"An Act of True Love": Why Disney's "Frozen" may be the very first truly feminist princess movie

Source: Filmthrasher.com

I know I am pretty late to the game, but I only got around to watching "Frozen" recently. I have to admit, though I am a sucker for all things animated, and animated movies are certainly one of my guilty pleasures, I was in no hurry to see "Frozen" when it first came out on Thanksgiving. The reason? It's a PRINCESS movie, and (with a few exceptions), Disney's track record of creating believable female characters is pretty bad, especially when it comes to princesses. Yes, many of them show some positive, admirable qualities (I am thinking of Belle and her love of books, for example), but most of them are, in the end, saved by "Prince Charming" - and even when they are not literally being saved, the highly romanticized notion "love at first sight" permeates pretty much all Disney (princess) movies. Here are some examples:

Source: Word to the Women

Sleeping Beauty and Snow White are saved by a kiss. Ariel gives up her voice to be with her prince. And while Belle or Mulan or Pocahontas or Rapunzel are more independent, interesting characters, the story is still firmly centered around its "boy meets girl" aspect. So what is different in "Frozen"? 

The story revolves around the sisters Elsa and Anna, princesses in the kingdom of Arrendelle. Elsa has magical powers - the power to create ice and snow - but starts to fear her own powers after an accident that almost killed Anna. Anna is saved, but her memory of Elsa's powers is erased in the process. From them on, Elsa avoids Anna and spends most of her time locked in her room, alone, trying to conceal, control, and hide her power. She grows more and more afraid of herself and her powers. After their parents die, Elsa becomes queen of Arrendelle. That day, the gates to the castle are opened for the first time in years, and the sisters react differently: Anna with excitement, Elsa with fear. Anna falls in love with Prince Hans, who immediately proposes. When they tell Elsa about this, she becomes deeply upset, which causes her to lose control of her powers. She runs away into the mountains, but causes eternal winter to come over Arrendelle. Anna heads out to find Elsa, convince her to bring back summer, and return to Arrendelle. She is accompanied by Kristoff and his reindeer Sven. When they find and confront Elsa, she accidentally hits Anna in the heart with her magic, causing her heart to turn to ice. Kristoff takes Anna to be saved by an old troll living in the woods, but he informs them that he cannot save her, and that only an "act of true love" could melt a frozen heart.

• Hans and Anna - a new twist on an old Disney cliché: Yes, I'll admit it - when Princess Anna falls head over heels in love with the charming, attractive, perfect Prince Hans, I was almost appalled. Here we are, in 2014, and THAT'S what Disney is trying to sell me? The notion of falling in love with a stranger, in an instant, which creates a bond so strong and true that Prince Hans risks everything to save his Anna? The idea that finding "the one" can save you, and cure loneliness, and fill the hole in your heart created by losing the bond you once shared with your sister? But what happens when Kristoff takes Anna back to the castle, so that a kiss from Hans (an act of true love) can save her from turning to ice? Hans tells her that he never loved her. He saw her loneliness and desperation, and spotted a chance to marry her to get closer to a throne (he is 13th in line in his homeland). He picked Anna, as Elsa was utterly unapproachable, and was planning to arrange for an "accident" to kill Elsa after his wedding to Anna. He leaves Anna to die and heads out to kill Elsa, whom he has branded as a monster who killed Anna. This turn of events was utterly unexpected to me, and surprised me with its break with traditional Disney princess patterns.

• Let it Go" - Elsa's transformation: While Anna's story is fundamentally about love, the yearning for love, and the different faces of love, Elsa's story is about individuality, fear, loneliness, and power. Elsa is afraid of her own powers. Her parents are afraid of her powers. She spends her life hidden away, trying to conceal who she is and what she is capable of, out of fear. Fear of what she could do. Fear of what she is. Fear of what others will think or say when they find out the truth. Elsa tries to keep herself hidden, and to keep everyone out, because she is afraid that others will see her for what she is - different. In her central scene, after running away from Arrendelle upon seeing her secret revealed, Elsa finally accepts who she is:  She is no longer afraid or ashamed of herself, she accepts her differences, she even embraces it. Elsa, like Anna, suffers from deep isolation and loneliness, but, unlike Anna, Elsa discovers that what she needs first and foremost is to accept herself. Elsa's isolation is caused by her fear of what others will think, but most importantly, it is caused by her fear of her own capabilities. As a young child, she embraces and celebrates her magical powers, but after the accident, she grows afraid of them. Her parents contribute to this, because they convince her that she needs to be protected from herself, and until she has managed to conceal her powers, she needs to be hidden away from everyone else, for their - and her own - protection. Elsa's story is not about finding validation in someone else, it's about accepting herself, and about not being ashamed of it.

• "We used to be best buddies" - A bond between sisters: Despite Anna's search for romantic love - and the fact that she does end up with Kristoff in the end - the central relationship that is being explored in this movie is that between Anna and Elsa. We watch them being best friends in their childhood, we see how the accident, Elsa's fear and her subsequent rejection of Anna creates a gulf between them that seems too wide to bridge. Anna is deeply lonely, mostly because she has lost her sister, but she has no idea why. She remembers being close to Elsa, but she does not remember the accident, and so Elsa's distancing is incomprehensible to Anna. She has lost one of the most important people in her life, and she attempts to fill that void with Hans, her too-good-to-be-true love interest. Elsa pulls back from Anna out of fear and out of love. She fears that by being around her, she would endanger her sister, and so she pushes Anna away. After many movies about jealousy and competition between sisters (think "Cinderella", for example), this movie explores the idea that sisters can be close, that they can be allies, that they can care deeply for each other, and that the loss of and rejection by a sister can wound us just as deeply. The connection between Anna and Elsa does not take second place to Anna's relationship with Hans and/or Kristoff. It is, and remains, the central relationship being explored in this movie.

