Alas, a Blog | Feminist, anti-racist, pro-fat, plus whatever else we feel like talking about.

You Lie!

Posted on September 10, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

So as previously noted, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., last night got himself into trouble for calling the President a liar. Now, there’s nothing wrong with calling the President a liar; indeed, that’s a time-honored American tradition. But you’re not supposed to do so by shouting at him while he’s speaking to a joint session of Congress, especially if you’re a member of the House of Representatives. That will get you in enormous trouble.

That said, Right Blogistan is defending Wilson today, saying that was totally right to heckle Barack Obama, because the bill does totally take the money of honest white Americans and give it to dastardly illegal immigrants from Mexico. So who’s right? Well, as everyone knows, the media doesn’t deal in “right” or “wrong,” just “he-said-she-said.” So let’s take a look at the arguments side-by-side:

	Democrats	Republicans
Does the health care plan benefit undocumented aliens?	No	Yes
How can you be sure?	Because it’s right there in the bill. H.R. 3200, Sec. 246, “No Federal Payment for Undocumented Aliens.” The relevant text: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.” So, you know, the bill bans payments for undocumented aliens.	Okay, maybe the bill “bans federal payments to undocumented aliens.” But that doesn’t mean it bans payments for illegal immigrants. Because, you know, the bill doesn’t require people to show their long-form birth certificates when they show up at the doctor, and how can anyone know that Jose Gonzales isreally an American citizen? Hmmmm? Also, there’s no new government agency created to monitor immigration, because none exists right now. Oh, and what if someone pretended to be a U.S. Citizen and got around the law and got funding, even though they weren’t supposed to? That would pretty much mean that instead of breaking the law, the…uh…law would give them candy! Yeah. I mean, everyone knows that if you can break a law, it’s really the fault of the government for passing that law in the first place. Finally, there’s nothing in the law that specifically prohibits non-citizens from buying coverage without any support whatsoever from the government, and that’s outrageous, because what Americans are most concerned about is that undocumented aliens aren’t allowed to spend any money on anything while in this country.
And your response to your opposition’s point?	They’re either lying, or stupid, or possibly both.	Barack Obama is a socialist.

So that’s your summary! Were I a journalist, I’d be forced to point out that reasonable minds disagree, and some say that the Obama plan would force you to kill your grandma so that an undocumented alien can get Viagra. Being a dirty liberal blogger, though, I’ll simply say that the right’s argument is painfully specious, even by the right’s recent standards.

Posted at 09:09:09 09/09/09

Posted on September 9, 2009 by Ampersand

Consider this an open thread.

Posted in Whatever | 13 Comments

Point of Debate and Decorum

Posted on September 9, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

Remarks in debate (which may include references to the Senate or its Members) shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding personality.

–Rules of the House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress
Rule XVII, Section b

If you want to see the decline of American political civility, it exists in the person of Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. Wilson, unwilling to deal with the President of the United States stating the fact that the current health care proposals will not aid undocumented aliens, ((As for me, I’d be fine if it did. I don’t see how being in America illegally should earn you the death penalty. But what do I know? I’m just a crazy liberal.)) ((Fixed.)) Wilson shouted out, “You lie!” on the floor of the House of Representatives, interrupting the speech in the fashion of a Code Pink protester or teabagger.

This is, to be blunt, completely outrageous, and unbecoming of a U.S. Representatives. And I would have said the exact same thing if a Democrat had done this to George W. Bush, even as Bush did lie, repeatedly. The simple fact is that there are rules of decorum, ways you are supposed to comport yourself on the floor of the United States Congress. These rules are in place to smooth out the partisan rancor, to force representatives to disagree without being disagreeable. You can think someone’s an ass; that’s fine. But you don’t say it on the floor, because that’s not the way you conduct yourself.

I doubt Wilson will face a penalty for this, but he should. Indeed, the Rules of the House allow him to be censured for making a personal remark in debate; calling someone a liar would certainly rise to that level. Calling someone a liar when they’re telling the truth, however, remains standard operating procedure for the GOP.

