss, love, war, etc.) and showcase young characters handling their problems, even when they think they can't.

But I also love the series because it screams feminism without saying anything about feminism.


What does that mean? I'll tell you. (And don't worry, no spoilers here!)

The series is written by a female author, Suzanne Collins, yet the books are violent and dark. Feminists have always known that women can write about themes that have been dubbed "masculine," but thanks to Suzanne Collins, a few more people in the world may finally realize it too.

Along the same lines, the main character is a female, yet she is not "feminine." Sometimes she likes to wear pretty dresses, yet she is most comfortable in her baggy hunting clothes. She doesn't spend all of her time thinking about boys. Actually, until the books get going, you get the impression she's never thought about boys at all. She is not overly emotional; in fact, in order to care for her family, she has often blocked out emotions in order to be efficient and to appear in control. She doesn't let others see her cry. I don't mean, of course, that she doesn't feel; on the contrary, she feels a lot. She just doesn't show it.

Basically, what I'm saying is that she's a human being. She doesn't fit into the molds of masculine or feminine. And the best part about these books is that all of the characters are like that! In the Hunger Games competition, boys and girls compete against each other and no one questions the girls' capability to handle themselves. Differences between the sexes are rarely important, or even mentioned, when it comes to a person's personality, talents, intelligence or capabilities.

Like in other young adult fiction (I'm thinking specifically of Twilight), there is a love triangle in the story. What I love about this book, (again, as compared to Twilight, since I've (sadly) read it too) is that the love story is complicated (like in life). Let's be honest, we all knew that however loud Team Jacob fans shouted, Bella was going to end up with Edward. No shock there. The suspense was not in "Who will Bella end up with?" but rather, it was all about "How can we end this series with Bella and Edward together without Jacob wanting to kill himself?" Now, I'm not going to talk about the silly plot devices that Meyers used to solve the latter question (imprinting? the baby? for REAL?), but I want to point out how much more mature Collins' love triangle is. You truly never know who Katniss is going to end up with, if she will even end up with either one, and you know that your heart as a reader will be a little broken either way. There's no team to cheer for, there's no last minute love interest to distract someone, there's just three people stuck in a mess with no easy way out. Is it like a fairy tale? No. But Collins seems to think (and I agree) that her young readers can handle a little reality and maturity in their love stories. And based on the popularity of her books, I'm thinking that she's right.

This series is great. The books deal with difficult issues, and not all of them get tied up neatly with a bow by the end. The world Suzanne Collins has created is messy, tragic, and rough, but it is also challenging and hopeful. More young adult fiction needs to be like this book, providing a good storyline with an easy-to-read narrative style while not compromising on intelligence or dumbing down difficult plot points.

I highly recommend The Hunger Games. You won't regret it.

The Girl with...No Clothes?

So far, I am not excited about the English-speaking version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I loved loved loved the book series, and saw the first Swedish film adaptation of it. I loved the film. I was amazed with the amount of violence they were able to show without being too gruesome (basically, the book was very violent, and while I was afraid of having to see some of the violence, I also knew that censoring it would damage the story). And I loved the way the filmmakers dealt with the character of Lisbeth Salander.

Lisbeth is not necessarily a feminist character. While very tough, she's always described as looking like a young boy instead of a woman, and the books imply that she ultimately needs (male) Mikael to come to her rescue and save her from herself (what can I say? the books aren't perfect). But even so, she is a strong woman who has survived abuse and adapted. She is incredibly (ridiculously, actually) intelligent, and she uses it to her advantage. She can fight. And she's a sort of vigilante character: doing good for good's sake but doing it outside of the law. Who doesn't love that kind of character? (Batman, hello!)

So why does the English-speaking version seem to be turning her into a sex symbol?

Check out this poster for the film. She's naked!!! Totally unnecessary. Also, what's with Daniel Craig's creepy hold on her? Does he own her? Is he 'protecting' her? Lisbeth is a sexual character in the book; in fact, her lack of inhibitions along with her willingness to seek love (and her own pleasure) from whomever she chooses is admirable. But she is not, as this poster implies, a sex object.

And yet, with this being the English-speaking, Blockbuster-intended version, somehow I'm not surprised. Our culture objectifies women. Period. You want a strong female character at the center of your film? Great. But she's gotta be naked.