• "An Act of True Love", redefined: When Anna is told that only an act of true love can save her, she and Kristoff immediately think of Hans. A kiss by Anna's true love will surely save her. So they rush her back to the cancel, only to discover that Hans does not care for Anna at all. Kristoff has left the castle after dropping Anna off, but he soon realizes that something has gone wrong, so he and Sven rush back to Arrendelle. In the meantime, Anna (with the help of Olaf, a snowman created and brought to life by Elsa's magic) realizes that Kristoff might actually love her. After all, he brought her back to the castle and then left, assuming that he was doing what was best for her, and was leaving her in the care of her true love. When they see Kristoff heading back towards to castle, Anna decides that a kiss from Kristoff might do what a kiss from Hans could not. Anna, Kristoff, Elsa, and Hans all find themselves on the frozen fjord, in the middle of a snow storm created by Elsa's emotions. Hans confronts Elsa and tells her that she has killed her sister. The shock and sadness Elsa experiences because of this revelation causes her to break down and the storm to subside. Anna sees Kristoff rushing towards her, but she also sees that Hans is about to kill Elsa, so she turns away from Hans and throws herself between Hans and Elsa, saving her sister's life. She chooses to save her sister, even though she is convinced that this means sacrificing her own life. In the end, that ends up being the act of true love that saves both Anna and Elsa. It is not a kiss, it is not being loved by someone else, it is the act of truly loving someone that melts the ice in Anna's heart. Twice, Disney leads us to believe that being kissed by a man (first Hans, then Kristoff) will be what saves Anna's life. Both times we believe them, and both times we are "disappointed". True love ends up being what Anna feels for her sister, and that feeling is what saves Anna. She saves herself, and that is a truly novel idea in the Disney universe.

So what makes "Frozen" different from even the more progressive princess movies Disney has created in the past? Partly it is the dismantling of "Prince Charming", partly it is the idea that the Princess can save herself, and does not need to be saved. But most of all, it is the fundamental redefinition of what an "act of true love" can refer to. 

'Twas the Season ... Thoughts about "Love" in all its variations

With the holiday season just behind us, and Valentine's Day being just around the corner, we are being bombarded by two kinds of messages: "Buy Buy Buy" and "Love and Peace on Earth". Our society is torn between an unattainable ideal of love on one hand (and if you don't have *that* kind of love, you better feel lonely and unworthy!), and  a disregard, almost contempt, for other kinds of love on the other hand. A narrow straightjacket of what "love" is, should be, and can be.

Love. There is no other emotion that has generated so much fuss, has inspired so many books, poems, movies, songs, and paintings. There is also no other emotion that seems to have so many different definitions. "Love" has so many faces. "Love" is supposed to be pure and good, yet people commit murder and violence, and express cruelty, all in the name of what they call "love".  

There are also different kinds of "love", supposedly. The love we feel for friends. The love parents feel for their children. Romantic love. Love of things. The love we feel for our non-human companions. Love of God. Love of country. Universal love for humankind. Love of power.

We believe that love can make us blind. Crazy. Obsessed. Love makes us into better people. Love hurts. Love heals. Love brings out the best in us. Love is eternal. Love is patient. Love makes us jealous. Love makes us brave. Love makes us possessive. 

People search for love. They crave love. Chase love. Yearn for love.

But what is "love"? There is a quote from the 1987 movie "Nuts" starring Barbra Streisand that I've always loved:

Francis MacMillan: You don't believe your mother loves you? 

Claudia Draper: God, of course, she loves me. She told you that. Didn't you hear her? He wrote it down. Now you stand up there asking, "Do you love your daughter?" And she says, "Yes, I love my daughter." And you think you've asked something real? And she thinks she said something real? You think because you toss this word "love" around like a Frisbee we're all gonna get warm and runny. No. Sometimes people love you so much their love is like a goddamn gun that keeps firing straight into your head. They love you so much you go right into a hospital. Right, Mama?

Rose Kirk: I didn't know. I didn't know. 

Claudia Draper: No, you didn't want to know. 

Francis MacMillan: Mrs. Draper, I'm a little confused. Do you love your mother? 

Claudia Draper: Sure, I love her. So what?

Is it love? Can love be cruel, and still be love? Can we love people we don't even like? Those who do not like us? Is love involuntary? Or have we simply bought into a myth? Does love exist, or have we combined a whole host of emotions, and labeled them with one overarching term? Just like people seem to realize that the term "cancer" refers to a multitude of illnesses, does the term "love" likewise refer to countless emotions? And is there one "true" form of love? One that is truer, better, purer, more noble than the others? Do we sometimes use to word "love" to mask more sinister, more selfish, even cruel motives and intentions? Is love something so strong we are helpless in its face? Another quote, this time from the TV series "Desperate Housewives":

It’s impossible to grasp just how powerful love is. It can sustain us through trying times or motivate us to make extraordinary sacrifices. It can force decent men to commit the darkest deeds or compel ordinary women to search for hidden truths and long after we’re gone, love remains burned into our memories. We all search for love, but some of us, after we found it, wish we hadn’t.

Can we love someone, and then hate them the next moment, because they did not behave the way we wanted them to? Because they did not love us back? Because they hurt us or left us? Is this really LOVE, or is it a mixture of selfishness, ownership, jealousy, and imagination? I love you - or at least that picture that I have of you. I love you (or so I say) and because of that you have to act a certain way. If I can't have you, nobody can. I can't live without you, so I will kill us both. All of these things have been, and still are, being sold to us as love, not only as love, but as the true, highest, purest form of romantic love. The kind of love that drives us to do crazy things. The kind of love that ends in tragic death. The kind that makes people destroy other people's lives. But is it really love? Was it ever love? If we are capable of intentionally hurting the very person we professed to love not more than a few days, or even moments, did we ever love them? 

Sometimes, what is being advertised as "love" is nothing more than need, selfishness, control, possessiveness, and a fear of being alone.

Can we feel (romantic) love for more than one person? Again, I quote from a  movie (Prince of Tides, 1991):

Susan Lowenstein: Just admit it. You love her more.Tom Wingo: No. Not more, Lowenstein. Only longer.

I have known in my heat for a long time that my definition of love seems to differ from that of many other people. I don't believe that we have different kinds of love for different kinds of people. The love we feel for a friend or a romantic partner are not different in nature, they are only different in intensity. Sexual attraction is not always a sign of love, and its presence or absence does not define how much we love someone. If mutual feelings of love coincide with mutual attraction, if a close emotional bond includes physical intimacy, then we have found "romantic love". But just because we do not feel attracted to the other people we care about does not mean we love them less. Just because we feel attracted to someone does not mean we really care about them. While it is great when physical attraction and emotional closeness coincide, one does not cause, or even predict, the other.