UPDATE: This is the least he should do, but at least he did it:

“This evening I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies [sic] to the President for this lack of civility.”

Posted in Civility & norms of discourse, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Health Care and Related Issues, The Obama Administration | 67 Comments

Party of Family Values

Posted on September 9, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

You know, California Assemb. Mike Duvall, R-Yorba Linda, shouldn’t be mocked and ridiculed for carrying on an affair with two different lobbyists. He should be ridiculed for talking about it with all the savoir-faire of a 14-year-old relating something he’d once heard about girls from his brother’s friend’s cousin. Warning, the language could be NSFW, and all of is is not safe for your lunch:

For those of you not able to watch the video — or those of you who don’t want to hear a crusty assemblyman telling his buddy how he totally nailed these two hot chix — and he’s telling the total truth, swear — here’s the key part:

“She wears little eye-patch underwear,” said Duvall, who is married with two  children. “So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And  so, we had made love Wednesday–a lot! And so she’ll, she’s all, ‘I am going  up and down the stairs, and you’re dripping out of me!’ So messy!”

Duvall has, of course, gone into seclusion, where he’ll presumably pray away his horrible indescretions. Of course, aside from the propriety of cheating on both your wife and your mistress, there’s also the fact that at least one of the women is a lobbyist for a major utility, and Duvall just happens to serve as Vice Chair of the Utilities and Commerce Committee. I’m sure he’s able to keep those things totally separate, of course.

Incidentally — and this will shock you — Duvall was a strong proponent of Proposition 8. He signed an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court defending the vote. And in his most recent constituent newsletter, Duvall says, “Roughly 11,000 gay couples have been ‘married’ in California since the State Supreme Court overturned Prop 22. […] As a supporter of Prop 8, I will be among the state legislators committed to defending California voters’ definition of marriage.” According to the Orange County Weekly, the conservative Capitol Resource Institute said of Duvall, “For the last two years, he has voted time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California.”

Of course, protecting family values in his own family is more difficult.

Now, I know, it’s easy to note the rank hypocrisy of an official trying to keep loving, committed people from marrying while he’s carrying on multiple affairs. But I think we should feel sorry for Mike Duvall. I mean, it’s clear his marriage was wrecked by gay marriage. I’m sure he never would have cheated on his wife and then cheated on his mistress if gay people couldn’t get married.

Whisper whisper

What’s that? Really? Okay. Sorry, folks, but I’ve just been told that Duvall was carrying these affairs on after Proposition 8 passed. Hmm. Maybe outlawing gay marriage won’t make straight marriage better.

Who’d’a thunk it?

UPDATE: As Micah noted in comments, you can now call him former Assemb. Michael D. Duvall.

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Families structures, divorce, etc, Same-Sex Marriage | 4 Comments

An Open Letter to Eric Kripke

Posted on September 9, 2009 by Alaya Dawn Johnson

an-open-letter-to-eric-kripke

The following open letter to Eric Kripke contains spoilers for all currently-aired seasons of Supernatural (though nothing about season five). It also includes a racial critique of all currently-aired seasons.

Dear Eric Kripke,

I want you to know that this is a fan letter. I’m saying this upfront because I’m aware that it might not seem like that as I go on. There are some problems I need to discuss, some issues that have repeatedly cropped up on your show that I just have to talk about.

But this is still a fan letter. I love Supernatural. In my opinion, it’s the best speculative genre show on the air at the moment. I love the snappy dialogue, I love the dense, multi-faceted characterization, I love that the plots hold together and continually surprise me (especially the season finales!) I love the actors, I love the writing, I love the car and I love the endless American landscapes. I love that the boys never eat in a Denny’s or stay at a Motel 6. I love that such a strange premise became such an intelligent show, when it could so easily have turned into self-parody.

Like I said, I’m a fan.

I’m also a black woman, and I’ve gotta tell you, that’s been giving me some grief.