Also, the tagline bothers me. "Evil Shall With Evil Be Expelled." We're calling Lisbeth evil now? What are her "evil" characteristics exactly? Independence. Strength. Lack of nurturing "feminine" characteristics. Stubbornness. Extraordinary intelligence. Perseverance. Asocial tendencies. Tattoos. Piercings. Survival skills. Instinct.

Yeah, evil. She probably sold her soul to the devil. (And the devil is, as far as Hollywood's concerned, an uncompromising sense of self.)

Dear Hollywood,
 Can you please take a strong female character and portray her admirably, even when she doesn't fit into society's narrow feminine mold? Oh, and can you do this with her clothes on?


Thanks,
Genie

Work Dress

Today, I tried to wear actual business attire to work today, at least, casual, 90-degree Mississippi heat business attire. I wore slacks, a V-neck shirt with a camisole underneath and ..... heels! 2 and a half inch heels. I guess in the grand scheme of things, 2 and a half inches aren't a huge deal (I'm reading my guilty pleasure summer book, The Devil Wears Prada, and there's constant mention of four inch Stilettos) but for a girl who wears flip-flops and sandals, and tennis shoes if absolutely necessary, these heels were a big deal. And they were even pretty comfortable. I don't stand up all day so I was never in pain or anything. But still, it makes me wonder, why do women have to dress this way? Even working in a casual, small office (there are three of us, and this week it's only two), I still felt compelled to try to amp up my business clothing. And the other woman who works there was wearing heels today, and I think does on many days. We have to walk up 26 steps to get to work, after crossing a very uneven gravel parking lot. We have to walk back and forth, to and from each other's offices as well as to and from the bathroom and the copier. Shoes that are difficult to walk in or uncomfortable in anyway are simply impractical.

So what's the point? Heels are supposed to make your legs and your ass look better right? So, based on that logic, shouldn't they be worn on nights out and special occasions? Is the office really the place to try out your sexiest looks? OR, more interestingly, are the current, unspoken rules of what constitutes female work attire descendants of male ideas about how women should look attractive, appealing and available to them at all times? After all, think of all the stereotypes about secretaries; or not even the stereotypes, even just the ways men joke about secretaries, with all the sexual innuendo, etc.

There is, as always, a double standard. Women are supposed to dress professionally to be taken seriously in the work world, yet the standards for dressing professionally are intended to make them look sexy and appealing (which is not the best way to be taken seriously). I mentioned in an old blog post the court case Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse, a case in which the woman was denied a promotion because she didn't dress enough "like a woman." So even though she was clearly dressing in a way that made her feel comfortable and professional, the men in charge of promoting her felt that her lack of make-up and feminine touches meant she wasn't serious about getting ahead in her career (the implication being that the make-up and feminine touches are required to impress the men who are in charge).

And yet, even after considering all this, I don't necessarily want to give up the heels (though I also don't want to wear them tomorrow). I felt more professional-looking at work today. Maybe it's because I've been socialized to see that kind of outfit as professional women's wear, but even though I was in some ways less comfortable, I was pleased with my appearance. And looking back on it, it makes me really sad, and kind of shocks me, how easily I slipped into an attitude of "no pain, no gain" when it comes to my fashion.

Even feminists don't have it all figured out all the time.

Feminist TV Character: Daria?

For some reason, probably because of my recent completion of a college degree (bam!) and the large amounts of free time I now have on my hands, I’ve decided to revisit the TV show Daria from the late 90s. I remember watching it occasionally when I was younger. I had to change the channel every time my mom came in the room. The one time I wasn’t fast enough, she came in and talked to me for a minute; when she was silent for a minute, the sound from the TV filled the room and she looked horrified. “Does this cartoon have cuss words in it?” Anyway, I saw that it was on Netflix and I decided that I was interested in revisiting the asocial, sarcastic and monotonous Daria Morgendorffer.

Daria is a great character, but I’m undecided if she counts as feminist. She is not concerned about appearance or popularity in high school. She’s intelligent, witty and, importantly, the lead character on her own show. But, so far at least (which is the third episode), she doesn’t seem to actually be feminist. After all, she’s not really concerned with ‘advancing’ women, or even herself. She’s completely detached from the people around her. She’s uninterested in just about everything.