It is also true that we, from a  very early age, are being conditioned to look for a certain kind of love. Romantic love is valued above and beyond all other kinds of love. It is mystified, elevated above everything else, presented as the holy grail of all. The one thing we need to be complete and successful. Yes, we all strive for intimacy. Emotional intimacy, and physical intimacy. We look for someone we can trust, we can be ourselves with, we can share our fears and mistakes and insecurities with. That, I believe, is a truly universal (or almost universal) desire. But this is where conditioning comes in: From a very early age, we are taught that we can only attain this goal, find this kind of intimacy, by looking for one "mate" from the opposite sex. Society, or culture, or the "system" tells us: Sure, go out and look for this intimacy, but make sure to look only within a certain set of people. Those of the opposite sex. Those within a certain range of your own age. Those of the same skin color. Those of the same religion. Those of the same nationality. Those of the same socio-economic status. As much as we love stories about people finding romantic love across gaps, gulfs, walls, and other boundaries, we also make sure to let these stories end dramatically. No happy ending for Romeo and Juliet. Why?

Because society as we know it, the system we live in, the system we serve, depends on people adhering to this narrow standard of love. Romantic love is better/more worthy/more precious than other kinds of love. You can only ever feel "true" romantic love for that one person, the love of your life, without whom you are forever incomplete. The love of your life can only be a certain kind of person. When you have found that one, idealized, seemingly perfect "other half" within this severely limited subset of the population, you have to express your love in certain, societally approved ways. You have to get married. You have to move in together. You have to become part of one another. Our wish for closeness, our wish for intimacy, our need for a connection is being exploited for social control. Yes, you need to find "love", but don't you dare find it outside of the "norm". 

If we feel love, romantic love, outside of these tight norms, we are being told to question ourselves. Can it work? (Can we EVER be sure of that?) Am I making a fool of myself? (Don't we always risk that when we open our heart to another being?) Am I kidding myself? Should I feel guilty? (Mutual affection and attraction between consenting adults is nothing to feel guilty about, in my opinion, but people frequently do. I have - and so has almost everyone else I know). The list goes on and on. The voice of societal control speaks to us from within our own heads.

This expands beyond romantic love. Yes, we are supposed to love our friends, but don't you dare love them "more" than your spouse. Yes, we love our aunts and uncles and grandparents, but if we love a cat or dog or mouse or spider with all our heart, we are being branded as pathetic laughingstocks. To feel love for an "animal"? Sure, as long as you don't "pretend" it's the same thing as loving a human being.

And then there is the love parents feel for their children. Without a doubt, this bond is special and cannot be fully understood by those who do not have children. It is a deep connection that oftentimes seems to come closest to truly unconditional love. But again, society/culture/the system steps in to tell parents (specifically mothers) what they have to do to make the rest of us believe they truly love their children. The expectations and pressures and guilt and shame sometimes reach a level that seems impossible to bear, and all of these things are primarily directed at mothers. This is what makes you a "good" mother. This is what makes you a "bad" mother. This is what makes you a "failure" as a mother. And so on. The list is endless. A double-bind. A lose-lose situation.

We all have fallen into some, or all, of these traps. I know I have. I have been in relationships just to be in relationships. Not because I did not want to be alone, but because I was afraid that others might see my lack of romantic partner as a failure. I got over this several years ago, but it was not easy. Even today, I am sometimes selfish towards those I love. I see what I want more clearly than what they want. I am self-centered. I think they think about me more than they do, and in attempts to reassure them, all I do is force them to pay attention to me. I am far from perfect. I make mistakes. But I tell myself that at least I am able to see those mistakes for what they are. That is, after all, the first step towards learning from them.

“You must love in such a way that the person you love feels free.”

― Thích Nhất Hạnh

Love, in any form, is rare. Oftentimes, we confuse it with other feelings. We bury it with attachment and dependency and fear and control. We are scared by it, and by the vulnerability it entails. We reject so as not to be rejected. We built walls and fences. We pair up just to pair up, because we are afraid of being alone, afraid of being seen a failure. But only when we love and accept ourselves in all our flawed humanity can we ever love another being.

Put differently: What if love is none of those things? What if love is not about us, but about the person we love? What if love is not about us feeling complete, and achieving intimacy, and being understood, but is a truly selfless feeling? What if it truly means wanting the best for someone, even if that does not include you?

But, oh how glorious it is if it does include you!

Thank you for existing, Secretary Clinton!

With Political Animals premiering on USA yesterday, it seemed the appropriate time for this post. Of course, the series is technically not about Hillary Rodham Clinton - it is about the fictional character Elaine Barrish, former First Lady, unsuccessful presidential candidate, divorced from her affair-prone husband, and currently serving as Secretary of State. But of course there are so many parallels that everybody knows it's really a show about Hillary Clinton. First of, a disclaimer: I have always admired Clinton. In fact, she's one of my all-time role-models, together with (among others) Gloria Steinem, Alice Walker, Madonna, Ellen DeGeneres, and, most recently, Ashley Judd. Quite an eclectic list, I know! Anyway, back to Political Animals, and to Clinton.

I watched it for two reasons, one being the fact that I like Sigourney Weaver, but the other, more important aspect being my interest in how they would choose to portray Clinton. As has been abundantly demonstrated, the gulf between those hat like and admire Clinton, and those that despise her, couldn't be wider. Ever since she appeared on the political scene many years ago, she has been demonized and ridiculed. Descriptions of her alternate between "She's cold, ambitious, robot-like and driven, and all she ever cared about was power" and the (equally flattering) "She's staying with Bill because she's weak, has no self-respect, and is a disgrace for modern women". Of course we've also all heard the "Bill cheated on her because she is old/fat/ugly/bad in bed"-version of the tale. There are countless jokes about her physical attractiveness, her wardrobe, her headbands, her decision (not to) wear make-up, and countless other things. 

I was pleased by the show's willingness and ability to portray Clinton  ... I mean Barrish ... as a complex being, a woman who is not only ambitious (though she clearly is) but also caring, who struggles, who is not perfect ... who is, for lack of a better word, real. It is clear from the start that the audience is supposed to be on her side, to root for her ... and that is, quite frankly, a nice change.