Because as a black woman, I can’t ignore the aversive, stereotypical and damaging ways that your show deals with race. I can’t ignore the fact that there hasn’t been a single black woman on your show who has lasted more than one episode. This includes Cassie in “Route 666″– the only woman the show ever states explicitly that Dean loves. And even that was so frustrating. First, because it put a promising character in a ham-fisted Very Special Episode about a racist monster truck. Second, because instead of taking her out of that context and providing some depth to Dean’s relationships with women, she vanishes completely from the show. (This is, of course, an issue with most of the boys’ relationships with women, but I don’t want to get into that here).

Perhaps you will understand the extent of my problem when I say that I can count the named black female characters who have appeared on four seasons of a television show on one hand: Missouri Moseley (in “Home”), Cassie, Taylor (in “Hookman”) and Tamara (in “The Magnificent Seven”). That’s four women–there were none in third or fourth seasons.

You know your show better than anyone. You know that the boys are spending a significant amount of their time south of the Mason-Dixon line. There are black people everywhere in this country, and even setting your show in, say, the pacific northwest really isn’t much of an excuse, but I find it mind-boggling to watch episode after episode where Sam and Dean drive through a landscape of such exquisitely evoked Americana…except without the black folk.

It’s like some sort of freaky horror movie.

Not the kind you were going for? Then let’s talk.

Because it’s not just the black women. In fact, that’s the mildest part of my problems with race on the show. Because, for better or worse, it’s difficult to mess up the portrayals of a demographic you have excised from the world of your characters.

Black men, on the other hand? Well, that’s where I really hit some brambles.

Because you have some black men on the show. They have major roles across multiple episodes. They engage the plots, have multiple interactions with all sorts of people and have as much of an emotional life as any other non-Winchester character does. But there’s a problem. A big one, really, and this has to do with the space in the story that these black men occupy. Because every single time they are tragically evil, and they are killed off to add to the emotional angst of your white leads.

Nothing is wrong per se with a tragically evil character. You have plenty of tragically evil white people on the show, too. Ruby comes to mind, but also Travis (in “Metamorphosis”) and Eva (one of Azazel’s other special children).

But something is wrong when you follow the same pattern with every single black character of any importance on your show across four seasons. First there was Jake, the Iraq War soldier who was manipulated by the yellow-eyed demon into killing Sam and opening the Devil’s Gate. He lasted two episodes, and ended with a clip of bullets pumped into him.

Then we met Special Agent Henriksen. He was awesome: tough, ironic, smart. A worthy adversary for the boys. When Henriksen is finally confronted with unequivocal evidence that The Supernatural Is Real And About To Fuck You Up, he responds with those same qualities that made him such a scary opponent. And then…he dies. Within twenty minutes of his final empowerment as a fully-fledged good character (as opposed to good, but doing bad things mistakenly), Lilith murders him, along with everyone else in the police station. It was a dramatic, breathtaking moment in the context of the show, but once again I had to check a black man off of my list of characters I enjoyed.

Next came Gordon Walker. He was a lone hunter whose philosophy of a black and white world clashed brilliantly against Sam and Dean’s increasingly murky shades of gray. He was insane, but enjoyably so: I loved watching him hunt Sam, and his role in “Bad Day at Black Rock” was hilarious. He was a quintessential tragically evil character: doing bad while convinced he was good. When he was turned into a vampire, I couldn’t wait to see where the show would go with him. Imagine all the drama in that situation: the man who hates supernatural creatures more than anything has become one. Does he still hunt them? Does he struggle with himself?

No, of course not. Sam kills him.

And then there’s season four. Uriel is an angel, so it’s understood that he’s simply possessing his body, but for the purposes of us in the real world, he’s still a black character. I’m pretty sure he was still a black character for you writers, as well. Because isn’t it funny that he’s the one who wants to lay waste to municipalities and break Dean’s psyche by forcing him to torture, while Castiel (the attractive white male) has the emotional arc and the implied romance and the tortured wrestling over the nature of free will and the existence of God?

Did I mention that Uriel also dies, tragically evil?