The ways that Daria and Quinn are treated differently are definitely evidence of an underlying feminist message. Daria, smart and intelligent, is often scolded for being too outspoken. In the first episode, “Esteemers,” she answers a question correctly in her history class. When no one knows the answer to another question, she answers again—only to be told by her teacher to “Stop showing off.” Quinn, vapid, airheaded, self-absorbed Quinn, is often thought by those around her to be the normal sister. This is definitely a critique of what passes for acceptable or unacceptable behavior from females in our society. Daria’s intelligence, outspokenness and her willingness to question authority are clearly not acceptable for teenage girls.

I think I like Daria so much because she’s a lot like I was in high school. I didn’t have the witty remarks or the awesome glasses, but I was completely uninterested in the high school culture. I refused to join clubs, no matter how great they would look on college applications. I also refused to take AP classes if they weren’t in subjects I enjoyed, again, no matter how great it would look. AP History was just not going to be worth the bonus points (plus, if I had taken AP, I wouldn’t have had the most enlightening day in history class ever: getting on the floor with pieces of paper balled up, and throwing them across the room at other students…you know, to simulate trench warfare. I’m not making this up.).

So, maybe if Daria is like me, she’s just a feminist in the making. But I don’t know. It’s hard to imagine sarcastic and slow-talking Daria as much of a political (or social) activist. In the meantime, however, her constant sarcastic commentaries and critiques of high school, femininity, and American upper middle-class culture are hilarious and entertaining. 

The Art of Being Feminine

I've stumbled across a blog called The Art of Being Feminine. In case you can't tell by the title, it's really kind of disgusting. It's very pink (yes, I'm aware that my blog is pink too and I'm being completely hypocritical, but this pink is disturbing because of everything that comes with it; plus it's lighter, like baby pink, while I think of my blog color as coral) and covered with old famous paintings of half-naked, creamy-skinned women. The home page provides a link to the author's new blog (apparently she has several) which is a how-to for being feminine. The description of the blog says "How to Have a Great Love Affair With a Man, and Captivate and Mesmerize him for LIFE!" Really? As we are so often told, the goal for being a real woman is to learn how to get and keep a man. There's also a goal of becoming "an Advanced Femme- a woman who's superior to all other women;" you know, because all other women are the enemy. There is advice for "Arousing a Man's Worship" as well. Here, you can learn how to re-imagine yourself, "evoking a man's adoration." Translation: 1) You should want a man to worship you instead of love you in a partnership and 2) You are not yet, as you are, worthy of adoration, so you should learn how to change yourself to make it possible. Even though the author occasionally points out that a woman needs to love herself and not worry about her appearance, that message is lost among all the posts about learning to catch a man, how to perform a proper seductive gaze, and so on. She talks about a woman loving herself, but always in the context of "you can't find love until you love yourself." So loving yourself is just a means to get to, what else, a relationship with a man.

The most disturbing post I've found is How Feminine Women are Happiest. First of all, she seems to be defining a feminine woman as a "traditional wife, reigning as a queen in her family." This woman is compared to "her feminist and independent sisters" (note that 'independent' here seems to be derogatory) who may be successful in careers but are surely lacking complete fulfillment. How are there people who still think like this out there? I wonder what this author would think of men who are stay-at-home dads. She would probably say they are going against their nature, since, according to this post, men are naturally "suited for hard work and adventure" (as well as "conquest and war," can't leave that out!). Actually, I think that staying home with children could definitely qualify as hard work and adventure; I'm not sure if this author would agree with me.

The author writes that "Feminism makes the woman a rival, rather than the companion and supporter of a man."The flaw in this argument: the assumption that men, and masculine characteristics, are naturally superior. If a woman is considered inferior, then having independence and ambition means she is stepping outside of her station, of her place in the natural order; this makes her threatening to the man and his position. The author tries to reconcile herself with the times, saying that a woman can still have a Master's degree, and sure, she can have a job if her family economically needs it (which most do these days but that's beside the point), but ultimately, she concludes that the woman with a job is selfishly putting her own needs ahead of her husband's and family's. Seriously?

You'll have to look more closely at the blog to understand how ridiculous it is. I just find it amazing that there are people who still believe that women and men are genetically, not just different, but opposite. And where would she put homosexual, bisexual and transgender people? Most likely, she would not even consider them as valid humans (which is a huge problem of this binary way of looking at gender). I'm just disgusted that there is someone like this selling advice to women who will, and do, truly believe that the way to a happy life is to constantly consider themselves second-class citizens.