I have spent a lot of time (too much time, frankly) pondering the reasons behind the vitriol and hatred directed against Clinton. It is like she serves as a key, a red flag, opening the gates, so the hidden river of sexism and misogyny can pour out freely, openly exposed for everyone to see. And the saddest thing is, so many don't. They either don't see, or they don't care. It almost seems as if, as long as you claim you're "only" referring to Clinton, you can get away with anything and everything. I have never been able to understand why, and I still don't. I probably never will. I read somewhere once that an acquaintance described her as "100 years ahead of her time". Maybe that's it. Maybe it's the fact that she does not try to "disguise" herself the same way many other powerful women do. She does not try to appear to be "less", in any sense of the word, than she really is. 

I know that many (myself included) were worried, after the outpour of sexism during the 2008 primary season, about the message sent to young women and girls. Would even more be turned away, thinking "If that's how you're treated when you want "too much", reach "too high" and cross "too many" lines and try "too hard" to break that glass ceiling, I don't want to try it. It's not worth it." But then I thought again. That's not at all what Clinton has taught us, despite the fact that she did not secure the nomination (and that was certainly in part due simply to miscalculations and mistakes by her campaign). She has taught us how to be strong and gracious, even in defeat. How to ambitious without putting yourself before everyone and everything else. How to be tough without being hard. How to be self-confident without being full of yourself, still retaining a sense of humor and an ability to not take yourself too seriously. How to be something that still, even in today's world, is very much a rarity: a woman in a position in power. Clinton is quoted to have, at some point, said something like" Whenever I say something, people look at me as if I were a talking dog". That's probably true, even today. But certainly, because of her, fewer women will be looked at that way in the future. 

Thank you, Secretary Clinton, for not giving up. For blazing a trail, for staying your course, for fighting against sexism. Thank you for existing!

"The Power of Madonna"

With her new album out and her current tour drawing in crowds and creating headlines and controversies, it is time to turn back to one of the most famous women in the world, and arguably the most famous woman in entertainment today: Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone. 

Madonna has always been one to cause a lot of controversy, debate, heated feelings. To quote one of my favorite songs of all times, "Like it or not": "Put me op on a pedestal, or drag me down in the dirt" - that seems to sum up most people's reactions to her over the years. Many times has she been declared "dead" career-wise, people have pronounced her "over", "too old" and similar things, but Madonna didn't care. She hasn't gone away, much to her critics' dismay -  and to my delight. I freely admit that I consider myself a fan. I truly enjoy her music. I like what she has to say, I like how she does her own thing, regardless of what others may say or think about her. Is she perfect? Of course not. Does she make mistakes? Most certainly. But that is what Madonna is all about - acceptance of our humanity with all its flaws, combined with a celebration of life and a willingness to confront our own fears, desires, dreams, and weaknesses. This is my tribute to "the power of Madonna".

Source: dailymail.co.uk

Madonna is who she is. That may sound like a trivial thing, but to me, as a teenager, that was immensely important. As I was struggling to figure out who I was, and how I fit into the world, I was incredibly grateful to see someone resist society's demands - or better yet, to figure out that she didn't fit in, and never truly would, and to turn this vice into a virtue. I don't believe that she doesn't care what people say - everybody does. Spitefulness, name-calling and insults usually reach their target, and they always sting. So I don't think she was able to move ahead because she didn't care - I think she did despite the fact that she did care. Ever since she has appeared on the stage of pop music, she has been saying to the world: "This is who I am - you can like it or not" (again a quote from the song "Like it or not") - and I do believe that this is why so many have been attracted to her.


Madonna has a message. Yes, she has been controversial, and I, personally, probably would not have adopted every single one of her strategies, but she always managed to say what she wanted to say, and to make people notice her. She has caused debates, controversies and outcries, but I believe that she has also made some people think, at least once in a while, about society's deeply ingrained hypocrisies - one of them being the different conceptions we have of men and women when it comes to sexuality. Men who are suspected of similar levels of sexual activity as Madonna are not usually called "sluts" - oftentimes, they are even somewhat admired for being so successful with "the ladies". Take the time to look past the controversies and listen to her interviews and the lyrics of her songs, and you'll see find a strong message of empathy, tolerance, kindness, forgiveness, joy, and acceptance of others (and ourselves) how they (and we) really are. This, even more than her in-your-face tactics, has always resonated with me.


Madonna is smart. I know, I know, we all have heard thousands of people who have repeatedly called her stupid. Watch closely, and you'll see that she is anything but. She has a hugely successful career, and she has always remained in control of it, even in the early 80s, when most female performers were anything but in control of their careers - or even their public images. She started her own record label, she took up directing, and she proved to be savvy when it comes to financial affairs in general - as evidenced by the fact that she has not, as so many of her colleagues have done when reaching the zenith of stardom, squandered her money on castles and cars and drugs (which is not to say, of course, that she has not spent more money on luxury items than most of us will ever earn in their entire lives - she just has not gone overboard with it). She hasn't, at least in that respect, gotten carried away by fame. I know, many of you will now point to countless stories of her eccentricities as counter-evidence - apart from the fact that nobody knows how much of this is true, and apart from the fact that stories like that are overwhelmingly written about female celebrities - just look around you and admit it: many people have eccentric tendencies - most of just don't have the money to fully act them out!  


Madonna is a subject, not an object. I know we've all heard people refer to her as a sex object - she isn't. Pay attention to her performances, her songs, her music videos. Madonna is always active, never passive. She "does" instead of "being done to". She confronts her desires, her dreams, her fears. She acts out her fantasies, instead of trying to be a screen for someone else's. 


Madonna is a feminist. She has, simply by being who she is, by shattering so many of our images of what women should be, how they ought to behave, by poking fun at our narrow-mindedness and shining a light onto our hidden prejudices (whether they come in the disguise of racism, sexism, homophobia, or ageism), helped advance openness and tolerance. She has broken so many rules, so that we, following in her footsteps, don't have to break them ourselves - just like an older sister blazing a trail for those to come.