I suspect that if you were going to grasp my point, you’d have done so by now, so I won’t belabor it. Suffice it to say that now when a black character appears on Supernatural I wince and reach for my pillow, because I’m pretty sure he’ll be checking out in some less-than-pleasant way in a few episodes.

But, like I said at the beginning, this is a fan letter. It’s one in more ways than you might appreciate right at this moment. It’s only because I am such a fan that I am sticking with this show and hoping you’ll do it better. And it’s only because I’m such a fan that I’m writing you this letter.

The fifth season starts on Thursday, and I’m so excited I could sing. I can’t wait to see more of your deliciously amoral angels, your conflicted demons, and–inevitably, perfectly, fraternally–Sam and Dean. The final season four scene of them gripping each other’s shirts as the screen fades to white was one of those storytelling moments where I felt the pure contentment of a well-executed narrative. There is so much going for Supernatural into this season that part of me just wants to lay back and enjoy the ride.

The trouble is, I can’t. Each episode, these problems worm their way inside my head. They’re too obvious to ignore. As a black woman who consumes a lot of pop culture, I’ve learned to compartmentalize. To acknowledge problematic aspects of things I like and still enjoy them. But I’m aware of the process, and when I find myself doing that to such a degree with a show that I otherwise love so much, I can’t help but feel sad.

Mr. Kripke, I certainly hope that you care about social justice and historical power imbalances and the struggles for racial equality in this country. But I don’t actually intend for this letter to appeal to your ideals. Because you’re a writer. A damn good writer, and I can tell from the way you handle the rest of the show that you prioritize characterization and narrative flow and plausibility and other major touchstones of good fiction.

So, consider this as a bit of advice from one professional writer to another: in this aspect, you have really fallen down. The patterns I have identified above don’t just harm black people, or people of color. They harm every viewer of your show.

Every single person who watches and enjoys Supernatural for a hundred good reasons is being subjected to this shoddy, sub-par evocation of one of the most important aspects of the American experience. Every fan you paid homage to in “The Monster at the End of This Book” is damaged by the utter absence of black women (particularly the one that one of your two main characters fell in love with). They might not notice it, they might figure it doesn’t matter, but even so it takes away from the power of the story.

Here’s my point: a richer, fuller, more completely-evoked America with black people and Native Americans and Asians and other people of color (and more women who don’t only exist as sexual objects) would make Supernatural even better.

Maybe I’m the first person to seriously lay out these issues for you. If so, I hope you won’t dismiss this critique reflexively. I assure you, if no one else has said this, it’s not because the problems don’t exist, but because racism (particularly aversive racism) is still so prevalent in this country that many white people can go their entire lives without thinking seriously about race. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist– it means you don’t see it.

Mr. Kripke, I wish you the best of luck with this season. I can’t wait to see what you do with it.

And I hope I’ll get to see what my favorite TV show would be like with a black man who doesn’t die; with a black woman who has a voice.

Sincerely,

Alaya Dawn Johnson

And now a word from our sponsor…

Your ad could be here, right now.

An Open Letter to Eric Kripke

Posted in Race, racism and related issues, Syndicated feeds | 27 Comments

Oppositional Sexism and Traditional Sexism

Posted on September 9, 2009 by Ampersand

Quoting once again from Aqueertheory’s nutshelling of Julie Serano, I thought this was very interesting:

Serano contributes significantly to feminist theory and practice by providing us with a concise way of categorizing the different forms of sexism in Western societies. She argues that sexism is a two-fold phenomenon, consisting of “oppositional” and “traditional” elements. Oppositional sexism is “the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories” (13). A man should not have any of the “attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires” commonly associated with women, and vice-versa (13). Anyone who does not follow this schema, any manly women or womanly men, should be dismissed and punished for disobeying the divine, natural and social order that deemed the two genders to be mutually exclusive opposites. On the other hand, traditional sexism is “the belief that maleness and masculinity are superior to femaleness and femininity” (14). This type of sexism specifically demeans all feminine persons (many of whom are females) by characterizing their activities as frivolous and justifying their exclusion from certain jobs and positions of social authority. Thus, according to Serano, sexism is a commonly held belief system that conceptualizes males and females as strict oppositional categories and sets up a hierarchy in which men and masculinity are considered superior to women and femininity.