Madonna is funny. Seriously. Take the time to listen to some of her interviews. Her sense of humor is simply awesome.


For all these things, let's show her some respect, and let's join in her celebration of life in all its flawed greatness. I, for one, am eternally grateful to my paternal grandmother who, unintentionally, helped me discover Madonna and her music many years ago. 

About "Stubbed Toes" and "Train Wrecks" ("Puffy Face Moments IV")

So ... on to tweet number two. It went something like this: "We live in a world where women and girls are being murdered for being female - how can you make a big deal out of comments about appearances?" In other words: why bother with something so small, when there are more important things to worry about?

For me, this comment exemplifies a fundamental misunderstanding. It's not that we have to choose between caring about school girls in Afghanistan being poisoned for wanting an education or the objectification of Ashley Judd, and that's because these two instances are examples of the same underlying system: different expressions of a deeply misogynistic mindset, in which women are somehow less than, and it is therefore okay to treat them as things. Things that can be ridiculed, humiliated, and (ab)used. If I was somehow limited to only caring about, only paying attention to, one single issue, if I had to rank poisoning and a discussion about someone's face according to magnitude or extremism of misogyny, I would choose to address the former. But luckily I can care about more than one thing, and I am aware of the way misogyny works.

By separating the two things, by somehow claiming that they are unrelated, we are ignoring the fact that they are simply expressions of the same thing. People that murder, rape, or physically assault women simply for being women are not sick or out of control, they simply feel that they have the right to act that way. It's an expression of entitlement, of power, and of dominance. We are contributing to the propagation of this system by trivializing other acts of misogyny. 

Why would a society spend days talking about the face of an actress, or the "scrunchy" of a secretary of state? Which message are we trying to send to the women we are publicly scrutinizing, ridiculing, and putting down? And which message are we sending to other women? These debates suggest that it is somehow okay to judge these women not for what they say or do, for what they have contributed and accomplished (and both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ashley Judd are amazing women that have worked hard for years to make this world a better place not just for women, but for all of us), but for how they look. It suggests that it is okay to treat them not as persons, but rather as bodies, or body parts. And it suggests that these bodies or body parts are public property. We don't talk to them, we talk about them. They are not allowed to be subjects in the stories we tell, they are objects to be regarded, judged, and dissembled.

The character Miranda Hobbes in the HBO series "Sex and the City" says at one point: "The only two choices for women: sexy kitten and witch", and even though she is supposedly talking about the choice of Halloween costumes, these words convey something fundamental: we, as a society, will only tolerate women who are "pleasing to the eye", according to patriarchy's unattainable standards - but these women have to accept being treated as nothing more than decoration for others to enjoy. Once we, as women, fail to meet these standards, we will either become invisible, or we will be ridiculed, humiliated, and disrespected.

How is this in any way related to poisoning Afghan school girls? It is part of a continuum that stretches from subtle sexism all the way to violent and deadly acts of misogyny, but the root is and remains the same. If we accept sexism in its less open form, if we ignore it or trivialize it, we help open the doors to more aggressive and more violent acts of misogyny. 

The Roman poet Ovid coined the phrase "principiis obsta", which means something like "resist the beginnings", which warns us of the dangers of being quiet too long. The longer we remain silent in the face of seemingly "harmless" and "innocent" acts of sexism, the harder it will become to change things. If we let the "stubbed toes" pass without complaint, we won't have the power to do anything about the "train wrecks" that will be following in their wake.

From Objectification to "Boys will be Boys" - The many faces of misogyny ("Puffy Face Moments III")

This is the first time comments on Twitter has prompted me to write. I guess there's a first time for everything. Even though I shouldn't be writing this - in fact I should be working on grad school-related research papers - it is just bothering me too much, and thus has to be expressed in some way, shape or form before I can move on with my life.

One of the tweets that caused this post had to do with the topic of prostitution. Basically, the author claimed that women who work in the sex industry freely chose to do so, and that nobody was forcing them to participate. This is, of course, incorrect on many levels. A huge amount of sex workers, mainly women and children, are victims of sexual slavery and human sex trafficking. They are forced into this situation by sheer violence, through deception, and sometimes due to abject poverty and a lack of alternatives. They are lured from their home countries with promises of jobs, only to have their passports taken away and find themselves forced into prostitution. They are abducted. They are sometimes even sold by their own families. 

Looking beyond sexual slavery and human trafficking, we can see that a large number of women working in the sex industry share a history of sexual abuse and/or drug addiction, aided by a toxic culture of objectification and misogyny. Most of them are very young. Many of them experience violence and coercion multiple times throughout their lives. The truth is that very few grown, confident, secure women, with a strong sense of self-worth and accomplishment, choose this so-called "oldest profession" (or any profession related to it). 

Apart from the question of whether it's a good idea to make prostitution a crime (I actually think the "customer" and the pimp/trafficker etc - and not the women (and men) working as prostitutes - should be the one treated as committing a crime, just for the record), this actually reminded me of a conversation I had with a (male) friend a few months ago. One of his students had complained to him about a professor's remark regarding the alleged the difference between having daughters and having sons, something to the effect of: Girls need to be treated differently, because they have to be protected more. The student told my friend she thought that this had been a deeply problematic remark, because it implied and propagated the image of women as weak, passive, and dependent.  Though he did not tell her that, my friend later mentioned that he disagreed, that it is in fact that case that daughters need more protecting and guarding. When I asked him why he thought so, he mentioned the fact that women are at a greater risk of being assaulted, abused, or raped. True. But: a) the people most likely to do that are family members, intimate partners, friends or acquaintances and b) did he really think that the solution to this problem was locking up women, "protecting" them by allowing them fewer liberties and trusting them less than their brothers? Shouldn't we instead focus on changing society, changing a system in which it seems ok to attack, assault, and rape? Shouldn't we focus on the ones committing these acts instead of punishing those affected by them? 

He then -  and this is where this story starts to relate to my earlier remarks - stated that this is not possible. Men are genetically programmed to always want sex, and to use force when encountering resistance - "boys will be boys", basically. Though I had heard this argument before, I was still shocked, especially since I had only read about people making it, but hd never encountered someone who actually did so, in a discussion with me. This is just wrong on so many levels. First of all, sexual assault and rape are not sex. They are a demonstration of power and control. These two things should never be confused - and yet they frequently are. Secondly, if I were a man, I would be deeply offended by this suggestion that, simply by virtue of being male, I lacked even the met basic amount of self-control and respect for others and their bodily integrity. None of the men present were offended, even after I pointed this out. In fact, they argued, this is why prostitution is necessary for society to function. In other words: Men need to direct their sexualized aggression somewhere, and if we don't provide them with acceptable targets, they will "prey" on each and every woman.

So many patriarchic themes are tied into this thought, I am not even sure where to begin! First, as I said, it tries to connect violence with sex. Feminists have long pointed out that rape, abuse, and assault have nothing to do with sex, and everything with power and control, with domination. By propagating this myth of rape as an expression of uncontrollable desire, we find excuses for it. "He couldn't help it." "He lost control." And from there, it is only a small step to: "She provoked him". "She shouldn't have done this or that." "She drank too much." "Had she not been dressed like this ..." and so on. Let me be frank here: there is nothing anybody can do that makes it ok to violate them, to hurt and humiliate them, or to rape them. I could be walking around with no clothes on, and it would still not be okay. I does not matter how many times someone might have consented to sex with you in the past, or how many sexual partners they might have had (enter: "slut-shaming"), there is nothing, I repeat: nothing, that justifies or excuses this kind of behavior. That is what we have to teach men and women, girls and boys, if we want to change things in this world.

Secondly, we dis-empower women in multiple ways, by separating them into two groups, those that we classify as targets, as objects to be used by men, in order to "protect" the other group of women, the "good" and "pure" ones. We tell women two things: a) if you are attacked/abused/raped/assaulted, it is because you have somehow created a situation in which a man had no choice but to lose control; and b) if you are a "good" and "decent" girl, this will not happen to you - because "it" only happens to women who "deserve it": "sluts" and "whores", according to patriarchy. Just like it took us way too long to acknowledge that there is in fact such as thing as marital rape (yes, it is in fact that case that simply because someone is married to you does not give you the right to use their body whenever you feel like it), it took us way too long to acknowledge that prostitutes can in fact be raped. I did juxtapose these two things intentionally, because in both cases we had (and still have) this notion ingrained in our, in society's, mind that someone's body is actually not their own, but is yours to use as you see fit, for one reason or another, either because they have taken some sort of vow, or because they are a "certain kind" of woman. We need to eradicate this idea from our collective mind once and for all, if we want things to change. Nothing will ever give someone a right to another one's body. This same idea, this assumption that someone's body is our property, is public property, starts with objectification, and it end with physical violence, rape, and murder. They are all expressions of the same, underlying ideology - patriarchy. This is how this relates to the conversation started by Ashley Judd in her recent article and this is also where it connects to the second tweet that prompted me to write this - but since this is already pretty long, it will be addressed separately, in my next post!

"Puffy Face Moments" II - Self-Reflections (Still Inspired by Ashley Judd)

Okay, it's barely past noon, and I am exhausted. Why is that, you might ask? Well, I decided, after writing my post yesterday about the conversation regarding the objectification of women and our own complicity in perpetuating it, to watch myself closely. I decided to find out just how much I - unconsciously, and certainly unintentionally - participate  - still! - in this pervasive and destructive system. I vowed to monitor my thoughts and call myself out every time I participate. I wanted to consciously take not of every time I objectify, disassemble and judge myself (or other women) based on physical appearance over the course of a regular day. And I decided today would be the day to do it.

6:30 - The Mirror

The first time I caught myself doing it was when I first looked in the mirror. I had just forcibly removed myself from bed and made it to the bathroom, and I caught my reflection in the mirror. My first thought was something like: "God, I look especially bad this morning!" The next time I looked in the mirror, after showering, to apply my make-up, I caught myself disapproving of my nose and spending some time wondering about potential first signs of wrinkles around my mouth. 

7:30 - Breakfast

I actually did waste time and thoughts on the calorie content of potential breakfast items. Not more than a few seconds, but those seconds are lost forever, and I could and should have spent them more productively.

9:25 - On the Bus

It took real effort to keep myself from comparing myself to every woman getting on the bus. "She's skinnier than I am". "I am skinnier than her".

9:50 - Walking

On my walk to campus, the same thing happened. There's this trend among female college students to wear leggings, so I noticed how much attention I was paying specifically to the legs of these other women.

As you can see, I was wasting a lot of time on these things. I spent this time thinking about entirely irrelevant stuff, instead of concerning myself with worthwhile thoughts instead. And not only could these things be classified as a complete and utter waste of my time, they are also destructive, negative actions. What good could possibly come from focusing on or thinking about the relative attractiveness of myself and other women? All it is doing is tearing somebody down, creating this competition and divisions, contributing to the fact that women see other women as opponents too often - because that is what we are taught to do. We reduce this person to a body - a collection of body parts, to be more specific - and after having compartmentalized, mentally disassembled them, we move on to passing judgement on this object we have just created. And by doing so, we open ourselves up to being treated the same way. This is the insidious brilliance of patriarchy: by suggesting that individual women can gain something - approval, attention, worth - by being better than other women, it attempts to give us the impression that we can be successful, liked and loved in this system, all we have to do is show that we are not "like them". And so we do.

I consider myself a feminist. I have read many books and articles, and taken classes, dealing with sexism, misogyny, and patriarchy. I am aware of how these things work. I make a conscious effort, every day, not to say mean, ugly, and destructive things about others, about other women based on physical attributes, not to attack them as women or because they are women, I refrain from using gendered slurs and insults. And yet, within only a short period of time, on a single, fairly average day, I have caught myself participating in, contributing to, the objectification of women, the reduction of persons to bodily attributes, and a spirit of competition. The next  -  and equally difficult step - for me was to try and figure out why I was doing this.