Feminists and queer theorists have failed to recognize this dual aspect of sexism, which is one of the reasons why they often seem to talk past each other. Queer theorists have focused on oppositional sexism: they have analyzed and railed against binary gender norms, which push people to fit their identities and behaviors into carefully prescribed masculine and feminine boxes. On the other hand, feminists have concentrated their efforts on studying and fighting against the more traditional forms of sexism: the oppression of women and their social subordination to men.

(Via.)

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues | 12 Comments

Can there be a "reverse Bechdel test"?

Posted on September 8, 2009 by Ampersand

On the racial Bechdel test thread, we discussed my comic Hereville a little. Hereville, it was agreed, failed the racial Bechdel test (understandably, given the setting, I would say), but passes the “Jewish Bechdel test” and the original Bechdel test. Responding to this, Daran wrote that Hereville “fails the reverse gender Bechdel test – it doesn’t have two male characters who talk to each other about something other than a women.”

While Daran is technically correct — there is no conversation of any note or substance between male characters in Hereville — I think that to apply a “reverse Bechdel test” misses the point.

The Bechdel test asks if, in a movie (or graphic novel or whatever)

1) there are at least two named ((In the original Bechdel test, “named” wasn’t a requirement; my poor memory accidentally added that bit later.)) female characters, who

2) talk to each other about

3) something other than a man.

The point of the Bechdel test, in my view, is not to criticize individual pieces of work. It’s to point out that movies in the aggregate are overwhelmingly centered around male characters and their interests. In an IM, Mandolin wrote:

The Bechdel test is something that’s only useful when applied in aggregate to a field. It is not diagnostic of sexism or racism in a particular work that it does not pass it, or diagnostic of anti-racism or feminism.

The test – gender and race – exists because of a system that removes women’s and poc’s voices. To create a reverse-Bechdel test implies that it’s coherent to suggest that there’s a mass problem with erasing men’s voices from work.

I think sexism against men does exist, including in media, and is a real issue. But I don’t think a “reverse Bechdel test” makes any sense, because sexism against men in media is not similar to the mass absenting of women as central characters, and that’s what the Bechdel test is designed to make visible.

To work, a male version of the Bechdel test should be simple to explain and apply. It should be more about pervasive, aggregate sexism than about individual works. And it should address real sexism against men, rather than just taking a knee-jerk “but what about the men?” attitude which, I suspect, underlay Daran’s comment about Hereville. ((Although maybe Daran was just joking, and the joke didn’t come off.))

The problem is, I’m not sure a reverse Bechdel test that has any substance is even possible. There certainly are sexist stereotypes about men in cinema; men’s lives are treated as disposable in many action films, for example, and men are sometimes depicted as unfeeling brutes. There’s a whole lot of comedies which endorse the “men just think with their penises” stereotype, or which present men as incompetent dorks who need to be taken care of by female characters. ((The female characters, in turn, are presented as competent but also relegated to the less funny and central roles. As frequently happens, this is an instance where sexism against women and sexism against men is interlocking and interdependent.))

But are any of these really statistically pervasive, the way that movies which center men and male characters are pervasive? There are, after all, many movies which don’t feature scores of men dying offhandedly; plenty which don’t depict men as bestial or as thinking with their penises, and so on. The anti-male stereotypes exist, and they should be objected to, but they’re not omnipresent. In contrast, there really are amazingly few movies which can pass the Bechdel test. ((This is even more true if you try to apply the Bechdel test in a substantive way, versus the “loophole” way people often apply it — for example, saying a movie passes because of one ten-second scene. Of course, looking for loopholes is often fun, and I totally understand that, but we shouldn’t lose sight of the substance.))