So far, I have reached the following conclusions, though I don't claim to have found the ultimate answer. I think that I, like so many of us, am still struggling to "un-learn" a lesson I have been taught all my life: that a woman's ultimate goal is to attract a man's attention and make him interested enough to stick around, and that the only way to reach this goal is through physical beauty, and sex. Face it, even today, the only real success a woman can have is getting married. No matter how much she achieves in her profession, how talented, successful and skilled she might be at what she does, how much good she brings to the world, if she's over 35 and unmarried, she's considered a failure. I know that this mindset is certainly pervasive enough to have imprinted itself deeply within me. I know I disagree with it. I know I am opposed to everything it stands for, everything it tries to teach me about myself, my worth and my role in life. And yet I still find myself worrying about it. My grandfather passed away when I was ten years old, and I do not have a ton of memories of him. But the one thing that has been burned into my soul is one of his preferred "jokes" (notice how these things are always packaged as jokes, in order to portray those expressing their disagreement as a bunch of humorless, over-sensitive "chicks"): "What do women and tin cans have in common? Once they've been opened, they both become worthless". So much about the way women are valued, are taught to value themselves, is encapsulated in this one line. Attractiveness and "purity". We are taught to dress in alluring, sexually revealing ways to get men interested, but not to engage in actual sexual activity, because once we do, we lose what little value we might have had.

My grandmother (and I do not hold these things against her, as she is over 80 years old, and grew up in a totally different world, where the things she was taught were even more extreme and containing than they are today) asks me, every time she sees me, whether I have "found someone". She is extremely unsettled by the fact that her 29-year-old granddaughter is single. At my age, she (and she's not the only one!) tells me, I should be married and have kids, because soon I will be too old to ever be able to make a man permanently interested in me. My worth is negatively correlated with my age, and I am, or so I am told, rapidly approaching a point at which it will decrease with increasing speed. I know that these things are cultural norms with which I don't agree, and I know that I wouldn't want to spend my life with a  man who only values me for my looks. But I still catch myself thinking about these things. A few months ago, I had a conversation with my grandmother about my relationship status. I told her that I would rather remain single, and be happy, than spend my life with a man who makes me unhappy, and that, therefore, I will remain on my own until I find someone I truly want to be with. She looked at me, thought for a moment, and replied: "You know, you are probably right!". That really made my day, because it means a lot for her to be able to see the world this way.

I have never been physically abused or assaulted - sadly, that is not the norm for women around the world, or even in this country. What I have done, though, is consented to sexual activity out of fear of being rejected or abandoned otherwise. I recall numerous occasions, in my past relationships, where, though I had no desire whatsoever and was not in "the mood", I consciously made the decision that I couldn't say no, because, by saying no too many times, I risked my current boyfriend losing interest in me. Though I am confident that I would not make these choices again today, I shudder at the thought of what that says about my self-image, my perception of my relationship, and my impression of why exactly this guy was spending time with me, why he remained interested. I might have been unfair to him - I never felt comfortable talking to him about this, and this perception of not being able to share the things I worried about, out of a fear of making myself vulnerable and giving him something to use against me, is probably part of the reason why it did not work out for us after all. But this behavior does exemplify something about me, and about the lessons I have internalized, and that I, even after years of trying to "un-learn" them, have still not been able to remove entirely.

I hate gossip. I try not to pay attention to it, and I try not to participate in it. I think it creates unnecessary negativity in this world, and this negative energy will create nothing but bad consequences for the one gossiping, and the one being gossiped about. And believe me, it is not the case that only women gossip. Nonetheless, I have participated. I have been party to conversations about someone else's physical appearance - usually the subject of these conversations are women, and more often than not they are famous women - politicians, actresses, models, singers. I believe that we focus on these women to teach other women a lesson. The lesson we are meant to take away from mean-spirited comments about the bodies of powerful women is: Be careful, if you go too far, you will have to pay a price! We might be taught that power makes men attractive, but that surely is not the message we receive about powerful women. The other message is this: Even when we build you up, when we applaud you for your attractiveness, when you are one of the women who actually comes close to this standard of beauty we have set up, we can tear you down, and we will, as soon as you do the unforgivable: age, even slightly! We learn that we need to be attractive and non-threatening, and that, to be attractive, somebody else has to be painted as unattractive. There might be some truth to the fact that "ordinary" women participate so willingly in the tearing-down of "famous" women because they view these women as representing the standard of beauty they will never attain, and are thus glad to find flaws, and to see them fall of this pedestal, because they are viewed as symbols of all most women will never be. But just as we are all perpetrators in this, we are also all victims - and ridiculing actresses for "puffy faces" just helps to upholds the standards, the system that is at the hear of all of this.

I have been thinking about these things a lot over the last week or so, and I do think that I have grown, that I have become more aware of the ways patriarchy works within us and through us - and awareness, consciousness, is our most powerful weapon in this fight. I am extremely grateful to humanitarian advocate/activist and actress Ashley Judd for having the courage to start this conversation, for choosing to fight back instead of letting herself be silenced, shamed and humiliated by this attempt to objectify her and "put her in her place". I have certainly gained new admiration for her.

"Puffy Face Moments" - Inspired by Ashley Judd

Picture: Reuters

About a week ago, humanitarian advocate/activist and actress Ashley Judd published an article in The Daily Beast, calling out sexism, misogyny and internalized norms of patriarchy rampant in our society - and frequently expressed public through "body-shaming" women. Apparently, and to my delight, this seems to have caused something akin to a movement, at least as far as the blogoshpere and social media such as Facebook, and especially Twitter, are concerned. 

This, in my opinion, is a truly exciting development.  The fact that attacks on a public figure  - a female public figure, to be precise - have led her not only to deny the so-called charges, but to turn them around, to use the situation in order to draw attention to a much deeper problem, and to reframe the situation is a brilliant, admirable, even courageous thing to do. Things could have taken a very different turn. One can easily imagine how taking a stand like this opens one up for further attacks and ridicule. Luckily for all of us, Ashley Judd was not deterred by this. Because of this, we can now observe first-hand the chord this is striking with women (and men) of all walks of life. The deep contempt with which we treat women's bodies as soon as they refuse to conform to some unattainable ideal of perfection, the deep-seated ageism leveled specifically at women, the assumption that women's bodies are ours to deconstruct, to criticize and objectify have all been brought to light. 