So I’ve been trying to think of a male equivalent to the Bechdel test, with no success. That said, maybe I’m missing something. If Daran, or someone else concerned with making sexism against men more visible, were to create a substantive yet simple and elegant test that pointed out sexism against men in movies, I’d certainly welcome that development.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Media criticism, Sexism hurts men | 31 Comments

America's Sweetheart

Posted on September 8, 2009 by Jeff Fecke

If you’ve been paying attention to the U.S. Open, you’ve probably heard about the run of Melanie Oudin. Ranked 70th in the world, Oudin has nevertheless made a Cinderella run into the quarterfinals, knocking off world #4 Elena Dementieva and former U.S. Open champ Maria Sharapova in the process.

It’s a nice story, and probably foretells a bright future for the 17-year-old American. Hey, everyone loves to see an unseeded player make a run. And if the stories were about Oudin’s run and her future, that would be great.

Unfortunately, they aren’t. Instead, we’re getting stories like this:

For American women’s tennis, Oudin’s arrival has been a long time coming. Not since the 1970s, when Chris Evert rose to the top of the pro-tennis scene, has this country seen such a girl-next-door-style sweetheart in the sport, said Michelle Beadle. “From Day 1, I’ve never heard the Williams sisters referred to as sweethearts,” she added.

Yeah, neither have I. Funny, that. Because of course, all Venus and Serena Williams have done is go out and kick butt throughout their careers. Serena is currently ranked second in the world, Venus third. Serena has a career grand slam, and at one point held all four major titles. Venus merely has seven major titles, and has reached the finals of all four majors. Both have won Olympic gold medals and WTA championships. And in winnings, Serena ranks first all-time, followed by Venus.

Venus and Serena Williams are arguably the best two female tennis players of their generation, and certainly among the all-time greats. They’re gifted athletically, and both play with tenacity and skill on the court. And not for nothing, but both are attractive women, with compelling life stories and a dramatic rise from a meager upbringing to worldwide superstardom.

It’s hard to imagine why Melanie Oudin — a fine tennis player with a bright future, to be sure — would be viewed as America’s Sweetheart, while Venus and Serena Williams are not. Except, of course, for the fact that Oudin is a pretty, young, blonde white woman, and Venus and Serena Williams are African American.

You see, you can’t be America’s Sweetheart if you’re black. I mean, the very idea! After all, that would mean that African American women could be viewed as attractive, just like a white girl. And that is simply not considered acceptable.

Of course, in a fair world, “America’s Sweetheart” would be the last sobriquet a tennis player would aspire to. Chris Evert, after all, is second all-time in WTA titles in the Open era, trailing only the great Martina Navratalova (who also could never have been America’s Sweetheart, even if she hadn’t been from Czechoslovakia, for obvious reasons). And she has the best singles win-lost record of any player — male or female — in professional history, having won an astonishing 90 percent of her matches. Evert is one of the greatest players to play the game, and possibly the best. And yet we talk of her legacy as her 1970s period — because that’s when she was young and pretty, and dating Jimmy Connors, and that’s far more interesting than the fact that she won 18 major titles and four WTA championships over a 17-year professional career.

It’s disgusting. Because it demeans everyone — Oudin, the Williamses, Evert — everyone who’s playing the U.S. Open in a skirt, or ever has.

Don’t get me wrong — there’s nothing wrong with finding an athlete attractive. Tom Brady is lusted after by as many heterosexual women and gay men as Brady’s wife is by people of the opposite orientations. Finding someone attractive is fine and dandy. But reducing their accomplishments to their attractiveness reduces their value to that of an image. Serena and Venus Williams are superstars. Chris Evert is an all-time great. And Melanie Oudin is making a compelling run that we may look back on one day and see as the start of a fabulous career. And all of these women share something in common: they are all fabulous athletes. That should be the measure of their worth as tennis players. That, and nothing else.

(Via Jezebel)

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Race, racism and related issues, Sports | 17 Comments

Transsexuals According To The Mainstream Media: Either Deceptive or Pathetic

Posted on September 8, 2009 by Ampersand

Aqueertheory at Below The Belt, nutshelling Julie Serano, ((I posted a similar quote from Serano last year.)) writes:

…one of the main problems that trans women face is the common belief that their femaleness and femininity are somehow fake or inauthentic. This view is constantly (re)emphasized in the mainstream media. Transsexual women are routinely portrayed “in the act of putting on lipstick, dresses, and high heels, thereby giving the audience the impression that the trans woman’s femaleness is an artificial mask or costume” (41). Their desire to be female is reduced to the pursuit of “stereotypically feminine appearance(s) and gender role(s),” which emphasizes that they are not real women, but men who are simply parading as women (41).

This notion is reinforced in movies that feature trans women characters. Serano identifies two major cinematic archetypes: the “deceptive” and the “pathetic” transsexual. The former successfully pass as women, but their trans status (usually signalled by the presence of a penis) is eventually revealed in a dramatic fashion as an “unexpected plot twist” (36). This pattern is evident in the Jim Carrey movie, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. At the end of the film, Ace Ventura strips Lois Einhorn, a female police lieutenant, down to her underwear so that the audience can see her penis and testicles tucked between her legs. All of the characters present in the room with Einhorn proceed to retch in disgust – the “deceptive” transsexual has been revealed and everybody is expected to exhibit shock, horror and disgust at the “fact” that she is “really a man.” […]

In contrast, the “pathetic” transsexual is portrayed as completely unable to pass as a woman, even though she strongly insists that she is female. She is given obviously masculine mannerisms and characteristics, such as the five o’clock shadow, and openly makes references to the absence of a penis or to her intention to eventually “ha[ve] the chop” (41). According to Serano, this “extreme combination of masculinity and femininity does not seem to be designed to challenge the audience’s assumptions about maleness and femaleness… [the ‘pathetic’ transsexuals’] masculine voice and mannerisms are meant to demonstrate that, despite her desire to be female, she cannot change the fact that she is really and truly a man.”

I agree with all that. Unfortunately, even some of my favorite performers, like the brilliant British comedy group The League of Gentlemen, engage in exactly this sort of bigotry.

I have to admit, I can’t think of a single mainstream media presentation of transsexuality that doesn’t fall into one of these two categories (unless you could the psycho serial killer trans stereotype). Even relatively progressive films still tend to contain the “transformation” scene, usually shot in an almost fetishistic style (close-up of lipstick being applied, etc.).

Comics don’t do much better. I think there was a good trans character in Dykes to Watch Out For, who wasn’t presented in these ways. There was a major trans character in Sandman, but although she was also presented respectfully, she wasn’t able to be genuinely female, rather than “fake,” until after she died and was in Heaven.

Aqueertheory does misstep a little, I think, writing:

The situation is unfortunately not that much better in the allegedly more progressive feminist, academic and transgender/queer circles. Serano notes that, “there are numerous parallels between the way trans women are depicted in the media and the way that they have been portrayed by some feminist theorists.”

Serano seemingly took care to make it clear she was talking about some, not all, feminist theorists (at least in what Aqueertheory quoted). Unfortunately, Aqueertheory seems to ascribe transphobia to all feminist, academic, and transgender/queer circles. There are bigotries and problems in all these communities, true, but it’s a wild overstatement to claim that the transgender community is only marginally better at avoiding transphobia than Ace Ventura, Pet Detective. And it’s a wild overstatement that denies the hard work some people in those communities have put in to address exactly these issues.

I am definitely not saying that transphobia in the feminist community shouldn’t be acknowledged and criticized (past “Alas” posts have criticized feminist transphobia), and Aqueertheory makes many points I agree with. But I don’t think that we should pretend that the transphobes own all of feminism, either. Certain transphobic feminists may think that their views represent the One True Feminist Viewpoint, but I don’t think those of us who aren’t transphobic should concede feminism to them.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc, Transsexual and Transgender related issues | 30 Comments