All of that, by itself, would be enough to applaud Ashley Judd for her words. But she didn't stop there, she in fact stated a lesser-known characteristic of patriarchy, and drew attention to the very essence of this particular, well-situated system of oppression: our own complicity. Knowingly or unknowingly, almost every single one of us, men and women, have internalized the values and norms of the omnipresent ideology. We apply it to other women, when we judge them, when we compare them to this unattainable ideal, but we also apply it to ourselves, and in this, we may be our own worst enemies. Almost every woman knows the feeling of looking at herself in the mirror and feeling shame about not meeting this internalized standard of perfection. We criticize our faces, our bodies. We may think our legs are too short, our butts are too big, our breasts are too small. We fret over wrinkles, pimples, and grey hair and spend enormous amounts of money on beauty products. If you've ever watched television shows geared towards female audiences and been foolish enough to watch the commercials, you will most likely have noticed that the overwhelming majority of products advertised are cosmetics, diet products or lingerie. Ashley Judd has pointed that out, and has been honest and courageous enough to admit to having participated herself. This awareness is crucial for understanding and changing how patriarchy affects women (and men) every single minute of every single day. It is not only "them", it's "us", and we might not even be aware -  or we might not want to be aware. Denial is a powerful human skill, and becoming aware of our own denials is the most crucial first step to changing the way this world works for women. Feminism has long tried to further this awareness through consciousness-raising, through the promotion of woman-to-woman bonding through which we all can (and have to) learn not to see other women as competitors, but as allies and friends. Patriarchy co-opts us by suggesting that we can elevate our own status, increase our worth in the eyes of society and men, by showing that we are not "like other women", that we are actually better than they are, and that we, too, have nothing but contempt for their imperfections. This, of course, is nothing but a big lie which has worked wonderfully against women's own interests, much like the old roman saying "divide et impera" (divide and conquer/rule) suggests.

If it's ok to ridicule, shame and humiliate Ashley Judd for her "puffy face", it is ok to do that to every woman. If it's ok to express contempt for Madonna because of her age, we pass the same judgement on every woman. If it's ok to call Hillary Rodham Clinton "emasculating" or a "bitch" (or any variety of the underlying concepts), we teach every woman that, if they show ambition and strive for powerful positions, they will have to suffer dire consequences - and, judging by the lack of women willing to run for office, many seem to have learned the lesson well. If it's ok to attack Sarah Palin not for her issue positions and policy stances, but as a woman, by sexualizing and objectifying her, it becomes ok to use this tactic against each and every woman we are uncomfortable with for whatever reason.

So, for all these reasons, we have to be grateful to Ashley Judd.

"They are the one thing that has never failed me"

Source: ABC.com

With Desperate Housewives (clearly one of my guilty pleasures) in its eighth and final season, it's time for me to finally confess, so I'll come out and say it: I have always had somewhat of a soft spot for Bree. She has been my favorite character right from the start, and I have always been moved the most by the things that have happened to her. I'll explain why, to me, she's always been a feminist character, despite the fact that she has tried so hard to be the perfect homemaker, to be a traditional, old-fashioned woman.

Bree starts out torn between her desire to fulfill what she sees as her role, and the wish to be really good at something. When she and her first husband, Rex, see a therapist, it's partially because Bree feels under appreciated and undervalued. She works hard, and she knows she's good at what she does, but her husband (and her kids) don't acknowledge it at all. They take her for granted, and disparaged her accomplishments.

You can see some of the underlying resentment Bree carries around in her rant about Sigmund Freud. When being able to project her feelings onto somebody else - Freud's mother - Bree is able to express how hard she works, and how much it hurts her that, with all the sacrifices she has made, nobody appreciates what she does. 

Bree's is the one character in the show that grows and evolves the most. She starts out with very rigid values (which lead her to tell her son that he will not get into heaven if he is gay), but she is able to recognize when she is wrong, when she is making a mistake, and not only does she correct herself, but she has the strength and courage to apologize and ask for forgiveness. She apologizes to her son Andrew for the things she said. She can take criticism (for example by her future son-in-law), think it over, and accept if and when there's truth in it. She, who's always so concerned about being humiliated, about giving people something to talk about, learns to trust her friends with her feelings, to reach out to others, to admit mistakes. She overcomes obstacles, not because she never falls down, but because she always gets back up.

Bree is strong. She overcomes alcoholism, the fact that she has lost, or been betrayed by, a number of husbands and boyfriends, even the loss of her hugely successful business. She stumbles all the time, and she is deathly afraid and ashamed, but she does find the strength to go on, even when it means being on her own.

Bree believes in herself. She, who has never worked outside the home after college, when faced with the need to earn money, has enough guts, enough faith in her abilities, to go out, start a catering business, and write a cookbook. Even though her first husband had told her that "every bored housewife" thinks she can write a cookbook, Bree believes that her cooking is good enough, noticeable enough, to stand out, to compete in a market place - and it does. When the photographer taking the cover photo for her cookbook belittles her, she doesn't smile and take it, she calls him out, and confronts him about it.

Bree believes in true friendship among women. She never betrays her friends, and never turns them away. In the last season, when an angered ex-boyfriend is looking for ways to destroy her, he knows that the only thing that she will not be able to take is losing her friends. He knows that, while she has lost almost everything else in her life at one point or another, her friends are "the one thing that has never failed" her. They are the ones she could always depend on - and who could always depend on her. In a world where female friendships are portrayed as temporary at best, she risks a lot for her friends. She gets the others to protect Katherine after the showdown with Wayne, Katherine's ex-husband. She helps Gaby and Carlos after the incident with Gaby's stepfather. 

She's not perfect, but that's what makes her believable, what makes it so easy to relate to her. She wants to do what is right, but she carries a lot of baggage, and she is haunted by society's expectations, many of which she has made her own. She can be harsh at times, but she reconsiders. She's proud, but not too proud to admit when she was wrong. She has a hard time expressing her feelings, but that does not mean they are not there. She has weaknesses, but in time she learns to own up to them, and to face them. 

I think Bree is a feminist character because of how far she has come. Because of how strong she has been, and how resilient. Many times she has been the leader of her group of friends, taking charge when nobody else wanted to, protecting them when she felt she had to. 

I only hope that, in the end, she and the other women will go back to being friends, because I think that the one thing she wouldn't be able to bounce back from is losing them. And that, all by itself, is a feminist message in its own right.

Source: ABC.com